Dirga Ardiansa
Researcher at Puskapol UI and Lecturer in Politics at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia<\/p>\n\n\n\n
*This article was originally published in Indoprogress and is republished here for the Puskapol UI archive<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to resisting oligarchic power, the author sees this potential as most likely to emerge from progressive left movements. The central question being raised is how these groups can break the deadlock in mobilizing and consolidating mass support to challenge oligarchic dominance. One key argument that emerges is the need to push for an alternative political discourse, with a concrete proposal to establish a progressive political party that can represent itself and compete through electoral politics against oligarchic forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The intention behind bringing the discussion down from abstract theory and concepts to questions of method, strategy, and long term planning is to map both opportunities and obstacles. Yet instead of producing clearer formulas or moving toward debates on methodology and praxis, discussions often become even more abstract. I am interested in exploring the challenge of turning mass mobilization and consolidation into a more technical and actionable strategy, including how an alternative political party could emerge as a real force capable of confronting and defeating oligarchy through elections in Indonesia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There have been many debates and criticisms, but few offer concrete answers to questions such as what should be done, what choices are available, how such efforts can be realized, and where to begin. These are precisely the kinds of questions that left intellectuals need to address in order to provide direction for the broader public. Without this, the masses risk becoming alienated from theories and concepts that grow increasingly abstract in the pursuit of new knowledge. In fact, theoretical debates could take another path by moving toward practical and concrete levels, shaping collective action through measurable plans and stages. This latter direction, however, is almost entirely absent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although I cannot fully claim to be part of the progressive left, and may draw on approaches, theories, and concepts that appear distant from left traditions, I share a similar critical paradigm. This article will draw on frameworks that may seem more mainstream and less tied to leftist jargon. In the realm of electoral politics, theories from the left alone may not be sufficient and need to be complemented by other approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I begin by encouraging a clearer understanding of the contemporary landscape of Indonesia\u2019s electoral politics, a field often avoided or even dismissed by left intellectuals as too elitist. As a result, they are left behind in discussions on theory, data, practice, advocacy, and regulation within electoral politics. It raises a fundamental question: how can one expect to dismantle party oligarchies within their own arena, using rules they themselves have designed, relying only on optimism?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The logic of political representation through elections has made political parties the dominant vehicles of oligarchic power, to the point that no existing party can be fully separated from it. Civil society efforts to challenge electoral law revisions from outside the system, through formal institutional advocacy, can also appear naive. They rely on the hope that legal reforms alone can transform the structure of political representation. This is akin to expecting oligarchic forces to willingly weaken themselves, without identifying a political subject capable of contesting and confronting them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is needed, then, is the deliberate creation of an alternative political force that introduces real antagonism within parliament, not merely from outside. In this sense, the aspiration among left movements to establish an alternative political party with a clear mission to confront oligarchy represents an attempt to become an active political subject. It aligns with civil society efforts that have long focused on advocacy and political education. Whether this becomes reality or remains an aspiration is still uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The author believes that both left movements and civil society organizations still largely see resistance as something that must remain outside the electoral arena, positioned against institutional actors. The idea of alternative politics challenges this by expanding the \u0645\u06cc\u062f\u0627\u0646 of struggle, positioning movements not only as non electoral actors but also as electoral ones, operating both outside and inside parliament. It seeks to deliberately place representatives within legislative spaces to influence how resources are allocated and distributed through lawmaking and budgeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The foundation for building an alternative political party from within left movements differs fundamentally from existing parties formed since the reform era. It is driven by a clear intention to challenge oligarchic power and to claim formal political representation for the broader public through elections. This piece aims to cultivate confidence in the possibility of such a party as a force against oligarchy, rather than adding to the list of obstacles and doubts surrounding it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without ignoring historical experiences, the author leaves room for others to reflect on past failures in building similar parties. This limitation is acknowledged. Instead, the focus here is on present conditions and the possibility of new ideas that position alternative politics as a viable, not utopian, path forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion will focus on three main areas. First, the problem of political representation in Indonesia as both justification and entry point for progressive left engagement in electoral politics. Second, a rethinking of politics, political participation, and elections as preconditions for mass mobilization and consolidation. Third, a spatial political approach that moves from local levels, such as villages, to the national stage as a strategy for creating widespread arenas of contestation over resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To make sense of Indonesia\u2019s electoral political landscape, I will begin by outlining three key discourses on the problem of political representation that emerge from the electoral process, as both a justification and an entry point for a progressive left movement into the arena of electoral politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, <\/strong>political