{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1670994,
        "msgid": "pseudo-democracy-1775883045",
        "date": "2026-04-11 10:44:00",
        "title": "Pseudo-Democracy",
        "author": "Ferril Dennys",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Politics",
        "summary": "This opinion piece critiques the superficial nature of Indonesian democracy, arguing that it requires not just institutional rituals like elections but also ethical power dynamics, space for criticism, and respect for opposition. It references the recent controversy involving Saiful Mujani, whose criticism of President Prabowo's administration was misconstrued as incitement to rebellion, highlighting how such responses undermine democratic health by treating public dissent as a threat rather than a vital component. Grounded in Pancasila's fourth principle, the article emphasises that true legitimacy demands ongoing accountability and openness beyond electoral victories.",
        "content": "<p>Democracy is often understood simply as a procedure, such as\nquinquennial elections, elite rotations, freedom of speech, and the\nexistence of representative institutions. However, Indonesia\u2019s political\nhistory teaches that democracy cannot suffice merely as an institutional\nritual. Democracy must also live as an ethic of power, a space for\ncriticism, and respect for opposition. When these elements are merely\nshowcased on the surface while their substance is castrated, what\nemerges is pseudo-democracy. The latest polemic involving Saiful Mujani\nprovides important context for reading this phenomenon. In a discussion\nforum at the Utan Kayu Community, Saiful delivered sharp criticism of\nPresident Prabowo\u2019s administration. He stated that if advice is no\nlonger heeded, then in democratic logic, citizens have the right to push\nfor peaceful leadership change through public political pressure. That\nstatement was then twisted into an incitement to treason. However,\nSaiful himself clarified that what he meant was constitutional political\nparticipation. It is at this point that Indonesian democracy is being\ntested, because criticism of the president is not a political sin. In\nmodern democratic theory, opposition is not a threat to the state but a\ncondition for the state to remain healthy. If criticism of the\ngovernment is immediately suspected as subversive, what is being upheld\nis not democracy but an anti-corrective psychology of power. This\nresponse can be read as an effort to lower political tensions, but it\nshows a classic tendency of power that citizens\u2019 criticism is seen as\nperipheral disturbance. Public criticism is reduced to noise unworthy of\nargumentative response. Yet, the substance of Indonesian democracy does\nnot stop at electoral victory alone. Democracy in the Indonesian context\nis based on the fourth principle of Pancasila, namely popular\nsovereignty led by the wisdom of deliberation or representation. This\nmeans that the legitimacy of power is not only obtained through majority\nvotes but is also continuously tested through deliberation,\naccountability, and openness.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pseudo-democracy-1775883045",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}