Observer States Police Able to Control Escalation of Riots During 27 August Protests
Public Policy and Governance researcher, Gian Kasogi, assesses that the Indonesian National Police (Polri) were able to control the demonstrations in front of the DPR RI Building on 27 August 2026. He believes the police managed the situation effectively so that the potential for riots did not expand into a larger national security disturbance. Gian stated that the primary indicator of success in securing large-scale protests is not the total absence of friction, but rather the state’s ability to control escalation when situations begin to heat up.
“It is inaccurate to say that no riots occurred at all. Riots did happen, such as the destruction of public facilities and the burning of the DPR Building fences. However, what needs to be observed is how the state controls the escalation when the situation changes and ensures that disturbances do not develop into greater chaos,” said Gian during a public discussion titled “Preserving Democracy, Preventing Riots: Public Response to the Handling of the 27 August 2026 Protests” held by the Indonesian Aware of Politics (ISP) civil society coalition in Central Jakarta on Monday (31/8).
According to him, several reports indicated the destruction of public facilities, the burning of the DPR/MPR Building fences, and clashes in several locations following the series of protests. The police subsequently detained 322 individuals for questioning, consisting of 162 adults and 160 children or adolescents. Nevertheless, he considers the authorities’ ability to control escalation as a vital indicator in assessing the handling of large-scale demonstrations.
“The metric is not whether there is absolutely no friction during a demonstration. What is more important is how the state controls the escalation when the situation begins to change and ensures that security disturbances do not develop into larger chaos,” he noted.
According to Gian, Polri faces the challenge of performing two functions simultaneously: providing space for the public to express aspirations and maintaining public safety and order. He noted that cross-institutional coordination is a crucial factor in facing large-scale demonstrations.
“Securing large-scale demonstrations cannot rely solely on one institution. Polri remains the primary institution in security, but support from the TNI (National Armed Forces) and intelligence information can be part of the system to read situational developments and anticipate potential disturbances,” he said.
He added that the authorities’ ability to read changing situations is also vital, as demonstrations can undergo dynamic shifts when provocations, other groups, or actions deviating from the original purpose of expressing aspirations emerge.
“This is where the ability to read the situation is important. Authorities must not only be physically present but must also be able to identify changes in the field and take proportional action before disturbances escalate further,” he said.
While expressing appreciation for the security handling, Gian reminded that success in security should not be interpreted as success in limiting demonstrations. In a democracy, he argued, the state remains obligated to guarantee the public’s right to express opinions.
“Citizens have the right to express opinions in public. That right is an essential part of democracy and is protected under the constitution. The state’s duty is to ensure that this right can be exercised safely, not to eliminate it,” said Gian.
He added that the right to express opinions must also be exercised while respecting the rights of others.
“Demonstrations are a right. But that right does not stand alone. There are the rights of other members of the public that must also be respected. Therefore, the expression of aspirations must be carried out without damaging public facilities, committing violence, or endangering public safety,” he said.
Gian also assessed that it is important for authorities to distinguish between legitimate demonstrators and those committing violence or destruction.
“Do not label all protest participants as rioters. We must differentiate between citizens who come to convey aspirations and those who commit violence or destruction. Law enforcement must be directed at the acts and the individuals who are truly responsible,” he emphasised.
Gian stated that the legal process against those detained before or after the protests must be conducted professionally and based on evidence. He believes this step is essential to ensure that security handling remains aligned with the principles of the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
“If it is found that there are parties organising violence, it must certainly be proven. Do not stop at mere suspicion. Who did it, what was the act, and how they were involved must be proven through a legal process,” he said.
Gian assessed that the experience of securing the 27 August protests should serve as material for evaluation for Polri and relevant institutions. He noted that securing future mass protests needs to be increasingly information-based, ranging from situational mapping, communication with protest organisers, traffic management, and public protection, to the early identification of potential violence.
“The most important lesson from 27 August is that securing demonstrations requires preparation before the masses arrive, communication while the action is ongoing, and law enforcement after violations occur. All three must function as a single continuous process,” he concluded.