representation produced through elections can never fully reflect interests and identities. At best, it captures them only partially. Representation, therefore, is essentially a matter of claims rather than an exact reflection of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second,<\/strong> democratic political representation exists when those whose interests are affected by a decision have the capacity to take part in shaping that decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third,<\/strong> claims of political representation can emerge from both electoral and non-electoral processes. Electoral processes generate formal representation within executive and legislative offices. Non-electoral processes, on the other hand, give rise to representation through social and political movements, labor unions, communities, and civil society organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The three discourses above should be seen as a starting point for rethinking politics, participation, representation, and electoral processes. The comfort of leftist movements and civil society in remaining \u201conly\u201d non-electoral actors will never fundamentally change the face of political representation in Indonesia. What follows is a brief elaboration of these three discourses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first discourse <\/strong>highlights that political representation can never fully capture interests and identities. At best, it reflects them partially, which means representation often rests on claims rather than concrete reality. In discussions of political representation, many scholars focus on identity and interests as the two core elements that should be fulfilled. This raises a key question: which political party today truly represents the identities of workers, farmers, and marginalized groups such as the urban poor and people with disabilities? Even more pressing is the absence of their interests within formal political representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In formal politics, elections are commonly seen as a mechanism to \u201cbring the people into presence\u201d and to secure legitimacy for those in power. Drawing on a positivist understanding of population and sample, elections are treated as a process in which the population, meaning all eligible citizens, selects from among itself a representative sample in the form of elected officials. Even if participation is not total, representation can still be claimed based on the number, proportion, and distribution of voters, although such claims remain open to challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So where does the problem lie? One key issue is the \u201csample frame,\u201d namely the available choices. Political parties and candidates are often not truly representative. In other words, while elections may successfully \u201cpresent\u201d the population, they consistently fall short in producing fully representative outcomes. This gap stems from two main factors. First, there is no guarantee that voters\u2019 identities and interests align with the candidates or parties they choose. Second, the available options themselves are limited and often unrepresentative. For this reason, efforts to expand the range of identities and interests within electoral politics should not be restricted or obstructed by electoral regulations. To reduce the gap between electoral processes and outcomes, which frequently result in underrepresentation, affirmative action becomes essential. It can help broaden access to more representative choices and produce outcomes that better reflect society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Indonesia, affirmative action has been implemented primarily to encourage women\u2019s candidacy as part of a marginalized group. However, the scope of marginalized representation could be expanded to include other groups alongside women. At present, affirmative action is largely based on individual candidacy within political parties. While this may ensure the presence of identity, it does not necessarily guarantee the representation of interests. An individual-based approach can even weaken the connection between identity and interests. This raises the need to consider aggregating both identity and interests of marginalized groups within political parties specifically designed to represent them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The paradox of women\u2019s representation illustrates this issue. Debates around gender quotas often focus on increasing the numerical presence of women in parliament. As argued by Ann Phillips, this can promote justice, equality, and the articulation of women\u2019s interests, while also enabling women to access resources for the broader public good. However, other perspectives question whether these interests are truly represented, given that party oligarchies may use female candidates primarily as an electoral strategy to attract votes or capitalize on popularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These gaps create an opening for alternative political parties initiated by progressive left movements to emerge as vehicles for representing the identities and interests of marginalized groups that remain fragmented and unorganized. The realities of land dispossession, forced evictions, social exclusion, and limited access to resources cannot simply be left to the goodwill of national bourgeois elites or the middle class, whose priorities often differ. Existing dominant political parties tend to adopt broad, catch-all approaches, symbolically claiming to represent marginalized groups without a clear ideological foundation or consistent commitment to their interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issues such as dispossession, eviction, marginalization, and unequal access to resources should form the core platform of an alternative party. Such a party must also integrate a gender perspective into its framework, recognizing women as a central force in the history of affirmative movements in Indonesia. Women represent a crucial base whose identities and interests must be meaningfully incorporated, especially given that gender-based affirmative measures are already embedded in electoral regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second discourse<\/strong> on political representation emphasizes that democratic representation is realized when those whose interests are affected by a decision have the capacity to take part in shaping it. This capacity is reflected in the presence of political participation from affected groups in order to secure access to resources. Political participation, therefore, is not a one-time act but a continuous process that must be pursued across multiple arenas, both inside and outside formal politics, before, during, and after elections. Political agendas remain