Ideal man

The characteristic of "brave/firm" candidate pairs are in the highest order. This is prominent among young voters, aged no more than 40 years old. The Prabowo-Gibran pair is considered the most "brave/firm". Even the support of Jokowi for that candidate pair is at a relatively low level.

Also read: Competing with Singapore?

If various analyses are correct, it is worth examining how these supporting factors are formed. For example, the issue of structured, systematic, and massive support from state officials. If such support exists, it is worth examining why it can smoothly run in front of the public for months without anyone blocking or stopping it before the election day, regardless of whether the support is legally valid or not according to the Constitutional Court.

The endorsement of President Jokowi or Gibran's candidacy is suspected to have a significant influence on Prabowo-Gibran's victory. If that is true, it needs to be asked why their influence can be that big? Where does the popularity of Jokowi come from that spills over to his children and other relatives? Until when will that influence last and what could eventually dim or end that charisma?

Because of the high value placed on "brave/firm" candidates in the eyes of the public, my attention is focused on why such figures can be idolized. It must be emphasized from the beginning that we are not questioning whether Prabowo-Gibran indeed possess a brave/firm character. Whether the general perception of them is accurate or misguided is another matter. Here, we will also not question what can be considered as a brave/firm character in general perception.

What is more interesting and important is the macro and universal question. What conditions are present in a society that allow for a courageous and assertive figure to be idealized? When is a brave and assertive figure more attractive than a polite, honest, intelligent, religious, or artistic one? Why, and in what situations, is the "fearless advance" attitude more desirable than "defending what is right"? Let us put aside evaluating what is good or bad, right or wrong. First, we must understand why a particular figure is idealized in a certain period in a society.

I remember a report from a study that was aired on television in Australia a few years ago. Unfortunately, I did not record the year or the title of the researchers. What I remember is that the study asked many female respondents from various continents. The respondents were given a number of pictures of men and asked to choose which one was considered the ideal male figure.

It is understandable that a masculine figure is desired by society, where violence is the mainstay of resolving daily conflicts.

As a result, a strong and masculine figure is admired by a society that is unstable with high levels of crime and low quality of democracy. Conversely, a man with an elegant, polite, neat, or intellectual appearance is more admired by a relatively stable and more democratic society.

It can be understood that a masculine figure is desired by society, where violence becomes the main solution for daily conflicts. Those who crave such a figure cannot be called foolish or uneducated. They are helpless victims of the state's failure to enforce the law. The law is sharp downwards, but dull upwards. Big criminals enjoy impunity.

In such conditions, yearning for muscular, armed, and fierce figures is a rational choice. Compliance with the law does not guarantee safety. Nor does intelligence, hard work, or truth. Especially in free, honest, and fair elections. The situation worsens when society is divided by polarization and government officials do not act neutrally. Moreover, when we are flooded with the uproar of news about violence from other regions, as is currently rampant in Papua, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

In February 2024, Pew Research Center published a perception survey on "strong leaders" across different continents. The meaning of "strong" in this survey refers to military rulers or authoritarian figures who make decisions without interference from representative institutions or laws. The results show that an average of 31 percent of 30,861 respondents in 24 countries favor such figures. The number of Indonesian respondents who like such leaders is in the second-highest position (77 percent).

Most of society is not governed by a single norm, such as violence. This also applies to Indonesia. Violence is no longer the most effective tool for solving various problems as during the New Order era. However, consciously or unconsciously, since independence, violence has become an important part of the nation's history.

Not only looting, kidnapping, mass rape, and shootings during the 1998 Reformation still leave a historical wound in the nation. The revolution war of 1945-1949, massacre of 1965-1966, and execution of thousands of tattooed citizens in 1983-1984 have left a foul odor in the breath of Indonesia's current life. This is also present in various aspects of the 2024 General Election.

Also read: University

Masculine, aggressive, or bold/assertive traits are not exclusive to men. Both men and women have a combination of masculine and feminine traits, with varying levels. Just as militaristic attitudes and characters are not solely present among military personnel. There are military officers who are very cultured in their social interactions within civilian communities without compromising their professionalism as soldiers. Conversely, there are civilian presidents, managers, rectors, or justice fighter activists whose attitudes and behaviors are very militaristic.

It is impossible to understand Indonesia without examining militarism, which is not solely synonymous with military institutions or personnel. It is impossible to understand militarism without understanding masculinity in daily life and state policies. This is the importance of gender studies in understanding Indonesia.

Ariel Heryanto, Professor Emeritus from Monash University, Australia