Introduction

Analysts and pundits mostly agree that Indonesia's 2019 general election was largely determined by the use of identity politics (Pepinsky 2019; Slater and Tudor 2019). Identities, especially religious and ethnic identities, were the most effective tool to mobilize voters. The results of the presidential election strongly indicate this tendency. Voters with moderate Islamic views and religious minorities leaned towards voting for President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and his running mate, Ma’ruf Amin; those with more conservative Islamic leanings were inclined to cast their vote for the Prabowo Subianto–Sandiaga Uno team.

Other than religion, ethnic identity may also have influenced the outcome of the election. Regions with sizeable numbers of Javanese voters, the largest ethnic group in Indonesia, tended to vote for Jokowi–Ma’ruf while non-Javanese regions with Muslim majorities voted for Prabowo–Sandiaga.

This chapter aims to examine the assertion that identity politics was the determining factor in the 2019 election. The election was a complicated affair as there were, in fact, five races held simultaneously and there was a possibility that one election might affect the other. Many asserted that the presidential election may entail a “down-ballot effect” onto the other elections. However, as we will find later in this chapter, the presidential election was of a completely different order compared with the elections for the national parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR, for short). Likewise, the elections at the provincial and district/municipality levels were of an altogether different nature.

While identity politics was at play in the presidential election, the other elections (for the Regional Representative Council or DPD, for short, and legislatures at various local levels) were shaped more by clientelism and patronage, mostly in the form of “contingent exchange” (Aspinall and Berenschot 2019; Hicken 2011). In these kinds of dynamics, the various electorates were guided to cast their votes by the material benefits they expected to enjoy. These could have been in the form of projects for their communities or neighbourhoods or just plain cash. Even if ideology was at play, the level of ideological attachment was different at each election.

Based on field research in South Sumatra and Lampung, both provinces in Sumatra Island, this chapter will elaborate when and how identity politics was used and when and how clientelism and patronage were at work during the elections.