highly vulnerable to capture, especially when relying solely on non-electoral forces that can only attach interests from the outside and monitor from a distance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to participation in the electoral phase, elections are often framed as mechanisms for producing political representation that includes both interests and identities. Ideally, before elections take place, alternative political parties should clearly formulate the interests they seek to advance. In reality, however, these interests are once again presented in limited forms, embedded within party platforms, candidate programs, and campaign narratives. As a result, interests are often defined through top-down interpretations by political elites, rather than emerging from a bottom-up process of collective articulation. Elites and candidates offer a set of predefined agendas through their platforms, visions, and programs, rather than aggregating demands from the public and translating them into political commitments. For instance, it is worth questioning whether development agendas such as Nawacita were genuinely formulated through participatory processes, or whether they reflected elite interpretations of social conditions. In practice, the programs and visions of elected leaders often become formal development agendas, even if not all elements are ultimately implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This highlights the importance of alternative political parties developing mechanisms to formulate agendas and interests from the ground up, rather than reproducing top-down approaches. A deliberative process is essential to build collective awareness among citizens about their own interests, shifting the focus away from merely choosing \u201cgood\u201d individuals toward choosing substantive agendas. Bridging the pre-election phase with the post-election phase, when representatives carry out their legislative, budgeting, and oversight functions, requires a structured and binding formulation of demands. The aggregation of voter interests into documented claims also requires the involvement of non-electoral left actors. Their role extends beyond pre-election mobilization to ensuring that these interests are consistently reasserted after elections. This serves as a form of anticipation and oversight toward elected representatives and political parties that may deviate from agreed agendas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this reason, progressive left movements need to adopt a dual track strategy from the outset, combining electoral strength through alternative political parties with non-electoral strength as a guardian of political agendas and collective reason, ensuring that commitments remain aligned with shared goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third discourse <\/strong>stresses that political representation can emerge from both electoral and non-electoral processes. Electoral mechanisms produce formal representation within executive and legislative institutions, while non-electoral processes generate representation through social movements, labor unions, communities, and civil society organizations. Although political representation is widely used as a concept to sustain democratic systems, it has also been subject to criticism. Assumptions such as representation being a way to make the absent present, the existence of a direct relationship between representatives and those they represent, the necessity of elections, and the expectation of accountability and responsiveness are all open to debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rather than dismissing these assumptions outright, it is more useful to recognize that political representation can take on an antagonistic character. Representatives and those they represent do not always move in harmony. Their relationship can shift into positions of alignment or opposition, framed as \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem,\u201d depending on how interests are defined and contested. This makes representation inherently dynamic, shaped by ongoing struggles over competing interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When agreed political agendas are ignored or co-opted by representatives or political parties, including potential alternative parties in the future, claims of representation can re-emerge from non-electoral actors. These claims aim to reassert shared interests and demand accountability, even if doing so creates antagonistic relationships. Within parliamentary contestation, alliances and oppositions can shift. The category of \u201cus\u201d may expand to include political parties that share the same interests as social movements, while \u201cthem\u201d may refer to oligarchic forces within party politics that stand in opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this sense, the relationship between representatives and the represented operates on two levels. The first is an individual relationship between voters and their elected officials. The second is an aggregated relationship between citizens and political parties. This reinforces the importance of a dual track approach, where electoral actors such as political parties and non-electoral actors such as social movements work in tandem. Alternative left parties, in particular, must build alliances with non-electoral actors to safeguard the movement\u2019s principles, maintain public awareness of collective interests, and ensure that political decision making remains grounded in bottom-up processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This section draws from an article I previously wrote for Indoprogress titled Distributive Politics<\/em>. Allow me to revisit a few key points. I share the view of Susan C. Stokes (2013), who avoids framing politics as an abstract grand narrative that feels distant and difficult for ordinary citizens to grasp. Instead, she defines politics in simple terms as the process of allocating and distributing resources to citizens. From this perspective, political participation can also be understood quite simply as the involvement of citizens in securing, controlling, and sustaining access to resources by engaging in the processes through which those resources are allocated and distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What, then, do we mean by allocation, distribution, and resources? Resources can be understood as anything that empowers people to pursue a dignified life. In electoral politics, the most visible forms of resources are legislation and public budgets, whether at the village, regional, or national level. These can take shape as policies, programs, public information, social assistance, and regulations that directly affect citizens\u2019 lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allocation refers to the process through which aggregated needs and interests are translated