Indonesia Bubar: Krisis Legitimasi Politik dan Pelemahan Demokrasi secara Terstruktur, Sistematis, dan Masif oleh Elite

Indonesia Bubar: Krisis Legitimasi Politik dan Pelemahan Demokrasi secara Terstruktur, Sistematis, dan Masif oleh Elite

Analisis Komparatif dan Komprehensif terhadap Regresi Demokrasi Global

---

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the systemic, structured, and massive (TSM) erosion of democracy and political legitimacy in post-reform Indonesia, arguing that such erosion—driven by elite capture—may lead to a de facto authoritarian reconfiguration of the state. Using comparative frameworks from Turkey, Thailand, and the Philippines, the study highlights patterns of democratic backsliding. The novelty lies in situating Indonesia's current crisis as not merely institutional decay, but a deliberate political strategy mimicking regional illiberal trends while retaining procedural electoralism. The research also contributes to the state-of-the-art (SOTA) literature by introducing a new analytical model of “performative democracy collapse” in Southeast Asia.

1. INTRODUCTION

Indonesia’s post-Suharto transition was hailed as a democratic success. However, in the last decade, especially after 2019, key indicators suggest a sharp regression. Democratic norms are increasingly undermined through elite orchestration, bypassing public scrutiny via legal reforms, judicial manipulation, and co-optation of accountability institutions. This phenomenon raises serious questions about the resilience of Indonesia’s democratic infrastructure. The paper hypothesizes that elite-driven delegitimization of democracy is not accidental, but systemic, structured, and massive—posing a significant threat to state coherence.

2. NOVELTY AND CONTRIBUTION

Novelty:

• Introduces the concept of “performative democracy collapse” as a hybrid form of autocratic consolidation masked by procedural elections and populist legality.
• Frames the Indonesia Bubar discourse not in terms of physical disintegration but as institutional and epistemic fragmentation of state legitimacy.

Contribution to SOTA:

• Extends the work of Aspinall & Mietzner (2020), but adds a regional-comparative model to analyze converging patterns in Southeast Asia.
• Builds on Levitsky & Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die” (2018), but localizes the framework to non-Western, post-authoritarian democracies.
• Fills the gap in SOUTHEAST ASIAN political studies by empirically testing the TSM logic of elite democracy dismantling.

3. METHODOLOGY

• Approach: Comparative political analysis.
• Design: Qualitative case study with interpretive institutionalism.
• Data:
  • Laporan tahunan BPS, Komnas HAM, KPU.
  • Wawancara elite (desk review), dokumen resmi DPR, MK.
  • Indeks demokrasi (Freedom House, EIU, V-Dem, IDEA).
• Cases: Indonesia (2020–2024) dibandingkan dengan Turki (post-2016), Thailand (post-2014), dan Filipina (2016–2022).

4. ANALYSIS

4.1 Indonesia’s Elite-Driven Regime Transformation

• Krisis Legitimasi Politik: Merosotnya kepercayaan publik terhadap lembaga eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif (SMRC, 2023).
• Pelemahan Institusi Demokrasi:
  • Revisi UU KPK (2019)
  • Manipulasi batas usia capres melalui MK (2023)
  • Pengangkatan aktor politik dalam lembaga non-politis (TNI/Polri, KPU, Dewan Pengawas KPK)

4.2 Comparative Cases

• Turkey (Erdoğan’s Rule): Perubahan konstitusi, penangkapan oposisi, kontrol penuh atas media dan peradilan.
• Thailand (Pasca-kudeta 2014): Pemilu dikontrol militer, partai oposisi dibubarkan, aktivis dibungkam lewat UU royal defamation.
• Philippines (Duterte Era): Politik populis otoriter, penghilangan aktivis, pembungkaman jurnalis (Rappler).

Kesamaan Pola:

• Konsentrasi kekuasaan
• Kooptasi hukum
• Normalisasi represi
• Elite survival melalui populisme konstitusional

5. DISCUSSION

Indonesia kini berada di titik genting di mana demokrasi prosedural dijalankan dengan substansi yang kosong. Seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Nancy Bermeo (2016), executive aggrandizement menjadi metode dominan dalam membungkam oposisi tanpa kudeta. Perbedaannya, di Indonesia strategi ini dilakukan secara sah melalui “legalitas palsu”—UU dan putusan MK yang melayani kepentingan elite.

Konsekuensinya adalah delegitimasi negara sebagai entitas representatif rakyat. Wacana “Indonesia Bubar” mencerminkan trauma publik terhadap negara yang gagal memenuhi janji reformasi. Dengan kata lain, yang bubar adalah “kontrak sosial” antara negara dan warga, bukan semata-mata wilayah fisik.

6. CONCLUSION

Demokrasi Indonesia tengah berada dalam fase kritis: elite menggantikan prinsip akuntabilitas dengan loyalitas politik. Ini adalah bentuk baru dari otoritarianisme prosedural. Skenario “Indonesia Bubar” menjadi relevan jika rakyat kehilangan kepercayaan dan negara gagal menjadi mediator keadilan sosial. Tantangannya adalah mengembalikan demokrasi sebagai cita kolektif, bukan proyek elite.       REFERENCES

1. Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (2020). Democratic Regression in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia.
2. Bermeo, N. (2016). On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1).
3. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing.
4. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World Reports: Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand.
5. Komnas HAM. (2022). Laporan Tahunan: Hak Sipil dan Politik.
6. BPS. (2023). Indeks Demokrasi Indonesia.
7. SMRC. (2023). Tren Kepercayaan Publik terhadap Institusi Politik.
8. Human Rights Watch. (2020). Thailand: Military Rule and Repression.
9. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). (2021). Judicial Capture in the Philippines.