National Awakening: Indonesia Must Reclaim Sovereignty Over Algorithms
National Awakening Day is often treated as an annual ritual. Ceremonies are held, speeches read, and it ends. Yet 20 May should be more than a calendar ceremony; National Awakening Day serves as a moral alarm for the Indonesian nation.
If in 1908 Budi Utomo rose to challenge territorial colonialism, in 2026 Indonesia faces a new challenge in the form of algorithmic colonialism.
It is a reminder that the nation once rose from backwardness through education, collective consciousness, and the courage to determine its own future. This spirit of escaping backwardness grew among Indonesia’s educated elite at the start of the 20th century.
Thus in 1908, students of STOVIA established Budi Utomo as a symbol of resistance to colonialism. They understood that a nation oppressed would never advance without education, collective consciousness, and the courage to decide its own fate.
Now, more than a century later, Indonesia is politically independent. Yet new challenges emerge in a far subtler form: the algorithm. Today, what we see, read, and even think is slowly steered by a global digital system operating quietly behind our phone screens.
We feel free to choose, yet our choices are often already structured by algorithms. Herbert Marcuse reminded us that modern humans often feel free, while unconsciously living within a system that controls how they think.
The simple question: is Indonesia truly rising, or is it entering a new form of colonisation?
Digitalisation intensifies, but sovereignty does not automatically follow
Indonesia is indeed experiencing a digital boom. Data from the Indonesian Internet Service Providers Association (APJII)—an organisation that surveys and maps national internet usage—shows that in 2025 internet users reached 229.4 million of a total population of around 284.4 million. The penetration rate is 80.66 percent, meaning eight in ten Indonesians are connected to the internet.
The youth generation is the main driving force. Gen Z, millennials, and Generation Alpha live almost entirely in the digital space. Online shopping, online learning, online entertainment, and even social relations now largely unfold on screens. But internet connectivity alone does not automatically translate into progress.
The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology notes that the 2024 Indonesian Digital Society Index (IMDI) stands at 43.34. The IMDI is an indicator used to measure Indonesians’ readiness and capability in utilising digital technology, ranging from internet access and digital skills to their use in social and economic life. Its rise from the previous year is marginal; even the pillar on digital infrastructure fell from 57.09 to 52.70.
These figures point to one important conclusion: Indonesia is quickly adding internet users, but not moving quickly enough to build a digitally literate population. In other words, more and more Indonesians are connected to the internet, but not everyone possesses digital literacy, data security awareness, or optimal use of technology.
The gap remains pronounced. Jakarta scores 50.5 on the IMDI, while Papua scores 40.46 and North Maluku 38.32. This means the digital transformation is not evenly distributed.
In big cities, people are becoming familiar with the digital economy, artificial intelligence, and data-based services. Yet in many other areas, stable internet access and basic digital infrastructure remain major challenges.
Herein lies today’s Indonesian paradox. We appear modern because we are active on social media, but we are not necessarily digitally sovereign. We actively use technology, yet much of the technology is owned, regulated, and controlled by external parties.
We are online every day, but our data, behaviour, and attention are “fuel” for global tech companies.
When Pancasila is tested in the era of Artificial Intelligence
Amid the rapid flow of technology, the big question is no longer whether AI will arrive. AI has arrived. The question is: who will this technology be used for? As Martin Heidegger reminded us, technology is never completely neutral because it shapes how humans view the world. This is where Pancasila becomes highly relevant.
Notonagoro explained that Pancasila is a coherent philosophical system, from Godliness to Social Justice. This implies that nation-building cannot focus solely on economic efficiency, but must also safeguard human dignity.
Meanwhile, Yudi Latif describes Pancasila as a working ideology—an ideology that must be kept alive in line with the challenges of the age.
If, in the past, justice referred to land and natural resources, today justice also concerns digital access, information access, and access to technology. After all, algorithms are not neutral.
What goes viral on social media is determined by certain systems. What appears on our home screens is chosen by machines. Even opportunities in the digital economy flow more to areas with advanced infrastructure. In other words, technology can widen social inequality without us realising it.
If artificial intelligence only benefits big cities while rural areas fall further behind, then the fifth principle’s goal of social justice is being tested.
Therefore, Indonesia cannot be content with being merely a technology market. Indonesia must also be a subject that determines the direction of technology use in its own interests.