Indonesia’s youth put candidates to the test

The top quality in a leader expected by young voters is honesty, a sign that a coming election may help hasten Indonesia’s efforts against corruption.

Reuters
Indonesia's president and candidate Joko Widodo greets supporters at a rally in Solo, Central Java province April 9.

One candidate for president wears jeans and rides a motorcycle. Another picked a running mate who break-dances on stage and earned millions by his 30s as an entrepreneur. Welcome to campaigning for an election in Indonesia whose results may depend on older candidates winning the youth vote – and that could set a new course for the world’s third-largest democracy.

Candidates in the April 17 vote for president and a new legislature are very much catering to people under 35. Of the country’s 187 million eligible voters, more than a third are millennials. Besides attempts at youthful appeals on the stump, candidates know exactly what young voters expect. According to a poll by the Alvara Research Center, they want honesty as well as freedom from corruption in their leaders.

That could be a big ask in a country known for a pervasive culture of corruption. After years of anti-corruption efforts under two presidents, Indonesia has made only slow progress. This need not be the case. According to a new survey by the International Monetary Fund, several countries have made significant progress against corruption in a relatively short period. “These countries reached a ‘tipping point,’ often as a result of a broad-based domestic consensus or an external push to aggressively fight corruption,” the report stated.

The key lies in convincing citizens to pay taxes. The most corrupt countries are those that collect the least in taxes, the IMF found in a survey of 183 countries. In many countries, paying bribes to tax collectors can help lower a person’s tax bills. 

The IMF found that Georgia, for example, was able to raise tax revenue by 13 percentage points after a vigorous campaign against corruption. Colombia, Costa Rica, and Paraguay have provided citizens with online tools to track spending on government projects. Chile and South Korea have cut corruption by moving to electronic procurement systems that enhance transparency and competition.

Since 2014, Indonesia’s president, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, has taken steps toward clean governance. And the Corruption Eradication Commission has investigated or removed hundreds of officials. But now voters expect more. According to a 2017 poll by Transparency International, 64% of Indonesians view their government’s efforts to fight corruption positively. And 78% agree that ordinary people can make a difference in the fight against corruption.

With that shift in attitudes, candidates in the 2019 election are competing to become the better corruption fighter. But first they must win over young people. Those voters are the least tied to past behavior and the most eager for honest, transparent government.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.