into budgetary priorities and legislative agendas. A simple example would be how campaign visions and missions are transformed into medium-term development plans and later formalized in policy and budgeting. Distribution, on the other hand, is the process through which those policies and budgets are implemented and delivered to citizens in tangible forms such as programs, assistance, and public services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Admittedly, this definition of resources is narrow because it focuses on the electoral arena. However, that is precisely the point of emphasis here. Without dismissing broader struggles over resources, including land conflicts or evictions in places like Kampung Pulo or Urut Sewu, the reality remains that alternative political parties will inevitably confront resource struggles within legislative and budgeting processes in parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Elections play a crucial role in shaping how resources are allocated and distributed. Yet they are often seen merely as mechanisms for leadership turnover rather than as strategic arenas where interests are negotiated and secured. As a result, attention is often directed toward individuals in power rather than toward the interests that should guide their decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also important to recognize that the current lack of ideological clarity shapes how elections are understood. For political parties, candidates, and office holders, elections are primarily about gaining and maintaining power. For citizens, however, elections are a means to secure long-term access to essential resources such as healthcare, education, decent wages, employment, and housing. This creates an important political relationship between candidates and voters, one in which citizens momentarily hold a relatively equal position. Unfortunately, this moment of relative equality is often reduced to short-term exchanges, especially through vote buying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because these two sides operate with different objectives within distributive politics, it becomes essential to bridge them through political agreements rooted in long-term interests. This requires the involvement of alternative political parties, non-electoral actors, and citizens themselves to build shared awareness. Such engagement must extend beyond election day, as the real processes of allocation and distribution begin afterward and demand continuous citizen involvement. Elections provide a rare opportunity for at least three political actors to come together and agree on how resources should be directed. This process can also help cultivate a stronger sense of ideological commitment among both movements and citizens, shifting loyalty away from political elites toward shared agendas and interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no denying that for progressive left movements, engaging with elections, including their technical stages, may feel somewhat uncomfortable or even unappealing. However, elections offer a relatively low-cost opportunity for mobilization and consolidation. Too often, mobilization occurs only after elections, in reaction to policies, requiring far greater effort and yielding weaker results. Building a connection between the pre-election phase, where interests are aggregated, and the post-election phase, where resources are contested and distributed, is essential. This continuity allows shared interests to remain a driving force in resisting oligarchic control and in monitoring agreed political agendas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mapping collective needs, however, is not easy. Citizens are often encouraged to think individually, shaped by dominant voter education narratives that emphasize being a \u201csmart voter\u201d by simply choosing a good candidate. As a result, votes are frequently exchanged for short-term gains that ultimately undermine long-term interests. Voters are treated as isolated individuals rather than as communities with shared concerns. This individualistic approach leads to resource distribution that benefits only a few while potentially disadvantaging others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Candidates typically present visions, missions, and campaign promises, but a crucial question remains: have they genuinely gathered data on citizens\u2019 needs and demands through participatory and bottom-up processes? Understanding public aspirations requires more than surface-level outreach. It calls for deliberate efforts to identify collective problems, needs, and demands within specific communities. This can involve direct observation or even facilitating independent citizen surveys to map long-term priorities. Labor movements, for instance, have successfully identified living cost standards and minimum wage demands, creating a shared awareness of collective needs. In this sense, what matters for voters is not who offers the most appealing promises, but who is willing to listen, commit, and deliver on real community needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political transactions between candidates and voters are rarely direct. They often involve intermediaries, described by Susan C. Stokes as brokers or non-electoral actors. While intermediaries are often viewed negatively, this perspective stems from the association with problematic political transactions. Here, they are better understood as part of non-electoral political representation. Their role is crucial in shaping agreements that reflect citizens\u2019 interests. Unfortunately, this role is frequently misused to support short-term political deals that benefit candidates without empowering citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intermediaries typically serve three key functions. As connectors, they facilitate communication between citizens and political actors while voicing public demands. As distributors, they provide access to information, conveying citizens\u2019 aspirations to candidates and informing citizens about policies and programs. As mobilizers, they organize and rally communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, how elections are perceived shapes long-term political participation. Elections should be understood as a continuous cycle with three stages. The pre-election phase involves mapping problems, gathering aspirations, and planning resource allocation. The election phase centers on organizing and negotiating political agreements that reflect citizens\u2019 demands. The post-election phase requires ongoing participation, where citizens, together with non-electoral actors, monitor and ensure that agreed priorities are implemented by both legislative and executive institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After outlining the problems, opportunities, and frameworks of interpretation above, the