Hoaxes, Elites, and the Test of Democratic Maturity
The digital realm is once again abuzz with the spread of a video containing statements by Amien Rais, a national figure with a long track record in Indonesia’s democratic journey, followed by a variety of interpretations in public spaces. Fragments of information, added narratives, and unverified assumptions mix in an unstoppable stream of conversation. As a result, the public no longer faces a single reality but multiple versions circulating in society.
As a public opinion researcher, I currently observe that society is increasingly quick to react in accepting various pieces of information, but this is not always accompanied by the depth to verify them. This phenomenon is not merely about the truth or falsity of information; what is intriguing to reflect on is how such information can spread rapidly, be accepted, and even believed by parts of the public. In this context, what is at stake is no longer just the accuracy of the information but also the quality of our democracy.
In public opinion theory, Walter Lippmann states that the public does not respond to reality directly but through the “pictures in their heads.” This means that what society believes is often the result of constructed information they receive, shaped by successive fragments of information that arrive quickly, repeatedly, and often without full context.
Consequently, before facts are fully assembled, perceptions often form first. From various surveys conducted by Poltracking Indonesia, it is evident that the public does not always wait for clarification to form a judgement; perceptions can form from incomplete fragments of information. At this point, it is impressions, not facts, that take effect.
Moreover, the dynamics of the digital world now enter a more complex phase, with advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) making the boundary between the real and the fabricated increasingly thin. Videos featuring someone’s face and voice can now be replicated convincingly.
What appears authentic is not necessarily what truly occurred in the real world. In practice, the public will find it increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine statements from those generated by technology. This is no longer just about missing information fragments or context but about reality that can be engineered audio-visually.
In the political context, this situation brings non-simple implications. Joseph Schumpeter views democracy as an arena of competition to gain public support. However, in contemporary practice, that competition does not only occur through policies but also through narratives. When technology enables the creation of seemingly real narratives, the field of competition becomes more complex.
Those who appear first in public spaces are often believed first, regardless of truth. Here, we witness a shift from fact-based politics to politics increasingly influenced by perceptions. This does not mean facts lose relevance, but they are often left behind by the rapid flow of information.
At the same time, our public space is no longer singular. As Jürgen Habermas reminds us, ideal democracy relies on open rational discourse. However, in digital practice, public space becomes fragmented into various groups with their own information preferences. Social media algorithms push individuals to be exposed more frequently to information aligning with their views.
As a result, the public no longer inhabits a single discussion space but multiple “echo chambers” that reinforce their respective beliefs. In this situation, unverified information can easily be accepted if it aligns with one’s preferences.
In such a divided space, information is not only judged by its accuracy but also by its alignment with one’s beliefs. What feels “true” is often more readily accepted than something well-verified. Hoaxes are no longer merely a matter of erroneous information but part of a broader dynamic: how narratives work, how perceptions form, and how public trust can be won.
This challenge has the potential to grow larger in the future. Considering current technological developments, the 2029 elections will take place in an information landscape far more complex than today. It is not impossible that the public will face waves of content that appears authentic, complete with faces, voices, and gestures from contesting candidates, but actually the result of AI engineering. In such a situation, hoaxes are no longer just disruptions but a real threat to the quality of democracy.
The role of public figures in this situation becomes very important yet sensitive. Statements from figures like Amien Rais are not only read as personal opinions but also as signals that can be interpreted in various directions. In the digital ecosystem, one statement can live with multiple meanings, depending on how it is received and disseminated.
Today’s public is not merely recipients of information but part of the information flow itself. Choices to share, respond to, or even ignore information have consequences for the direction of public conversation.
This is where the true test lies. Not in how much information we receive, but in how wisely we handle it. Not just in how quickly we respond, but also in