(De)politicization of COVID-19 Pandemic in the Implementation of 2020 Simultaneous Regional Elections

Abstract

Coronavirus disease takes effect on state management in Indonesia. Good crisis management is necessary to mitigate COVID-19. This research uses Beland 's conceptual framework on politics of insecurity and its implementation on the state's management crisis process, especially on how the state protects its citizens towards non-traditional threads while performing political accountability. The 2020 Simultaneous Regional Election (Pilkada) during pandemic is positioned as a case study, especially on how policy conflicts and calculation of benefits-risks occur. It has a pivotal role in establishing perception of collective thread. In the case of 2020 Simultaneous Regional Election, conflict in policy creates social anxiety and political tension caused by a health crisis. This research finds that the government (de) politicized the 2020 Simultaneous Regional Elections by using a repertoire of types of strategies, i.e: avoiding blame and claiming credit, which were carefully compiled and implemented in a specific frame.

The Metanarrative of Pandemic Politics: Indonesian Regional Head Elections Cases

“…However, the rational innovation lies in listening to the voices and opinions of the people where the government improvises to fight for the importance of people's political rights without ignoring the rights of public health. This political action is not a form of depoliticization or politicization of the pandemic as in previous literature [26][32] [33][34] [35] but it is an opportunity for positive possibilities to overcome uncertainty [51]. Not carrying out the local election will also face the government with uncertainty because the consequences cannot be predicted.…”

“…Protean power takes the positive side of the power dimension in decision making. Government improvisation is seen as a charade by some literature [26] [25], but it's not the case, there are many situations to consider. The debate between circles and the context of the pandemic in the concept of protean power is considered a critical point that becomes the impetus for power actors to improvise in political decision-making [49] [50].…”

“…This democratic speculation is moving towards criticism, the government is slow because the focus is shifted to efforts to maintain power [23] and shortterm political articulation [1], as is the case in the Czech Republic and Slovakia [24]. Some scholars say that the government's actions contain dilemmas and paradoxes, such as the policy controversy between the regional elections and the handling of Covid-19, such as the antinomy of law and human rights [25], pandemic depoliticization [26], moderate actions and constitutional dilemmas as well as reducing the practice of leadership by interim officials in the regions [27][28] [29][30] [31] the number of abstentions is increasing -declining voter participation and Indonesia's global democracy index and prone to the politicization of the pandemic in various regions [32][33][34] [35]; Violation of health protocols in elections [36] [37]. Various other views also present offers against the possibility that the pandemic will continue, namely elections through representative democracy [38] and digitalization of politics through social media platforms [39] as well as electronic elections [40] [41] as studies in other countries [42] [43][44] [45].…”