Since its improbable emergence from authoritarian rule in 1998, Indonesia has been hailed as a rare example of democratic transition and persistence in an era of global democratic setbacks. The world’s fourth-largest democracy has a vibrant civil society, a flourishing print media, and competitive multiparty politics. The country’s citizens have participated in free and fair elections and have enjoyed several peaceful rotations of power.

This year, however, the country’s once-reviled institutions have been weakened by a series of policy missteps. Corruption remains rife, and many believe President Joko Widodo has been unwilling or incapable of taming the endemic graft. There is also widespread concern over the spread of religious intolerance and pockets of extremism. And the archipelago nation is facing serious climate challenges, including rising sea levels that threaten to submerge Jakarta under water.

In this tumultuous environment, the 2024 presidential election provides an important test for Indonesia’s democracy. In its latest report, the NDI ranks the country’s democracy as flawed. This assessment is based on four key indicators, all of which are related to democracy in practice.

First, the partisanship in the legislature is excessively strong. The number of legislative parties that belong to the governing coalition exceeds the minimum required for a functional majority in parliament. Consequently, the president’s ability to govern is constrained. Second, the electoral system is too fragmented. Its rules were designed through a process that took years, with parties carefully considering the implications of each amendment and bartering support for one change in exchange for support on another. The result is a legislature that is divided into a handful of ideological groups with little common ground.

Third, the purely utilitarian view of elections privileges bureaucratic efficiency over citizens’ rights. Despite being presented with a narrow bandwidth of candidate quality, Indonesian voters have shown that they can identify and punish non-performing leaders. This year, they voted out four of the ten incumbents running for reelection.

Finally, the public officials need to understand that they are not the enemy when their performances and actions are criticized by society. They should recognize that criticism as a way to improve their work and avoid being criminalized for defamation or hate speech. This is particularly important in a country that is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Article 19 which underscores freedom of opinion. This article requires that states guarantee that citizens have the right to freely express their opinions without fear of persecution or discrimination. This is the fundamental principle of democracy and it needs to be upheld at all levels. The future of Indonesia’s democracy depends on it.

Democracy is a system of government that gives people the power to make laws and govern. There are many different forms of democracy, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, democracy is a political system that encourages participation and openness. It is often associated with a free press and the rule of law. It is also associated with a limited amount of inequality in economic and social terms, and the protection of human rights.

The term “democracy” is derived from two Greek words: demos (people) and kratia (power or authority). How power is distributed within a democracy has changed over time. For example, direct democracy delegate authority directly to the people through referendums and other forms of popular input while representative democracy delegates authority to representatives elected by the people. In addition, there are different types of voting systems such as first-past-the-post or proportional representation and electoral systems such as plurality and majority vote.

Most democratic theorists argue that the moral case for democracy is strong. They point to several instrumental benefits that are attributed to democracy: better laws and policies and improvements in the characters of citizens. They also emphasize that a democracy, by its very nature, tends to lead to more just societies.

Some scholars have argued that democracy fosters freedom of expression, champions the rule of law, runs competitive elections and supports an independent media, which are all important for good governance. These arguments are based on the idea that, in democratic societies, people are able to challenge the status quo and develop unconventional ideas.

Moreover, they can experiment with ideas and implement them in ways that would be impossible under an authoritarian regime. The implication is that the development of these ideas and their implementation in democratic societies creates new opportunities, which in turn fuels economic growth. A good example is Silicon Valley, where innovation and creativity are fueled by the freedom of expression.

On the other hand, some argue that the democratic process is not always ideal and that a democracy may be less effective than alternative political institutions in some circumstances. They cite the risk of corruption, the emergence of special interests and biased reasoning among citizens as some problems associated with democracy. They also argue that democracy is an ideal only when the political system is genuinely pluralistic, allowing many competing voices to be heard and giving minority views a chance to be represented.

It is important to note that there is no single model of a democratic society and that different nations should have the liberty to choose their own political system. Nevertheless, most democratic theorists agree that it is a mistake to measure democratic success using a single yardstick and that the evaluation of democracy should take into account the context in which it is evaluated.

The most widely used measurement of democracy is the World Democracy Index (WDI), which is published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. WDI uses a variety of data to rank countries according to the quality and strength of their democracy. A country’s ranking can change over time as it improves or declines.

