Why Indonesia’s Democracy Has Remained Unhealthy

Tempatdonasi.com – “`html

Reassessing Indonesia’s Democratic Health: A Critical Dialogue

During a scholarly gathering held at the CSIS Auditorium in Central Jakarta on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, prominent voices examined the state of Indonesian governance. The discussion centered on Stefanus Hendrianto’s latest publication, “Democracy and the Rule of Law in Indonesia,” where the Jesuit priest and legal expert presented a compelling critique of the nation’s political trajectory since the Reformasi period began.

Hendrianto’s Assessment of Democratic Stagnation

According to Hendrianto, Indonesia has experienced democratic stagnation rather than genuine progress over the last twenty years. He emphasized that the nation’s democratic evolution has prioritized electoral contests above all else, neglecting deeper institutional development. “Our democracy has essentially been at a standstill for the past two decades,” he remarked during the forum.

Challenging conventional wisdom, Hendrianto rejected the characterization of the 1950s as a failed democratic experiment. Instead, he described that decade as Indonesia’s golden era, when parliamentary mechanisms operated effectively, civilian authority remained supreme, and political elites demonstrated genuine commitment to democratic principles.

The scholar identified foundational problems within the 1945 Constitution and the presidential framework currently in place. His proposed remedy involves transitioning to a parliamentary arrangement alongside comprehensive constitutional revision, including modifications to the Preamble of the 1945 document.

Adolescent Democracy and Political Culture

Hendrianto introduced the notion of “adolescent democracy” to characterize Indonesian society’s susceptibility to short-term incentives and social assistance programs. This condition, he explained, signals insufficient maturity among citizens required for vibrant democratic participation.

“Polarization is actually good because it provides the public with choices, whereas today we lack genuine ideological differences,” he observed.

Additionally, the academic contested the widespread application of “oligarchy” to describe Indonesia’s political landscape. He advocated for the designation “Authoritarian Constitutionalist Capitalist Regime” instead, capturing a system where capitalist structures operate under constitutional veneer while exercising authoritarian tendencies.

While Hendrianto noted that the rule of law has deteriorated into a tool wielded by those holding power, he expressed optimism regarding potential transformation. He believes the younger generation possesses the courage to implement essential reforms within governmental institutions and develop a constitution that authentically protects democratic values.

Bivitri Susanti: Colonial and New Order Influences

Bivitri Susanti, a constitutional law academic at the Indonesia Jentera School of Law, endorsed Hendrianto’s central argument concerning Indonesia’s inadequate republican foundation. However, she expanded the analysis by attributing structural deficiencies to both colonial heritage and the New Order era, which continue influencing modern political behavior.

Susanti highlighted how Dutch colonialism embedded feudal relationships throughout Indonesian society. She pointed out that this feudal character has been strengthened by militaristic traditions that prize unquestioning deference to authority figures within public institutions.

“We do not actually possess a solid foundation for a republic, and these two factors—colonialism and the New Order—are major contributors to that,” Bivitri stated at the Wednesday forum.

She further explained that the New Order government distanced ordinary people from political engagement through the “floating mass” framework and the motto “development yes, politics no.” As a result, democratic spaces enabling egalitarian discussion about collective welfare never fully developed.

While supporting Hendrianto’s call for constitutional renewal, Susanti stressed that merely replacing legal documents would be insufficient. The priority must involve constructing a political architecture that stimulates vigorous public debate, encourages citizen involvement, and generates innovative perspectives for national advancement.

Susanti concluded with an optimistic outlook, emphasizing youth mobilization as a pathway toward sustainable social movements. She argued that meaningful transformation extends beyond voting cycles, requiring dedicated citizenship that actively reclaims public spaces and monitors everyday democratic practices.

“`