Short Abstract:

This study analyzes how the Indonesian government addresses COVID-19 policy issues in relation to regional elections. It will examine the connections between elections, lockdowns, and public health during the pandemic, using critical security studies and constructivism, with a focus on securitization and speech act theory. The discourse will be analyzed using Van Dijk's sociocognitive approach.

Long Abstract:

This study will investigate on how the government can securitize and/or desecuritize a specific policy issue, such as COVID-19, in exchange for other issues like elections. To test various analytical tools and useful applications of human security as an all-encompassing approach to security concerns, the COVID-19 is undoubtedly a highly special situation. In particular, it enables us to problematize the following elements: (1) the security status of the components or issues regarding whether they are fundamentally real or constructed; and (2) the coherency and interdependency of human security components as one of the key characteristics of human security (UNDP, 1994).

In addition, I'd like to elaborate on those two issues through a discussion of the complicated interactions between the implementation of the 2020 regional elections, lockdown regulations, and public health considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. The government views regional elections as a critical democratic moment, emphasizing the need of carrying out the election process on time to ensure the continuity of democratic governance. They claim that postponing or limiting regional elections could jeopardize the democratic process and deprive citizens of their political rights.

In contrast, civic society expressed concern for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. They support the lockdown strategy as an effective way to control the virus's spread and protect citizens. Postponing regional elections is viewed as a prudent precaution to avoid large crowds during the campaign and voting, which could lead to a new cluster of spread. The debate in this instance illustrates the tension that exists between the goals of public health and democracy. From a human security standpoint, this is a policy quandary or conflict between health security and political security.

Indeed, the Indonesian situation calls into question the fundamental assumption that, when considered holistically, all components of human security are cohesive and interrelated (Booth, 1991). I address this subject from two perspectives. First, I contend that the issue is not just a trade-off or contradiction between health and political security, but rather how (in)security is formed. I draw on critical security studies and constructivism, which argue that security is a derived notion. It is the belief that understandings of security reflect deeper assumptions about the nature of politics and the role of conflict in political life (Wyn Jones 1999). This concept holds significant implications as it suggests that security studies, being socially constructed, have the potential to undergo practical transformation.

Furthermore, it can be argued that the classification of an issue as a security concern heavily relies on the government's securitization policy. This is based on the concept of securitization theory, which suggests that securitization involves framing an issue as a matter of existential threat, thereby moving it from regular political discourse to emergency politics (Peoples and Williams, 2010). The process of securitization, and how the government transitions the issue along the securitization spectrum, from non-politicized to highly securitized, is crucial (Buzan, 1998). To delve deeper into this, I will utilize speech act theory to examine the government's approach to (de)securitizing health issues in comparison to political matters (Weaver, 1995).

In order to achieve this goal, I aim to analyze the discourse following Van Dijk's (2002) sociocognitive approach. This approach suggests that discourse can be broken down into three key dimensions: text, social cognition, and social context. When examining the text, my focus is on how the structure and strategies of the speech are utilized to address a specific security concern. Moving on to the social cognition aspect, I delve into the cognitive processes involved in producing the speech, taking into account the author's individual cognition. Lastly, at the social context level, the emphasis is on understanding how discourse structures evolve within society regarding a particular security issue.

The three levels of analysis can be summarized by employing the following analytical methods: (1) utilizing a critical linguistic approach that focuses on naming and lexical choices for text analysis; (2) using in-depth interviews for analyzing social cognition; and (3) employing methods like literature review, historical tracing, and interviews for analyzing social context.