The law is a system of rules that regulates the behavior of people and their interactions with one another. The rules are enforced by a controlling authority and can result in penalties if they are violated. Law is the basis of civilization and civility and gives society structure to govern its members.

Legal systems vary widely across the world. The United States employs a common law system, which is based on court decisions rather than statutes passed by the legislature. Other countries have codified laws, such as the Roman-derived civil law found in countries such as Japan.

A law can be a command or an injunction that must be obeyed, such as the speed limit or the traffic laws. A law can also be a principle that guides or controls human conduct, such as the laws of morality or the principles of natural justice. For example, the principle that a person must not lie is a law that must be obeyed.

The practice of law involves advising and representing individuals and businesses in their legal matters. It can be performed by lawyers, judges, or others with legal training. Lawyers must be licensed by the highest court of their jurisdiction to practice law.

Law is a complex subject with many different kinds of laws, such as criminal law, contract law, property law, and labor law. Each kind of law covers a specific area of human activity or human relations. For example, criminal law deals with the punishment of crimes and can be interpreted to include a variety of activities, such as fraud, larceny, and murder. Contract law, on the other hand, relates to the formation of contracts and the legal rights and duties of parties to such contracts. Property law encompasses the ownership of movable and immovable goods, including land, houses, vehicles, and personal possessions. It is governed by state and federal laws, as well as the common law.

One theory of law is that it has no inherent logical structure, but rather emerges through the felt necessities and the currents of social life. Other scholars, such as Hans Kelsen, believe that laws are based on the concept of the right and wrong. These theories are often used to explain how laws change over time.

The law is a dynamic and constantly changing phenomenon. It is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the currents of social life and of human relationships. For this reason, it is difficult to define in a simple way. There are, however, several areas of study that shed light on the nature of law. These include:

Since the end of dictatorship in 1998, Indonesia has made impressive progress toward democracy. The country now enjoys political and media pluralism, multiple peaceful transfers of power, devolved government, and good-quality infrastructure, among other indicators. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain. These include systemic corruption, discrimination and violence against minority groups, conflict in Papua, and the politicized use of blasphemy laws.

These problems are rooted in the legacy of authoritarian regimes, the emergence of antipluralist and illiberal social forces, pervasive economic inequality, gross disparities in governance performance across the country, and a military that is stubbornly unwilling to cede full control of politics. At the same time, Indonesian politics have long been characterized by a patronage-based logic that incentivizes elite-level compromise and cooptation across ideological lines. One mechanism that tempers polarization is the ability of the president to build governing coalitions out of a fragmented legislature. Nonetheless, the size of these coalitions has become oversized in recent years, incentivizing legislative parties to collude with one another and minimize the effectiveness of the rump parliamentary opposition.

Electoral competition is also constrained by the dominance of old elites who can trace their fortunes back to the Suharto era and earlier, as well as by dynastic politics and electoral clientelism that distort representation and party polarization from local on up. Moreover, Indonesians are now exposed to an unprecedented amount of electioneering propaganda in the digital age. This new reality has heightened popular frustration over the electoral process, while reducing the likelihood that they will hold politicians accountable for their policies and practices once elected.

Indonesians deserve a political system that empowers them to make the best choices for their country, not a system that merely echoes the superficial appearance of democracy. To nurture a richer democratic space, the government should stop seeking validation from civil society organizations that agree with its policy positions and start welcoming active criticism of its own record and intentions.

The Indonesian government is threatening to change the rules of elections by shifting back to an indirect system for choosing regional executives, which it had originally introduced as part of a democratic transition meant to devolve governance and empower citizens. This purely utilitarian view of the role of elections privileges bureaucratic efficiency over citizens’ rights to choose their own leaders. It should instead defend the direct election of local executives, which is a hallmark of democracy in Indonesia and has enabled residents to identify and punish non-performing officials by voting them out. If the government is to nurture a true democracy, it should also act on the normative plans it has outlined in official documents and statements and commit to strengthening democracy outside of elections. If it fails to do so, the country will continue to stray from the path of democracy as practiced in other democracies.

