by Delia Wildianti (Puskapol UI)
“Our common enemy today is no longer an authoritarian regime, but democracy itself. It has been corrupted by political elites who have managed to reinvent themselves through democratic channels.”
The trajectory of democracy after the so-called third wave of democratization toward the end of the twentieth century shows that democratic decline is often driven by politicians who come to power through democratic means, rather than by extra-systemic actors such as the military or insurgent groups. In Indonesia after the 2019 election, this regression can be seen in at least three ways.
First, the swift revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law was widely seen as weakening the institution and undermining the anti-corruption spirit that once defined the reform era. The automatic enactment of Law No. 19 of 2019 was perceived to benefit political elites, while leaving little room for meaningful public participation. Student movements therefore urged the President to issue a government regulation in lieu of law to revoke the amendment, framing it as a test of the President’s commitment to the anti-corruption agenda. A comparable situation unfolded in Malaysia in 2015, when politics became entangled with allegations of corruption and authoritarian tendencies. This led to a wave of public protests known as Bersih 4.0, calling for institutional reform and the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Second, democratic regression is reflected in how governments respond to protest movements. Both Indonesia and Malaysia relied on repressive measures. In Indonesia, authorities detained 465 individuals, including 201 students, and ten civilians lost their lives. In Malaysia, the police declared the Bersih 4.0 movement illegal, issued threats to organizers under the Peaceful Assembly Act, and arrested 26 participants. Even so, the level of violence in Malaysia remained lower compared to the situation in Indonesia.
Third, democratic decline is closely linked to the limited role of opposition forces within government. In Indonesia, the outcome of the 2019 election left the parliament with a weak opposition, reducing oversight and weakening checks and balances, with around seventy four percent of seats controlled by the ruling coalition. The government’s focus on economic growth through political stability echoes the New Order period, which maintained a sense of calm for decades while suppressing dissent. There are lessons to be drawn from that era. In a more open political system, reliance on repressive approaches is more likely to provoke broader resistance. Governments and parliaments formed through democratic processes should also govern in democratic ways. This differs from Malaysia, where a stronger opposition has played a significant role. The election of Mahathir Mohamad marked both an opposition victory and the impact of sustained protest movements.
The democratic setbacks in both countries are also reflected in the findings of the Economist Intelligence Unit in early 2018. Indonesia’s democracy index dropped from rank 48 to 68, while Malaysia stood at 59. Both countries were categorized as flawed democracies. Recent research by Aspinall and colleagues in Elite, Masses, and Democratic Decline in Indonesia points to an important development. Political elites and the broader public both support democracy as the best system for Indonesia. The difference lies in how they understand it. Elites tend to adopt a procedural view, focusing on free elections, while the public leans toward a substantive view that emphasizes economic welfare and equality.
The Indonesia Calls movement during the recent Youth Pledge commemoration signals that resistance to democratic backsliding, including the anti-corruption struggle, is far from over. At a deeper level, it reflects a call for citizens to actively oversee both the executive and legislative branches, and to prevent reform from being undermined. The Indonesia Calls movement stands as a response to democratic decline driven by elites who themselves emerged from democratic processes. It is a demand to return reform to its original path.
