Once seen as a democratic success after Suharto’s fall, Indonesia’s smooth power transitions and active civil society fuelled optimism. However, in the past decade, democratic progress has stalled due to weaker institutions, shrinking opposition, and an increasingly unaccountable executive.  

Dismissing Civil Society Voices  

A key indicator of this decline is the government’s increasing disregard for civil society voices. Under President Prabowo Subianto, this trend has intensified, with public criticism dismissed rather than addressed. 

The Indonesia Gelap protests, in which students opposed the reallocation of education funds to finance Prabowo’s free meal program, illustrate this. Rather than addressing the concerns of students and educators, the administration justified the budget cuts on the grounds of fiscal efficiency. Meanwhile, the government continues to spend on elite-focused programs, such as a retreat for newly appointed regional leaders. If fiscal discipline were truly the priority, why are austerity measures disproportionately imposed on education rather than expenditures on high-ranking government officials? 

Civil society groups, including student organisations, have been pivotal in past democratic movements in Indonesia, particularly in 1998 when protests led to Suharto’s resignation. However, the current administration’s approach to civil society appears increasingly dismissive, limiting space for meaningful engagement. Protests are not met with violent repression, but with narrative control and strategic indifference, making it difficult for activists to find traction and  push for change. 

Weakening Political Opposition 

Beyond financial priorities, Indonesia’s democratic decline is evident in the weakening of oversight institutions. The country’s Constitutional Court has faced credibility concerns, particularly after rulings that favoured political elites. One of the most controversial rulings allowed Prabowo’s running mate to bypass minimum age requirements , a decision widely criticised as politically motivated. Such judicial decisions contribute to a growing perception that Indonesia’s democratic institutions are being eroded to serve executive interests. 

The opacity of governance was recently highlighted by reports of secretive discussions between DPR members and government officials at a luxury hotel concerning revisions to the Military Law (UU TNI). Conducting these sensitive legislative processes behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny, raises serious questions about transparency and accountability, reflecting deeper problems in Indonesia’s democratic governance. This lack of transparency has been further underscored by controversies surrounding the appointment of Lieutenant Colonel Teddy as Cabinet Secretary, raising concerns about potential violations of the same military legislation. These also indicate a broader move toward reinstating the military’s dual role in both defence and civilian governance, reminiscent of the once pervasive Dual Function of the Armed Forces (Dwifungsi ABRI) doctrine. 

Indonesia’s opposition has also been significantly weakened, reducing political contestation and limiting policy accountability. The 2019 presidential race saw Jokowi bring Prabowo into his government, effectively neutralising a major opposition figure. By 2024, much of the opposition had been co-opted, sidelined, or rendered ineffective, leaving few institutional checks on executive power. The lack of a strong opposition means policies can be pushed through with little scrutiny, eroding the fundamental principles of democratic governance. 

Prabowo’s Rhetorical Deflection  

Amid these governance concerns, Prabowo’s rhetorical deflection has emerged as a troubling strategy for avoiding scrutiny. When confronted with criticisms, his administration has consistently dismissed, countered, or ridiculed dissent rather than responding substantively. 

One notable example was his response to concerns over the size of his cabinet, which is one of the largest in Indonesia’s history. Rather than providing a governance-based justification, he mocked critics by drawing a misleading comparison to the European Union, ignoring the fact that the EU is a coalition of independent states rather than a single government. 

His mockery extends beyond domestic politics. When questioned about excessive government expenditures, he ridiculed international study visits, sarcastically questioning why Indonesian officials study poverty in Australia. While framed as a cost-saving measure, this remark reflected a populist deflection tactic rather than a substantive policy argument, disregarding the value of knowledge exchange and international cooperation. 

This rhetorical approach aligns with a broader global trend of authoritarian-leaning populist leaders using sarcasm, nationalism, and mockery to delegitimise critics. Leaders in countries like Turkey, India, and the Philippines have similarly used rhetoric to shift focus away from governance failures. In Prabowo’s case, these tactics serve to deflect accountability while reinforcing his image as a strongman leader, a political identity he has cultivated for decades. 

Shrinking Media Freedom  

Although Prabowo’s use of rhetoric is concerning, Indonesia’s broader democratic erosion extends beyond his words. The shrinking space for media freedom, the consolidation of executive power, and the absence of a strong opposition force pose more significant long-term threats to democratic resilience. 

Indonesia’s Press Freedom Index declined in 2024, reflecting continued threats against journalists and restrictions on independent reporting. The report highlights that intimidation, legal harassment, and violence against the press remain persistent issues. Press organisations and journalists covering sensitive political issues, including corruption, electoral controversies, and government inefficiencies, have faced surveillance, cyber-attacks, and lawsuits. 

The Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), originally designed to combat cybercrime, has been weaponised to silence dissent, with reporters and activists charged with defamation for investigative journalism. This trend has further discouraged independent reporting, leading to self-censorship among media outlets wary of state retaliation. 

Additionally, disinformation campaigns on social media have played a role in shaping political narratives, allowing the government to control public discourse and attack dissenting voices. Pro-government influencers and cyber troops have been accused of spreading propaganda and targeting independent journalists, making it even harder for civil society to hold the administration accountable. 

If these trends persist, Indonesia risks evolving into a “managed democracy”, a system where elections take place, but genuine political contestation, a free press, and institutional oversight are severely compromised. 

Youth Disillusionment  

The growing youth disillusionment in Indonesia, reflected in movements like #kaburajadulu (loosely translated as “just run away”), suggests a declining public confidence in governance. Young Indonesians increasingly feel that political engagement does not lead to real change, with many considering moving abroad for better opportunities. 

This dissatisfaction is particularly concerning given Indonesia’s youth demographic advantage. With over half of its population under 30, the country stands to benefit from a dynamic, engaged youth, but only if democratic institutions remain responsive. If young people continue to feel alienated, Indonesia risks losing a generation of political activists, independent thinkers, and civic leaders. 

Epilogue 

If Indonesia’s current governance trends continue unchecked, its democratic institutions could suffer irreversible damage. While Prabowo’s rhetorical deflection and populist strategies serve as distractions, the real threats lie in weakened institutions, a shrinking opposition, and declining media freedom. 

Civil society, the media, and oversight bodies must remain vigilant in ensuring that accountability remains central to policymaking. Without a robust opposition, an independent judiciary, and a free press, the foundations of Indonesia’s democracy will continue to erode. 

Democracy does not disappear overnight. It weakens when institutions are undermined, opposition is marginalised, and public critique is ignored. Without vigilance, Indonesia risks becoming a democracy in name only.

Hangga Fathana is a Faculty Member in International Relations and serves as the University Secretary at Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII). He is also a Researcher at UII’s Centre for Religion and Democracy, with research interests in global political economy, trade politics, and capitalism. 

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.