The word democracy comes from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (power or rule). It is a system of government that relies on the people to make decisions and to provide feedback. Democracy thrives when citizens use their freedom to participate in civic life, whether it’s voting, protesting or taking part in other civic activities such as volunteering or activism. This participation ensures that the people’s views are reflected in decision-making and gives them power over their own lives.

However, democracy has its challenges. As the world faces rapid change, some people have doubts about the value of the popular vote and of democracy in general. Others feel that it is being threatened by the rise of populists and demagogues who threaten liberal values. And a growing number of people in the developed world are frustrated that their democratic institutions do not respond to their concerns about the environment, globalization and inequality.

A strong democracy requires compromise, cooperation and trust. It depends on a society that supports its members, protects their rights and provides them with opportunities to fulfil their potential. It needs an effective government that is transparent and accountable, and a well-functioning civil society that is active and reaches out to all groups, including the poorest and most excluded. It should also be built on a foundation of fair rules that govern behaviour and that are clear, widely understood and well enforced.

In the face of these challenges, democracy must be resilient and adaptable. It must be able to weather seismic shifts in public opinion and political trends, as well as changes in technology, demographics and culture. And it must be able to respond to crises by providing people with the tools and incentives to take control of their lives, their communities and their futures.

But how can we tell if a democracy is healthy? And what does it look like when it’s under threat? The answers are complex. But in the long run, a healthy democracy is defined by several fundamentals:

– People have freedom of speech and association, and can move and speak freely (as long as they don’t harm others). They have the right to choose who makes decisions for them, and the law must treat everyone equally and fairly.

– Opposing views are tolerated and respected, and people have the right to assemble and to petition their government. They can also be heard, and laws should be clearly written and enforceable.

As the Economist’s Democracy Index shows, many countries struggle to meet these criteria. In 2020, for example, most nations saw their score decline as they imposed lockdowns and other restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The exception was Taiwan, which jumped to 11th place after reforms in the judiciary. As a result, the average score for the world fell to its lowest level since 2006.

The United States calls itself a “city upon a hill” and a “beacon of democracy,” and its political system was designed to defend democracy at the time of its founding. But today, American democracy is gravely ill with money politics, elite rule and political polarization. It has reached the breaking point and is not working for ordinary people.

To make democracy work, it must be based on equal participation of all citizens, and the rule of law must govern behavior and protect individual rights. In America, however, government power has been used to stifle the voices of minorities and to infringe on individual rights. The result has been the hollowing out of democracy and the growth of a new form of authoritarianism.

A major reason for this crisis is the exploitation of American democracy by wealthy interests and the growth of a two-party system that has become ideologically extreme. In America, winning a Congressional seat requires huge financial support from large corporations and a small group of wealthy individuals. This makes it possible for candidates with greater financial backing to control Congress, and it is also easier for them to influence legislation by funding their own initiatives and speaking for vested interests rather than the public interest. This kind of strategic manipulation of elections is a direct threat to democracy.

Another serious problem is the expansion of executive power and efforts to erode the independence of the civil service. In addition, the United States is one of the few established democracies with lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, while all other advanced democracies have term limits or mandatory retirement ages. These factors can undermine democracy even if legitimately elected leaders do not abuse their powers, but they can contribute to the appearance of illegitimate power grabs.

These problems have made the United States less effective at addressing international threats and meeting challenges at home. America’s score on the Democracy Index fell from 83 in 2021 to just 79 in 2025—lower than every other established democracy and many new or troubled democracies, including Argentina, Poland and Lithuania.

De Tocqueville warned that American citizens could eventually grow so satisfied with the equal treatment they received from one another that they would stop participating in self-government, and that society would be covered over with a network of petty rules that might be as oppressive as any cruel European monarchy. We are now at that dangerous moment. The future of our country, and indeed the world, depends on a return to true democracy. To do so, we need to understand what has happened and what can be done to restore its promise. We hope this article will help in that effort.

Freedom is an ideal that allows people to live their lives in a way that best suits them. It is the foundation of self-fulfillment and a crucial element for society to maintain flourishing communities.

Freedom can be difficult to achieve and maintain, especially for those who are easily distracted. Achieving and maintaining freedom is a process, one that begins with baby steps. A newborn is born with a limited amount of freedom, but as they grow, they acquire more and more, and reach milestones like their first word, step or bike ride. In the same way, we can create our own freedom by taking small steps towards a more productive lifestyle.

