The political upheaval—indeed a crisis, if one dares to characterise it as such—that has engulfed Indonesia during the nascent stages of the current administration has spawned a multitude of theoretical interpretations warranting rigorous scrutiny. Three primary arguments demand our attention: first, that the widespread unrest and public demonstrations stem from a fundamental breakdown in governmental communication channels; second, that we are witnessing a profound crisis of leadership authenticity, with executive power effectively captured by the overwhelming interests of an expansive political coalition; and third, that a systemic rejection of meritocratic principles from the administration's inception has precipitated a devastating erosion of public confidence.
This analysis endeavours to methodically examine these critical variables, offering citizens a framework through which to comprehend the underlying causes of collective anxiety, organised protest, and pervasive disillusionment with President Prabowo Subianto and Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka's governance.
Only through unflinching candour regarding recent events can we meaningfully dissect the manifestations of this political crisis that continues to unfold before us.
Structural Preconditions: The Political Inheritance
The Prabowo administration ascended to power upon a foundation of consequential political preconditions that significantly fortified its governing apparatus. First among these is the entrenchment of elite coalition supremacy. Marcus Mietzner, for example, meticulously documents how the presidential coalition evolved into an essential governance mechanism throughout President Joko Widodo's tenure (Mietzner 2023). President Jokowi demonstrated remarkable political dexterity in architecting an expansive coalition that effectively advanced executive priorities. This blueprint for coalition-building was subsequently bequeathed to his successor, whose 2024 presidential campaign benefited from the consolidated support of a formidable majority-party alliance.
The hegemony of this elite coalition inexorably precipitated a second critical precondition: the systematic enfeeblement of opposition forces. Both President Jokowi and Prabowo consistently articulated rhetorical frameworks emphasising national unity and political harmony—narratives that can be interpreted as a strategic disavowal of robust political contestation and opposition. Within Prabowo's administration, this tendency has reached unprecedented extremes: the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P)—remarkably, the victor in last year's legislative elections—stands as the sole political entity remaining beyond the perimeter of governmental power. This democratic anomaly is further exacerbated by emerging indications that PDI-P may ultimately integrate into Prabowo's administration or, employing the party's own diplomatic terminology, assume the role of 'government partner' within the legislature.
These twin political legacies, while superficially conducive to governmental stability, harbour profound constitutional and democratic vulnerabilities that have become increasingly manifest. The symbiotic relationship between executive dominance and legislative acquiescence has facilitated the passage of numerous legislative instruments, policy directives, and—most alarmingly—tacit acceptance of potential constitutional transgressions pertaining to electoral integrity and dynastic political entrenchment.
A third pivotal factor, materialising during the twilight of President Jokowi's administration, completes this political inheritance: the crystallisation of increasingly sophisticated and coordinated public dissent. Throughout Jokowi's presidency, the sole significant instance of mass mobilisation occurred during the '212 movement' of 2016-2017, which was ultimately neutralised through calibrated elite-level negotiations, organisational dismantling, and strategic detention of movement leadership. The subsequent period witnessed a striking absence of sustained, systematic opposition to governmental authority—a vacuum further reinforced by the sociopolitical constraints imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which substantially inhibited civil society mobilisation.
The resurgence of critical collective action emerged precisely at the juncture of power transition from Jokowi to Prabowo, most notably through the nationwide 'Emergency Warning' demonstrations, which sought to contest perceived constitutional infractions and defend the integrity of regional electoral processes. A distinctive characteristic of the 'Emergency Warning' movement was its remarkable sociopolitical breadth, aggregating participants across diverse demographic and occupational spectra: from cultural celebrities to vocational students, university scholars to comedic performers. As we shall examine in the following section, this unprecedented coalition of public sentiment has not merely persisted but intensified precisely as formal authority was transferred to Prabowo's administration.
Three Critical Arguments
The dual political legacies of Jokowi's administration—ostensibly serving as architectural blueprints for governance sustainability—ultimately compelled Prabowo to adopt a strategy of replication and amplification. This manifested in two distinct yet interrelated approaches: the calculated expansion of coalition partnerships and the strategic incorporation of former opposition entities. Implementing the first approach, the Prabowo administration enacted a substantial proliferation of ministerial and deputy ministerial positions, alongside the establishment of numerous bureaucratic agencies, with appointments predominantly allocated to representatives from constituent coalition parties. The prospect of meaningful opposition was systematically eliminated as former electoral adversaries were integrated into the executive structure, assuming positions of significant governmental authority. This reconfiguration engendered a pervasive confidence within the political establishment that all institutional mechanisms necessary for effective governance had been definitively secured.
Notwithstanding these calculated political manoeuvres, the past year has witnessed the emergence of three interconnected waves of significant public protest: the 'Emergency Warning' demonstrations of August 2024, the 'Dark Indonesia' movement of February 2025, and most recently, the widespread mobilisation against proposed military legislation in March 2025. These sequential manifestations of civic discontent have precipitated three distinct yet complementary theoretical interpretations.
