Democracy, Justice, and the Compass of Independence: Why We Must Be Anxious

As the 81st anniversary of Indonesia’s independence approaches, a fundamental question disturbs our collective consciousness: do we need democracy, or are justice, prosperity, and enlightenment the true goals of independence? At first glance, this question seems unbalanced. Social justice, public welfare, and the intellectual life of the nation are the noble mandates of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution—a non-negotiable purpose of the state. Meanwhile, democracy is merely the procedure or the means to achieve those ends. However, if the goal of independence is an absolute necessity, what about democracy? Must it exist? If so, in what form and of what quality must we live it?

Since the 1945 Proclamation, the struggle to realise democracy has always been a core part of the Republic’s journey. From the post-independence era of Parliamentary and Guided Democracy, through the New Order, to the 1998 Reform era, we have witnessed a recurring historical cycle: mass movements surge, leadership or regimes change, followed by a reorganisation of the political system—until the effectiveness of the democratisation process is once again called into question. The 1998 Reform movement dismantled the old structure by altering the power relationship between the people and their leaders, and between the central government and the regions. Broad regional autonomy was granted, while direct general elections became the instrument of popular sovereignty to choose representatives and leaders. Yet, why, after more than a quarter of a century of Reformasi, is Indonesia’s democratic practice being fundamentally questioned again?

The answer to this question aligns with global trends. Over the past decade, all major international research institutions have recorded a democratic backsliding in various parts of the world, including Indonesia. To understand this erosion, we must return to the essential nature of democracy. Democracy is fundamentally a method of managing power that involves the sovereign people and the mandate holders continuously, from planning and regulation to implementation and accountability reporting. In the doctrine of Trias Politica, the mandate holders consist of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, which must work within a transparent and accountable governance framework to the people.

Thus, democracy is not limited to the periodic right to vote in a ballot box or the existence of formal spaces for criticism. The reality today is that the multiparty dialogue between stakeholders, the people, and mandate holders often devolves into mere formal ritual. The quality of conversation in the public sphere—especially in the digital realm—frequently loses its substance, generating only political noise and shallow polarisation. So, what is truly needed to weave an authentic, productive, and generative power relationship for our shared future? There are at least five main pillars that must be simultaneously established.

Historian Yuval Noah Harari reminds us that a nation or civilisation is easily destroyed when its self-correcting mechanism ceases to function. Authoritarian systems often offer the illusion of short-term stability and efficiency, but they are extremely fragile because they lack the space to acknowledge, test, and correct mistakes. Democracy, in its essence, is a shared space for a nation to feel challenges, learn together, try new breakthroughs, and conduct honest evaluation and correction. Only through a living self-correction mechanism can various global and local challenges—from the climate crisis and technological disruption to economic inequality—be faced with collective intelligence and strength. Without a healthy democracy, the nation’s adaptive capacity and viability are stunted. The quality of conversation at all levels and forums determines the quality of public policy and life.

So, what is the meaning of the people’s right to vote if it is ultimately reduced to a pragmatic transactional space of ‘how much’? What is the use of the Trias Politica relationship if it operates without effective checks and balances? And what is the point of public discourse if it only results in digital noise that never produces concrete solutions? If we allow democracy to stagnate in this transactional and formalistic state, then instead of moving towards the vision of a Golden Indonesia, we all have every reason to be anxious. Democracy is not the final goal, but it is an absolute prerequisite to ensure that the path towards justice, prosperity, and national enlightenment is not hijacked by the interests of a few elites. Fixing the quality of democracy is the only way to ensure the ideals of the 1945 Proclamation become a reality for all Indonesian people.