Personal Attacks on Social Media Deemed Unrepresentative of Public Opinion

The proliferation of social media content that personally attacks the head of government is considered not to reflect the quality of a healthy democracy. Criticism of the government should be directed at policy and performance, not devolve into insults that target the personal domain. Political analyst and Executive Director of Indeks Data Nasional, Ayip Tayana, assessed that labelling the head of government with the term Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) does not constitute substantive criticism. “This nation must be able to distinguish between criticism and what is called an insult. The government must indeed be criticised, but calling it NPD is not criticism in my view,” Ayip said. According to him, personal attacks that degrade a person’s dignity cannot be justified in the name of freedom of expression. Criticism should be accompanied by arguments and directed at government policies or actions. “There is no argumentation there, no responsibility. It is only used to ignite public emotion and anger,” he stated. Ayip noted that negative content often garners high engagement on social media. This situation could potentially create the misconception that social media conversations represent the majority’s views. “In Indonesia, content that is negative or emotional and attacks certain political groups tends to get high engagement. This should not be allowed to drag on because democracy requires freedom of speech, but also maturity and responsibility,” he said. He assessed that the high volume of negative conversations on social media does not automatically depict the public’s overall attitude. In terms of political legitimacy and various survey results, he said, the level of support for the government remains at a majority level. Ayip mentioned that the government obtained strong political legitimacy through a general election victory in a single round with around 58 percent of the vote. Additionally, he cited a Poltracking Indonesia survey showing that 74.2 percent of respondents expressed trust in the government, while 72.2 percent were satisfied with the government’s performance. “These survey results can serve as indicators that public support and trust in the government remain at a majority level,” he said. Nevertheless, Ayip cautioned that high satisfaction levels do not mean all government policies have been accepted without criticism. Findings of dissatisfaction in certain sectors must still be used as evaluation material. “The high satisfaction rate should be appreciated, but findings of dissatisfaction in specific sectors must also serve as evaluation material for the government,” he said.