The first step towards freedom is to eliminate distractions. Distractions can come from any number of sources, from social media to news websites to time-wasting apps. Using an app like Freedom can help you to block distracting websites and apps, creating a more productive work environment. Freedom is available for Mac, Windows, iOS and Android devices, and it works by blocking specific websites or the entire internet for a specified period of time, with the option to include multiple devices in each session. Users can also customize and tag websites or apps to block them more precisely, and they can choose from a list of preset blocks such as social media, news sites or gaming.

To use Freedom, start by installing the app on all of the devices you wish to block. Next, choose a session length from the options in the dashboard. Then, select the apps and websites you want to block by choosing from pre-made lists in categories such as social media, news or adult sites, or by entering a custom URL. The app will automatically sync all of your selected devices and lock them into a session, locking you out of the internet for a specific time period, with the ability to unlock the device once your blocked time is over.

Unlike some other blocker apps, Freedom doesn’t require an upfront request for payment and is free to try. However, if you want to continue using the app once your 7-use trial is up, there are several subscription plans to choose from. Freedom is available on a month-to-month basis at a cost of $6.99 per month, with yearly or lifetime discounts.

In addition to blocking websites and apps, the Freedom app offers features that can increase productivity by tracking and reporting on focus sessions, as well as offering a more healthy work/life balance. Users can set up recurring focused work periods with Freedom, and it is possible to review and track their progress after each successful session. This app is perfect for those who struggle to keep themselves on task and can benefit from the added motivation that comes with eliminating digital distractions. It can be challenging to break bad habits and develop good ones on your own, but tools like Freedom can make the process much easier and more manageable.

Law is a set of rules created and enforced by the state to guarantee that society is safe, people can enjoy their freedoms and rights and that any disagreements or conflicts are settled fairly. It also serves to shape politics, economics, history and society in many ways. The exact nature of the laws varies from place to place, as each legal system has its own distinct characteristics.

A law may be a statute or a constitutional document. A statute is a legislative enactment that is binding on all members of the community, whether they were involved in its creation or not. The other type of law is a constitution, which is the set of principles that defines the way in which a state operates and protects individual rights. The laws of a nation may be based on religious beliefs, cultural traditions or a desire to improve the quality of life for all its citizens.

The purpose of law is to create a framework for social order and stability, prevent violence and crime, promote prosperity and equality, preserve minority rights, ensure justice and facilitate positive social change. It is a complex tool that can be used for good or evil, depending on the intention of those creating and enforcing it. A government ruled by an authoritarian leader, for example, may keep the peace and maintain the status quo, but it can also oppress minorities and limit the freedoms of individuals. In contrast, a democracy will generally serve its citizens better, but it is possible for the democratic process to be manipulated by those who seek power.

For this reason it is important to understand the origins of the laws in a particular country, as this will give a clearer picture of the reasons for their existence and how they work in practice. A number of different theories have been developed to explain the origins and nature of law. For example, Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian theory states that law is a series of commands, backed by the threat of sanctions, from a sovereign to whom people have a natural obedience. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of natural law, which was later influenced by the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, suggests that law reflects the moral laws of nature.

The rule of law is an idea that has its roots in ancient times and resonates in most major legal traditions. It emphasises the importance of a free society, where people are free in thought, free in speech and freely able to criticise their governments. It is an essential foundation for a prosperous, peaceful and sustainable world. The rule of law is a long-term goal that requires commitment from all parts of the legal ecosystem. It includes not only the state but also civil society, private enterprise and the judiciary. For further reading on this subject, see: legal system; law, philosophy of; censorship; criminal law; and the state.

With more than 204 million registered voters for next week’s presidential election, Indonesia is one of the world’s largest democracies. It is also one of the sternest tests yet for democracy’s progress. The country’s political transition from authoritarian rule to democratic governance began in 1998 and was facilitated by free and fair elections, the rising influence of regional centers as a result of decentralization since 2001, and the first peaceful transfer of power between democratically elected presidents – Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to his successor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in 2014.

