Gibran’s Vice-Presidential Bid: Political Rigging Wrapped in Democracy

Behind the rhetoric of democracy, political rigging Moves Smoothly. The case of Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s vice-presidential candidacy is just one mirror reflecting how easily the law can be misused to sustain power. 

Now, the initiative from several retired military generals to remove Gibran from his position as Vice President has sparked national controversy. Not long after, a counter-response emerged, with support for Gibran coming from another group of retired generals led by Wiranto and Agum Gumelar.

The public now witnesses once again the sharp divisions within the ranks of former military officers resurfacing. Yet beneath these dynamics lies a crucial point that must not be ignored: Gibran’s candidacy itself was a collective failure of many institutions and political elites.

The fundamental question is: how was Gibran able to become a vice-presidential candidate in the first place?

Not a True Representation of the Youth

Gibran has often been sold as a symbol of the youth in the 2024 presidential contest. In reality, his candidacy did not emerge organically. He does not represent a youth movement or aspiration but is a product of high-level political intervention.

His uncle, Anwar Usman, who was then the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, played a key role in paving Gibran’s way through a controversial ruling that created a legal loophole for the age requirement of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The ruling drew widespread criticism and was seen as undermining the integrity of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution.

It was this ruling that opened the path for Gibran—not because of any grassroots youth movement, let alone a merit-based selection process.

Gibran is not a symbol of the youth struggle. He did not emerge naturally from the public sphere but through a privileged path enabled by legal machinations. Even his candidacy for Mayor of Surakarta was not free from politically engineered red-carpet treatment.

True youth leaders are born from spaces of struggle, not from legal manipulation and dynastic power. Therefore, the claim that Gibran represents the youth is a hollow narrative aimed at repackaging old political interests in a new face.

The Collective Failure of Elites and Institutions

Gibran was able to run not only because of the Constitutional Court’s decision but also due to the approval of the General Elections Commission (KPU), the Elections Supervisory Board (Bawaslu), and political parties that should have upheld democratic ethics. Even parts of society and the media contributed to normalizing the narrative of dynastic politics.

If there is now a movement demanding his removal, it cannot be viewed separately from the collective failures of the elites who previously allowed him to ascend to power without resistance.

It is also important to mention major figures like Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo. 

These presidential candidates never firmly rejected Gibran’s candidacy during the official registration process with the KPU. In fact, reports indicate that Gibran was once considered as a potential running mate for both, showing that it was not only Prabowo who viewed Gibran as a viable option.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) had even named Gibran as one of the potential vice-presidential candidates on their radar. When Gibran chose to side with Prabowo, only then did voices of disappointment emerge. None of the major parties initially challenged or rejected the legal process that paved the way for Gibran. Legal challenges only arose after the Prabowo-Gibran ticket won the 2024 election. 

Criticism of the Constitutional Court’s ruling and alleged power plays became louder only when the outcome was no longer in their favor. This reveals how many political elites chose silence as long as the system served their interests.

Disagreements among retired generals are nothing new

History records the emergence of “Petisi 50” (Petition of Fifty) in the 1980s, signed by a group of military and civilian figures as a form of criticism and correction towards President Soeharto.

Now, similar tensions have resurfaced. This time, however, the target is the newly elected Vice President, Gibran, who, alongside Prabowo, has not yet served even a full year in office. The difference is that while political legitimacy has been secured, moral legitimacy remains in question.

Yet one thing remains the same: the voices of retired generals often reflect anxieties about the nation’s direction. In today’s context, this anxiety should not be simplified as merely “pro” or “anti” toward a single figure but seen as a reflection of a deeper systemic crisis of legitimacy.

The controversy surrounding Gibran is not merely elite political drama. It is a reflection of a systemic crisis: a crisis of leadership, a crisis of institutional integrity, and a crisis of public trust in the democratic process.

We are facing a situation where laws can be bent, and political elites across factions can accept it as long as it serves their chances of victory. Only when they lose do they question the system. This is not democracy; this is a competition drenched in pretense.

Gibran’s vice-presidential candidacy did not emerge from a healthy democracy but from legal manipulation and political compromise. Now, as various parties, including those who once defended the republic with arms, begin to voice rejection, we must reflect more deeply: this is not merely about Gibran; it is about a nation losing its ethical footing and common sense.

If this nation is to escape this cycle of crisis, the first step is to admit that all of us—both the elites and the people—have allowed these deviations to happen. As long as we refuse to acknowledge this truth, such controversies will continue to repeat themselves every five years in different forms.

________

05 May 2025