The first analytical framework identifies a fundamental crisis in governmental communication architecture. Superficially, this perspective might appear reductionist, seemingly collapsing complex political dynamics into mere communicative dysfunction. However, dismissing this interpretation as simplistic would constitute an analytical error. Contemporary media documentation has assiduously chronicled numerous instances wherein governmental representatives and political elites have systematically minimised public concerns, and in certain contexts, actively delegitimised them. The recent conduct of the Head of the Presidential Communication Office—who conspicuously trivialised credible allegations regarding intimidation of journalists—exemplifies this pattern. Similarly revealing was the administrative reluctance to facilitate public access to the draft military legislation, a procedural opacity that catalysed rather than mitigated public suspicion. Thus, what presents superficially as communicative inadequacy reveals, upon closer examination, a profound institutional capacity deficit.
The second theoretical framework posits a crisis of authentic leadership, with Prabowo's executive authority ostensibly constrained by the expansive coalition he has cultivated. While this interpretation offers compelling insights regarding the perils of governance without robust opposition, it suffers from an internal contradiction: it characterises Prabowo as simultaneously powerful enough to orchestrate a grand coalition yet insufficiently autonomous to exercise independent judgment within it. This analytical tension undermines the framework's explanatory power. More accurately, President Prabowo retains substantial constitutional prerogatives in coalition formation, affording him considerable latitude in power distribution and governance architecture. His consistent articulation of 'political reconciliation' and national unity narratives since the electoral campaign suggests that the grand coalition strategy represented a deliberate policy choice rather than an externally imposed constraint. If the administration anticipated enhanced governmental agility through such a structurally unwieldy coalition, this calculation reflects a profound strategic miscalculation. The maintenance of such an arrangement necessitates perpetual coordination and coalition management—a resource-intensive endeavour that inevitably diverts governmental capacity from substantive policy implementation.
The third interpretive framework, which acquires particular salience in this context, identifies the systematic erosion of meritocratic principles through coalition-based patronage distributions—a process initiated prior to the formal establishment of the administration. This dynamic creates conditions wherein policy contradictions become not merely possible but probable. A striking dissonance emerges between President Prabowo's rhetorical commitment to transparent, merit-based governance and the empirical reality observable to the public: the meteoritic ascension of a military aide to ministerial authority while retaining active military status; the appointment of social media influencers to governmental advisory positions absent demonstrable qualification; and the installation of ministerial officials manifestly lacking requisite expertise or professional credentials.
While these three theoretical frameworks offer distinct analytical perspectives, they converge in accelerating the third political legacy previously identified: the consolidation of civil society protest movements. Following a protracted period of relative quiescence, contemporary civil society mobilisation has discovered unprecedented motivational impetus. This is driven initially by class-based grievances that have intensified through successive instances of elite privilege, exemplified by remarkable career trajectories that generate widespread social resentment. This discontent is further exacerbated by economic stressors, including tax burden increases and austerity measures implemented under the rubric of governmental efficiency, which have simultaneously impacted diverse societal segments. Rising unemployment figures since the year's commencement, coupled with increasingly prevalent narratives of university graduates accepting positions significantly below their qualification levels to sustain basic livelihood, have reinforced this sentiment.
The confluence of these three theoretical frameworks produces an inevitable sociopolitical consequence: the emergence of an intergenerational protest movement characterised by organisational sophistication, strategic coherence, and substantial numerical strength. Within the contemporary context of global political volatility, wherein analogous movements have demonstrated capacity to precipitate domestic political instability, all institutional stakeholders—particularly governmental authorities—must engage in immediate preparatory and ameliorative measures.
Indonesia's political turbulence does not exist in isolation but rather unfolds within a broader international landscape of democratic contestation and institutional crisis. Contemporaneous mass demonstrations in Serbia after collapse of the railway station canopy and against perceived governmental corruption, widespread protests across Turkey challenging electoral manipulation and democratic backsliding, and the profound global uncertainty accompanying the return of Trump's administration in the United States—with its implications for international trade, security alignments, and democratic norms—all constitute manifestations of a worldwide pattern of political volatility. This global context amplifies the significance of Indonesia's domestic political dynamics; as one of Asia's most consequential democracies, Indonesia's institutional stability—or lack thereof—reverberates well beyond its borders. The convergence of domestic grievances with international patterns of democratic fragility creates a particularly volatile political environment wherein governmental miscalculations carry heightened risk of systemic disruption.
Indeed, with even modest political foresight, the Prabowo administration should have anticipated with unequivocal clarity that the inherited political preconditions and legacies would, without significant structural reformation, inevitably culminate in precisely such a political crisis.
