Democracy is often equated with the implementation of general elections held every five years. Yet the democratic celebration that should reflect public participation has increasingly become a tool to legitimize the power of party elite oligarchies. As power repeatedly flows back to oligarchic groups, democracy in Indonesia remains procedural rather than substantive.
This issue emerged during the launch and discussion of the book Polikrisis Demokrasi: Neraca Kasus Indonesia (Democratic Polycrisis: An Indonesian Case Ledger), held as part of the 2025 Fisipol UGM Research Week on Monday (Nov. 10) at the Auditorium of the UGM Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (Fisipol UGM).
Written by 34 academics and practitioners, the book reveals how the shifting meaning of democracy in Indonesia is becoming increasingly apparent through numerous cases that reflect the complexity of democratic practice itself.
“This book brings together the ideas of 34 authors representing perspectives from political science, public policy, sociology, communication, international relations, and history within UGM,” said the book’s editor, Dr. Kuskridho Ambardi, a lecturer in Sociology at UGM.
Dr. Ambardi, commonly known as Dodi, explained that the initial idea for the book stemmed from widespread pessimism about the current state of democracy worldwide.
“Democracy is often understood too narrowly, framed only through concepts such as defining democracy or consolidated democracy,” he said.
He argued that democracy is frequently generalized, even though its practice varies greatly across countries and regions. The concept of “polycrisis” in the book, he noted, is adapted from the European context.
“We do not face an immigrant crisis like Europe, but we do confront crises of globalization, radicalization, and the economy. These overlapping and interrelated crises form Indonesia’s own unique polycrisis,” he added.
Dr. Hasrul Hanif, one of the authors and a lecturer in the Department of Politics and Government, shared that his chapter reviews various approaches to measuring democratic quality, showing that democracy accommodates multiple interpretations. He distinguishes between democracy as an empirical practice and democracy as a normative ideal.
According to Dr. Hanif, context, both spatial and temporal, is crucial in assessing democratic quality, as political realities constantly evolve. He highlighted Indonesia’s recent shift toward New Developmentalism, in which economic liberalization coexists with strong state control.
He noted two main approaches used to measure democracy: comparative assessment (expert evaluation) and democracy audit (participatory public assessment). Indonesia’s Democracy Index (IDI), he explained, once reflected a participatory spirit but has since tended to function merely as a statistical figure.
Discussing elections, Ahmad Shidqi, Chair of the Yogyakarta Election Commission (KPU DIY), reviewed Indonesia’s democratic journey since the 1998 Reform era. The defining moment for democratization, he said, began after the New Order period.
The 1999 election still faced major challenges because the Election Commission at that time consisted of political party representatives. Subsequent reforms to the electoral system transformed the commission into a more independent and technical body, enabling elections to be held more transparently and professionally.
However, he also cautioned that after elections conclude, power often returns to oligarchic hands, leaving Indonesia’s democracy procedural rather than substantive. He encouraged participants to reflect on what democracy truly offers to the people.
“Indonesia’s Democracy Index may look high on paper, but the reality on the ground often reveals contradictions,” he stressed.
Author: Hanifah
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Salma
Photographer: Jesi