But despite these achievements, the state still exerts an overwhelming influence over Indonesian politics – not only through its own direct interventions but by incentivizing legislative parties to collude rather than compete, distorting electoral representation and partisan politics from the local level up, and permitting dynastic politics to thrive. Corruption is widespread; respect for personal freedoms is constrained by broad and vaguely worded laws – some dating back to the Suharto era or even Dutch colonial times – that allow entrenched economic elites, religious organizations and security forces to threaten and intimidate journalists, publishers and NGOs.

Although Indonesians’ faith in democracy is strong, the country faces serious challenges, not only as it prepares for its most consequential election to date but in the future. The 2024 contest, for example, appears to be headed toward a close race between Jokowi and former general Prabowo Subianto, who ran in 2014 and 2019. Prabowo’s checkered past has drawn dire narratives from abroad that suggest his victory would be a death knell for the country’s fledgling democracy.

The most serious challenges, however, are more likely to stem from the underlying social and political conditions that produced Indonesia’s electoral landscape. They include the dominance of wealthy elites who can trace their fortunes to the heyday of Suharto’s autocracy; the oversized legislative coalitions required by a multiparty presidential system, which incentivize parties to collude and erode the effectiveness of a rump parliamentary opposition; gross inequalities that create marked differences in the quality of democracy across the nation; antipluralist and illiberal social forces that have grown more potent over time; an army that is reluctant to cede full control of politics to civilian forces; high levels of official corruption; and electoral clientelism and vote buying that distort representation and partisan politics from the local to the national level.

Fortunately, outside government, efforts are underway to manage polarization at the societal level. Prominent civil society organizations such as the Wahid Institute and the National Democratic Institute have a long history of supporting programs for the consolidation of democracy in Indonesia. Meanwhile, an array of grassroots media-based nongovernmental organizations are seeking to challenge regressive, antidemocratic political forces and educate voters on the dangers of extremism. These and other efforts deserve support. But, above all, voters must demand more from politicians – not only promises of good governance but tangible actions on the ground that ensure their electoral voices are heard and that democratic institutions are protected and strengthened.

A democracy is a form of government in which citizens directly elect representatives to make laws and policies. It is also a system of political governance characterized by the principle that people’s interests should be equally advanced. This definition is compatible with a variety of electoral systems, for example both first-past-the-post voting and proportional representation. However, the definition does not settle normative questions about whether democracy is desirable in any particular context.

One popular justification for democracy appeals to the value of individual liberty. This view holds that each person’s life is deeply shaped by the larger social, legal and cultural environment in which she lives and that only when democratic participation gives her a say in collective decision-making will she have a chance to govern herself freely.

Another justification argues that the character of democracy encourages people to stand up for themselves and their rights. For this reason, many philosophers have argued that democracy is better able to protect citizens’ interests than other forms of rule. For instance, John Stuart Mill argues that the fact that democracy involves giving citizens a share in political decision-making forces those making those decisions to take into account the judgments and interests of a wider range of individuals than do monarchy or aristocracy.

In addition to its procedural aspects, some theorists argue that democracy should be defined in terms of substantive equality. This may involve the formal equality of one vote per citizen in a direct or indirect election for representation in parliament, and/or it may encompass more profound principles like equal opportunities for participation in deliberation and coalition building leading up to elections.

The relationship between democracy and development has been a major topic of debate in recent decades. Some think that economic growth must come before democracy and that democracies are best suited to societies in the early stages of development when they are likely to generate more sustainable levels of wealth and prosperity.

Others argue that democratic institutions and practices can be justified without reference to economic outcomes. In fact, there is ample evidence that democracy can produce positive results in the short run even when it is accompanied by relatively low levels of economic growth. In the short term, a democratic system of government can promote social cohesion and peace, reduce inequality and poverty, and create jobs and investment in infrastructure.

In the long term, however, the economic performance of a democracy depends on a wide variety of factors, including its quality of education and health care, its capacity to innovate, the quality of its financial markets, and the strength of civil society. Nevertheless, most observers agree that the overall trend has been favorable for democracy and that it is a good idea. The question remains, therefore, how to evaluate different moral justifications for democracy and to what extent they should be weighed against purely instrumental considerations. Ultimately, that is a question for individual philosophers to answer on the basis of their own values and conceptions of human beings and society.