Banning AI for Political Campaigns
The Cultural Traces in the Indonesian Constitutional Court Decisions
On Thursday, 2nd January 2025, the Indonesian Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 166/PUU-XXI/2023 which prohibits using Artificial Intelligence (AI) by political candidates in the election, especially to design their campaign’s portrait. This move from the Indonesian Constitutional Court could be considered unique since I cannot imagine other supreme constitutional tribunals in Karlsruhe or Washington could issue such decisions. Of course, there is a worldwide concern about the use of AI to generate fake and misleading content, notably in the form of video, picture, and audio clips that depict a political candidate saying or doing something that they did not conduct. However, in this decision, the Court did not make such concerns as its main considerations, rather the Court and the petitioner see that the problem with the use of AI to design a candidate’s photographic portrait is related to an ethical issue, especially regarding the “honest principle” (prinsip jujur), which is one of the basic principles of elections according to the Article 22 E of the Indonesian 1945 Constitution.
In this brief post, I want to unravel why the Constitutional Court issued such a peculiar decision. Specifically, I will examine how Indonesian society’s communal culture with its emphasis on outward appearance in the relationship between the individual and society, shapes both the Court’s stance and the petitioner’s argument. My thesis is that this cultural backdrop is a key factor in understanding the Court’s decision.
The (un)ethical background
Before exploring the cultural influences behind this decision, it is important to understand the context that brought this case to the Court. It is worth mentioning that Gugum Ridho Putra, the petitioner in this case, who is a pro-democracy lawyer and also a nephew of Yusril Ihza Mahendra (a noted Indonesian constitutional lawyer who is currently sitting as the Coordinating Minister for Legal, Human Rights, and Immigration), has brought up other issues beyond the use of AI in electoral campaigns.
In his petition, the petitioner also asked the Court to declare that state officials such as the President and Vice-President (as well as ministers) should be prohibited from participating in electoral campaigns if a family member is a candidate. This petition arose from the perception that the current elected President, Prabowo Subianto, and his Vice-President, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, are seen by their political rivals as likely to win the 2024 Presidential Election due to the support from the previous President, Joko Widodo, who is also Gibran’s father.
At that time, even though Widodo did not attend Prabowo and Gibran’s political rallies, his open support toward them is believed to have influenced a large sway of voters to pick the Prabowo-Gibran ticket during the election. This perception, coupled with the allegation that Widodo mobilized the state apparatus to secure Prabowo and his son’s victory, led many pro-democracy activists in Indonesia to view the 2024 Presidential Election conducted as unethically (though the Court in a slight majority rejected this claim in its decision regarding the dispute of the 2024 Presidential Election results).
Meanwhile, the use of AI to design photographic portraits is also viewed by pro-democracy activists as a part of this unethical issue in the 2024 Election. During the campaign, Prabowo, a former general believed to be involved in many of Indonesia’s past human rights abuses, tries to whitewash this notorious image. He successfully does so by utilizing an AI to produce an animated photographic portrait – which becomes his signature campaign poster – portraying him as “a cute grandpa with awkward dance moves and a softer side.”
Thus, the petitioner in this case argued that using AI to generate photographic portraits was an unethical move that violated the honest principle since he believed it could ‘deceive’ (menipu) voters into choosing a wrong candidate who manipulates his image in the public eye.
In the end, the Court decided to grant the petitioner’s claim to ban the use of AI for creating a candidate’s photographic portrait for campaign purposes, while rejecting their other claim that state officials should be prohibited from participating in the political campaign of their family members.
The Constitutional Court declared that the use of AI by a political candidate to design a portrait for their campaign contradicts the election’s basic principles – namely, that it should be free, honest and fair, as stated in the 1945 Constitution. The Court believed that excessive manipulation of a candidate’s portrait through the use of AI could “undermine voter ability to make a decision.”
However, the Court decision is still likely to confuse its readers, as, while it is true that AI can be utilized to manipulate the portrait of political candidates to craft specific public perceptions, it is not convincing enough to ban its use in the political campaign. Historically, the use of portraits in campaigns has always been linked to shaping the public image of candidates, as demonstrated by the way photographic portrait was first used in the presidential campaign in 1860 by the great Abraham Lincoln during the campaign for his first term in office.
At that time, Lincoln and his supporters deliberately used his iconic portrait, designed and taken by renowned photographer Matthew Brady, to shape his image as a dignified and imposing figure, which later contributed to making Lincoln elected as America’s 16th President.
Outward appearance above rights
With the explanation above, one might wonder why the Constitutional Court accepted the petitioner’s claim to prohibit political candidates from using AI to design their campaign portraits, especially since the Court itself acknowledges that banning it would limit candidates’ freedom of expression and development, as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.
The explanation for this decision may lie in the culture of Indonesian society, particularly the Javanese, who are the largest and most dominant ethnic group in Indonesia. Their cultural influence deeply permeates Indonesian constitutional politics.
It is important to note that the Javanese society tends to emphasize harmony and maintenance of order above individual interest, hence a good person for the Javanese society is a person who always acts in conformity with his/her group’s demand. Subsequently, language, and manner are seen as key indicators in assessing a person’s character.
Due to these social expectations, one ethnographer hailed the Javanese as a society that was concerned with “visible behaviour and outward appearance.” From this perspective, it makes sense why the Court and the petitioner were so adamant about ensuring that political candidates do not present a modified image of themselves through AI for their campaigns. The true quality of a person, in this view, could only be judged by the voter if the candidate’s portrait reflects their natural appearance. This may also explain the “sexist” testimony from one of the expert witnesses opinion provided by the petitioner who cited a case where a female politician in Indonesia was sued for using an edited photo of herself that made her look younger and more attractive for her legislative candidacy. The petitioner argued this created a bad precedent and should lead the Court to ban AI-designed portraits in political campaigns.
Ultimately, this case once again reveals how important it is to look at culture to understand the actions of judicial and political actors in Indonesia. Failing to realize this can obscure our understanding of why Indonesia has struggled to establish liberal democratic constitutionalism, despite having ended military dictatorship more than two decades ago.