When Democracy Fails to Learn from its Wounds

Civilians are once again becoming victims. A year ago, it was Affan Kurniawan; this year, Bambang Setiawan. These tragedies leave deep wounds and raise fundamental questions: why does this pattern repeat year after year? Who should be held responsible when the lives of innocent citizens are lost amidst riots?

In a democracy, citizens expressing their opinions to the government peacefully is a natural occurrence. However, the story changes when every demonstration is met with chaos that ultimately claims lives. This is both an irony and a tragedy of democracy that requires an immediate remedy, so that our wounds do not deepen. If left unaddressed, there is a fear that the same pattern will recur next year, bringing back the same unanswered question: who is responsible?

Pejompongan, Central Jakarta; these two tragedies occurred in almost the same location, near the DPR/MPR Building. Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year-old man, was delivering food orders on 28 August 2025, as he was the sole breadwinner for his family, working daily as an online motorcycle taxi driver. He was run over by a Brimob tactical vehicle during the dispersal of a crowd that had exceeded its permitted time. Unexpectedly, Affan became trapped in the panicking crowd. He was crushed and passed away.

One year later, a similar pattern occurred in nearly the same place. On 27 August 2026, following an action by the Aliansi Masyarakat Pati Bersatu in front of the DPR Building—which initially proceeded peacefully and even received a response from DPR leadership—some protesters chose to remain after the permit expired. The situation heated up when security forces began dispersing the crowd. Chaos broke out in the residential area of Pejompongan.

Amidst the chaos, Bambang Setiawan, a resident not involved with the protesters and not involved in any clashes with authorities, was found dead, having been assaulted by a group of unidentified individuals, suspected to be infiltrators taking advantage of the situation after the protesters had officially dispersed. Like Affan, Bambang was not a participant in the protest. He was an ordinary citizen who happened to be in his own neighbourhood when a riot, which he did not instigate, took his life.

This pattern should make us pause and ask: if in these two years civilian lives have been lost at identical points and moments, is this truly a coincidence, or a reflection of the same underlying weakness that has never been truly rectified?

The root of the riots does not stem from the protests themselves; the actions can proceed well and peacefully. According to reports by Detiknews on 27/08/2026, the Metro Jaya Regional Police stated: The AMPB mass action proceeded in a conducive, safe, and peaceful manner. However, the peaceful situation changed at night; rioters arrived, and the crowd fled and dispersed.

Even more heartbreaking is that a civilian, having no connection to the rioting crowd, became a victim of brutality. Although this case has not been fully uncovered, and it is not yet certain who the perpetrators are—with investigations ongoing by the authorities—there is one critical concern we must share: the safety of civilians continues to be overshadowed by violence, assault, and even loss of life.

From these events, it is natural to ask: why could security forces not secure the residential areas surrounding the unrest? This is not intended to corner the security forces. While they may have exerted maximum effort, this may be the point of weakness in these incidents, where they escaped the oversight of the authorities.

These recurring events raise further questions. This question always arises whenever news of mourning is broadcast, yet the answers are almost never complete because responsibility in such tragedies is multi-layered.

The first layer involves the perpetrators on the ground. In the case of Bambang Setiawan, he was forcibly dragged from an alley near his house and assaulted by a group of unidentified individuals, suspected to be infiltrators exploiting the situation after the demonstration subsided. Video footage showing the moments the victim was dragged and brutally beaten circulated widely on social media. However, the police are still investigating the perpetrators. Legally, the perpetrators remain unidentified, and this is precisely where the first responsibility should begin: to uncover who they are, rather than stopping at mere allegations and denials in the media.

The second layer involves security forces on the ground. The police confirmed they received reports regarding the assault on a citizen, but evacuation could not be performed immediately because the situation was deemed non-conducive; thus, Bambang was only evacuated in an unconscious state after the area was secured. The gap between the report being received and the arrival of help raises its own question: how much priority is placed on protecting civilians amidst the task of crowd control?

In the case of Affan Kurniawan a year prior, the issue was more direct: he was struck by a tactical vehicle belonging to the security forces themselves during the dispersal of the crowd, which several activists assessed as a form of excessive use of force.

The third layer involves institutions and the legal process. In Affan’s case, seven Brimob members were immediately detained by Propam shortly after the incident, and the President personally expressed condolences and requested a transparent investigation. In Bambang’s case, Metro Jaya investigators stated they are still gathering legal facts, while the autopsy requested by the police to confirm the cause of death was rejected by the family, an obstacle that hampers the investigation process.