Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia – As the general election approaches, many survey institutions publish their survey results to the public. Usually, survey results become a reference for the public to determine the level of electability of each candidate in the election contestation.

Sometimes, the application of appropriate methodology allows survey results to achieve a high level of accuracy similar to the results of official calculations by election organizers. However, survey results often generate controversy, especially those released by survey institutions that are considered not credible.

Apart from that, there is an interesting story about political survey institutions in Indonesia which have differences between then and now.

From academics to business

The 2004 election was not only the first democratic party that allowed the people to directly elect the president and vice president, but was a turning point that changed the elite’s view of political surveys.

The one man one vote system clearly changes the election paradigm from being initially regulated by elites to now making the people’s votes truly taken into consideration.

Indonesianist Marcus Mietzner in his research entitled “Political Opinion Polling in Post-authoritarian Indonesia: Catalyst or Obstacle to Democratic Consolidation?” (BRILL, 2009) explained that the 2004 presidential campaign gave rise to many survey institutions that changed the Indonesian political landscape.

Political survey calculations then helped to enliven the figure of Indonesia’s future leader. One of those who conduct political surveys is the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) which was founded in August 2003.

Two months before the election, citing reports Detik.com (11 May 2004), LSI released the results of a national survey which stated that Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) would win the election with 40% of the vote. LSI’s calculations ultimately proved accurate: SBY won the first round, although the final percentage was different from the KPU’s official calculation.

Interestingly, the 2004 campaign period also made survey institutions change their direction.

Before the 2004 election, Mietzner said, pollsters were largely driven by academic curiosity and a strong interest in preventing manipulation in the first post-authoritarian election.

“Therefore, the main sponsors of survey institutions at that time were not parties or candidates, but foreign donors such as USAID and similar institutions who wanted to advance democratization in Indonesia,” wrote Mietzner.

However, in the 2004 election, survey institutions not only presented their survey results, but also provided advice on how executive and legislative candidates could win the election. Since then, said Mieztner, survey institutions have been divided into two camps.

First, the academic camp believes that surveys must meet society’s needs for information and transparency. This camp is always open to politicians regarding information, but does not refuse payments.

It’s just that, Mieztner said, they refuse to advise political actors on how to run a campaign, create a certain image, or design a platform to help defeat opponents.

Second, the commercial or business camp. As the name suggests, the survey institute that is part of this has a mission to help politicians win elections. Of course, by setting rates for collaborating politicians. They not only conduct surveys, but also organize the course of the campaign. Starting from building an image and spreading promises through various media.

The split of survey institutions into two camps, especially in the business camp, has given rise to its own problems. According to Mieztner, these problems can take the form of manipulation, commercialization and potential partiality. Not to mention, this also increases campaign costs.

However, on the other hand, the proliferation of survey institutions in Indonesia has an important meaning for the development of democracy.

“The existence of open, competitive and uncensored activities by survey institutions is a strong indication of democratic dynamics. […] “More importantly, opinion surveys and quick counts have increased the credibility of elections which contribute to democratic stability in Indonesia,” wrote the researcher from Australia National University.

Over time, survey institutions add their own color to each election. Now, there are 40 survey institutions registered with the KPU for the 2024 election.

[Gambas:Video CNBC]

(mfa/mfa)