Despite its many failings, Indonesia has made significant gains on its road to democracy. The overthrow of Suharto in 1998 ushered in a new era that has cut poverty rates more than half, created a middle class and a growing economy ranked tenth in the world and, most significantly, allowed for democratic elections and the formation of an independent judiciary.
The process of democratization has been bumpy, but Indonesians have proven to be remarkably resilient. Even the violent political upheavals of the late 1990s and jihadist terrorism that many thought would unravel the nation have failed to undermine democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
Yet Indonesia remains a fragile democracy. The military still wields considerable influence over politics and policymaking, and a number of trends threaten to deconsolidate the state, further weakening Indonesia’s democracy.
A strong civilian bureaucracy, free and active media, and independent courts are vital to Indonesia’s democracy. These institutions must be bolstered, not only via funding but also through capacity-building, research support, training and external networks. Moreover, Indonesians must be persuaded that the benefits of democracy outweigh the risks. New research suggests that the public is ambivalent about democracy and may be more inclined to prefer authoritarian alternatives than previously believed.
As Indonesia’s democracy matures, it is inevitably being challenged by the forces of illiberalism and populism. Jokowi’s rise to power reflected anti-corruption fervor and a can-do track record that appealed to many Indonesians. His humble origins and non-elite background gave him a status that elevated expectations, both at home and abroad, that he might spearhead a reformist wave in national politics.
In his first term, Jokowi was successful in tackling corruption, promoting economic growth and improving access to health care. He has struggled, however, in addressing other pressing challenges. His administration’s lackluster response to the COVID-19 pandemic was especially concerning. It underscored the limits of democratic decision-making in a large and diverse country with a populist leader who harbors illiberal tendencies.
It is also increasingly difficult to ignore the role of the military in Indonesia’s democracy. In the wake of the outbreak, the military stepped in to enforce the nation’s quarantine laws. Its role in public health protocols has heightened concerns over the militarization of democracy. The military has also abused its autonomy by violating legal safeguards against misuse of force and engaging in censorship.
The military’s role in Indonesian democracy is a complex one, and its future will depend on the strength of civil institutions that can withstand pressure from illiberal elements and the army’s own inclinations toward populist authoritarianism. As Indonesia marks the 20th anniversary of its democracy experiment, it is important to ask: What does the future hold for a nation that has so often defied the odds?