next question is how this strategy can begin. The local context offers a concrete entry point, particularly at the village level, by making use of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, which explicitly regulates and encourages citizen participation. It provides mechanisms through which key processes such as the Village Medium Term Development Plan, the annual Village Government Work Plan, village regulations, and most importantly the village budget can be influenced through citizen involvement. This takes place through village deliberation forums, which function as a prerequisite for decisions on resource allocation and distribution. This process is fundamentally different from the development planning forums at higher levels and should not be equated with them. These village level mechanisms are precisely where distributive politics unfolds in its most immediate and tangible form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this sense, the emergence of alternative politics begins with organizing, mobilizing, and consolidating citizens so that participation in these formal and routine spaces of contesting resources becomes a continuous practice, rather than something that only happens in sporadic or issue based struggles. In relation to political representation and electoral politics, this also connects directly to village head elections and local representative bodies, both of which play a decisive role in shaping how resources are allocated and distributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Non electoral groups and movements are responsible for aggregating the needs and interests of villagers through participatory processes, which are then collectively deliberated and formulated into a shared document. This document can be circulated among citizens to build collective awareness and strengthen demands so that they are incorporated into village planning and budgeting processes. The bridge between these efforts and formal decision making lies in the electoral moment, particularly village elections. This process represents a practical form of political education, aimed at strengthening awareness and participation while aligning resource allocation with electoral dynamics at every level, starting from the village. Ideally, this bottom up approach is then replicated at the district or city level, extended to the provincial level, and eventually connected to national planning and legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key message here is that this way of understanding politics, along with its working model and strategy, needs to be grasped first in order to build an alternative political party. This allows a dual track strategy to function, where electoral and non electoral efforts reinforce each other across different arenas and levels of contestation. In line with this, the formation of an alternative political party should begin with a spatial political approach, starting from local party building. Strength needs to be identified and consolidated gradually on a territorial basis, focusing on one province while ensuring representation across all districts within it. Contestation at the district level should be rooted in village level engagement, as this is where ideological awareness and organizational capacity can be developed through real struggles over resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Starting from a local party is crucial. Forcing an alternative political party to emerge directly at the national level risks creating a premature formation that lacks endurance and collapses quickly. A gradual expansion of strength, grounded in real social bases, offers a more sustainable path toward higher levels of political contestation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At present, civil society movements focusing on electoral reform have begun discussing proposals to revise election laws. Two key points deserve attention. The first concerns the requirements for party participation in elections and the possibility of establishing local parties. The second relates to intervention in electoral processes and stages. What is needed now is a synergy between progressive left movements, civil society, and broader social forces to push for regulatory changes that open space for local parties at the provincial level. This would mean allowing parties that meet requirements within a province and its districts to compete within that territory. National level contestation would then become possible once a sufficient number of provinces have developed political representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Advocating for the recognition of local parties should therefore be seen as an initial objective, opening the door for the emergence of alternative political forces. This is clearly a long term strategy that requires persistence and sustained effort. The second point, concerning technical intervention in electoral processes, will require further elaboration at another time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a closing note, it may be time for Indoprogress to initiate a direct forum or discussion to further explore paradigms, approaches, strategies, and concrete steps toward building alternative politics through the emergence of alternative political parties. The invitation is awaited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article is partly drawn from a paper I presented at a symposium on political representation organized by the Center for Political Studies at FISIP UI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dirga ArdiansaResearcher at Puskapol UI and Lecturer in Politics at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia *This article was originally published in Indoprogress and is republished here…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":12558,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[155,156],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-publications","category-research-and-report"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11530"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11535,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11530\/revisions\/11535"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/puskapol.fisip.ui.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The problem of political representation in Indonesia as both a justification and an entry point for progressive left movements into the arena of electoral politics<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Reframing politics, political participation, and elections as the preconditions for popular mobilization and consolidation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A spatial political approach from the local level, starting in villages, to the national level as a strategy to create widespread arenas for contesting resources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n