By: Ahmad Harris *
For the umpteenth time, Prabowo was again reported to Bawaslu by the New Indonesia Awakening Legal Aid Office (KBH-KIB) because he stole the campaign. The same accusation was also made by the Barisan Advocate Indonesia (BADI) to Bawaslu. Prabowo was reported for allegedly violating Article 276 paragraph (2) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. In the article, it was explained that the campaign in broadcasting mass media was permitted in the span of 21 days before the calm period, namely on March 24 – April 13, 2019.
Unfortunately, Prabowo allegedly stole the campaign start on January 14 through a national speech. In the speech, both KBH-IBK and BADI considered Prabowo had carried out a campaign. The accusation was strengthened by the substance of Prabowo’s national speech. In the speech, Prabowo clearly explained the vision and mission as well as an invitation to choose it. These two elements can be said to be a form of Prabowo Subianto’s campaign. This condition finally encouraged BADI and KBH-IBK to report Prabowo Subianto.
Prabowo Subianto’s national speech was an alternative to the vision and mission socialization that was originally designed by the KPU. Previously, in the meeting, the KPU raised a discourse to hold a socialization to the Indonesian people regarding the vision and mission of the President and vice-presidential candidates. Unfortunately, there was no agreement to implement this by the two sides. Of course, it would be strange if Prabowo’s camp again brought up the discourse with a national speech that was full of invitations to vote. Even if you want to continue the KPU’s discourse to disseminate the vision and mission, Prabowo Subianto should not insert an invitation to the public especially to insert a campaign that drops other candidates.
If reviewed again, indeed the substance of Prabowo’s speech will be full of invitations to elect him in the 2019 Presidential Election. Prabowo seems to present a message that the public will be very prosperous if they elect him in the presidential election in April. Conversely, if he is not elected he seems to present a message that Indonesia is difficult to survive. Of course, this is prohibited by the Act and KPU Regulations considering that Prabowo’s campaign time is outside the allotted time. It should be, the KPU and Bawaslu need to evaluate and provide action to Prabowo for violating the mandate of the Law.
This lack of ethical behavior has actually been repeatedly carried out by the Prabowo and Sandiaga Uno camps. Before the incident of the campaign start theft, Prabowo and Sandiaga Uno along with their bearers were slapped hard by Gatot Nurmantyo’s warning. As a party that is still neutral, Gatot Nurmantyo feels his name was taken over by the Prabowo-Sandi camp by presenting his photos and pictures on the official banner belonging to the candidate pair number 2. Even after being reminded so hard, Sandiaga Uno only said that he would be considered without an official and civilized apology.
Seeing these two events, the community must begin to assess the behavior and behavior of Prabowo. As one of the presidential candidates, it is Prabowo’s obligation to set an example for the Indonesian people. With the start of the campaign theft and profiteering of the name, it can be said that Prabowo is not capable of giving an example to Indonesia. In fact, what Prabowo is currently showing to Indonesia is minimal ethical behavior. Of course Indonesia does not need this kind of low-class leader. It is important for the community to be able to determine their political choices to someone who is able to show ethical and civilized politics.
*) FISIP Student at Dharma Agung University