Indonesian Democracy Undergoes Tough Test

The responsiveness of Indonesian democracy is undergoing a tough test.

Having been felt for the last few years, the tough test has become more real in 2022 and 2023. It was sparked by the incidents of a police officer murdering his subordinate (the Sambo case), the fatal Kanjuruhan soccer tragedy, and a high-ranking police officer being implicated in a drug trafficking case.

Early 2023, Rafael Alun’s suspicious wealth came to light following the assault case on a minor, allegedly committed by his son. Most recently, the Central Jakarta District Court decided the General Election Commission (KPU) must restart the stages leading up to the 2024 election. The court ruling may have the implication of delaying the election and potential violations of the Constitution.

Weak responses on the part of state institutions in the face of this test are likely to derail our democracy even further. With public trust in decline, it is difficult for state institutions and the bureaucracy to gain public legitimacy in carrying out their duties.

The government’s responsiveness is one of the crucial dimensions of democracy, with the other two being procedure and substance.

Also read:

> Democracy Without Political Ethics

> The Image of Democracy

Responsiveness shows how well democracy is implemented in the social life of a state. It necessitates an alignment of government policies with the public’s interests and government officials’ responsibility to serve the community. Experts refer to responsiveness as being the result of democratic implementation that can serve as an indicator of the quality of state governance.

Indonesia’s democratic responsiveness is now going through a tough test, ironically triggered by incidents within the state institutions, which should ideally be the source of that responsiveness. The mounting public pressure is now being aimed at state institutions and the bureaucracy. The ability to cope with this tough test depends on how the state institutions and bureaucracy respond to the lingering problems in order to regain public trust.

Sporadic or systemic

State institutions and bureaucracy, such as the police, finance ministry and judicial bodies, can choose between two types of response in the face of this tough test.

First, the easiest way is the sporadic response approach. This is done by being focused on resolving the gripping cases and trying to isolate from and making them unrelated to what the public may see as more fundamental problems.

If a case turns to be symptomatic, similar cases may recur from time to time.

This type of response may come from an assumption that cases or events that occur do not belong to larger problems. They may reflect big but not symptomatic problems. Thus, the cases that occur are considered to have limited dimensions and can be brought to an end within a measured time. This type of response is akin to putting out the hot spot without bothering to trace the fire source.

If a case turns to be symptomatic, similar cases may recur from time to time.

Second, a more systemic response. The bureaucracy or state institutions treat the case as symptomatic, or part of larger systemic problems. This type of response can be done in two stages. First, solve the case directly. Second, conduct an in-depth study or analysis by looking into the connection between the case and the implementation of the governance system in an institution as a whole.

Of course, it is possible to come to a conclusion that the case that occurs is sporadic, not systemic. However, a systemic response will allow the bureaucracy or state institutions to pinpoint the real source of problems so that a similar case is less likely to recur.

There is a third possibility, which is the bureaucracy or state institutions have no will to resolve the case at all. The bureaucracy feels obliged to move only when the case becomes of public concern. It may happen that the ongoing case surfaces due to conflicts of interest between officials or divisions within a state institution. Such a case will usually and slowly die down when the public no longer pays attention or there is an agreement between the conflicting officials or divisions.

From the way the bureaucracy or state institutions have approached the widely publicized cases lately, it is quite clear that their responses are simply sporadic. This is what happened at the Finance Ministry in dealing with its officials being found to have amassed illicitly procured wealth.

Also read:

> (Un) lawful Wealth

> Lifestyle of State Officials

The Rafael case has a precedent in the uncovering of the infamous “Gayus” case. Ironically, the Rafael case flared to the surface only as a domino effect triggered by his son’s alleged participation in an assault case. We do not know whether Rafael’s suspicious wealth would ever have been exposed to the public if the assault case had not occurred.

The uncovered case has made a mockery of the Finance Ministry’s vaunted reputation as the most advanced institution in bureaucratic reform. In December 2019, the institution received an award as a role model among public service providers from the Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry.

If it is true that the suspicious wealth was actually known about since 2012, we may perceive something even worse. What is happening is no longer a sporadic response, but negligence.

A case is tackled only to give birth to another case another time with a different perpetrator.

We may also have the same convictions for the other cases. The Sambo case and other cases of police or the state apparatus being involved in drugs have occurred several times in various formats. They were usually followed by corrective actions. However, such cases seem to persistently linger.

These lurking problems show two things. First, they are symptomatic, or part of more serious, fundamental and possibly systemic problems. Second, the institutions’ responses have so far been sporadic. A case is tackled only to give birth to another case another time with a different perpetrator.

The issue of postponing the elections, which has arisen in the past two years, carries a similar problem. The President has made it public he is against postponing elections, nor does he have an interest in seeking a term extension.

However, the fact that many of those who have spoken out loudest about their inclination for an election postponement are government officials, such as a number of ministers, and the fact that the President has no objection to his aides’ pro-election postponement comments has aroused suspicions among the public that the President might actually be looking for a term extension.

With the election stages having progressed as far as they have today, a judicial institution’s decision emerged to cause controversy. If a state institution or bureaucracy fails to provide clarity on this issue, public suspicion and distrust will grow.

Public support and trust

The inability of the bureaucracy to provide an adequate response to various problems will erode public faith in state institutions. Public trust or legitimacy is fundamental in a democracy because with it the state can hope for effective governance.

The decrease in trust has clearly been demonstrated by the public toward the police in the wake of the Sambo case. A poll by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) in 2022 showed the level of trust in the police fell sharply from 72 percent in July (before the case emerged) to only 53 percent in October. This level of trust had not recovered as of January 2023. It was possibly due to the uncovering of several other cases that followed, such as the involvement of a high-ranking police officer in a drug-smuggling case. Public confidence increased in February 2023, although it did not reach the level before the cases had emerged.

The re-emergence of a suspicious wealth case implicating tax officials can trigger negative sentiment and reduce public faith in the Finance Ministry, especially the directorate of taxation. We cannot determine yet whether public reactions are positive or negative toward how the state is handling this case.

Also read:

> Investigation into State Officials’ Wealth Begins

> Paving Way for Democracy to Thrive

If the handling still seems sporadic, which potentially allows the emergence of another case, then restoring public trust will not be an easy task. Ironically, the police and tax office are two state institutions currently under public scrutiny, which have direct contact with all levels of society.

The decline in public trust as a result of a non-systemic response in the medium and long-term period will lead to an erosion of public support for democracy and governance in general. This should not happen given the fact that the social and political costs are very high, which threatens the survival of the state.

State administrators who are still concerned about the people should keep fostering their awareness of this problem. Widespread public scrutiny and pressure show that our society can still be a pillar for making fundamental improvements. The LSI research also shows that the level of community commitment to democracy has remained above 70 percent over the last 10 years. However, we do not know how long this commitment will last if the state apparatus erodes the responsiveness of democracy from within the state itself.

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

Djayadi Hanan

Djayadi Hanan, Executive Director of Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) and Lecturer in Political Science at Indonesian International Islamic University (UIII)

This article was translated by Musthofid.