Democracy without civic virtue
Direct election is at risk—have we forgotten the spirit of the ‘Republic’?
The author is a researcher at Indonesia South-South Foundation (ISSF). This article reflects the author’s own analysis and views and does not necessarily represent those of The Reformist.
In recent months, a renewed debate emerged over the political elites’ proposal to reverse direct regional elections (Pilkada) to an indirect mechanism through local parliaments (‘DPRD’). Supporters argue that the move could reduce the costs of politics and corruption. Meanwhile, critics warn it would erode democratic accountability.
Beyond these policy arguments lies a deeper question about the moral foundations of our republic: what does it mean for citizens to govern themselves, and how should freedom be understood in a democratic community?
The forgotten spirit of the ‘Republik’
When our founders in 1945 proclaimed Indonesia as a “republic,” the word carried deep philosophical weight. It embodied an ethical vision of political life, a community bound together by shared commitment to the public good.
Republicanism, in its classical sense, envisions freedom not merely as the absence of interference, but as freedom from domination. As political philosopher Philip Pettit argues, a republic is sustained by citizens who are vigilant against any concentration of arbitrary power, whether in the hands of rulers, parties, or elites.
For early Indonesian thinkers like Soekarno and Mohammad Hatta, this moral dimension was clear. They did not imagine independence as a license for self-interest, but as an opportunity to build a society governed by public virtue (‘kebajikan publik’). Soekarno, in his orations, often invoked mutual cooperation (‘gotong royong’) as the moral glue of the new republic. Hatta, on the other hand, emphasized the cooperative economy (‘ekonomi koperasi’) as a way to ensure freedom from economic domination.
Today, these ideals feel like distant echoes.
A democracy without virtue
Post-Reformasi Indonesia has made undeniable progress in consolidating democratic institutions. Yet, lies beneath a troubling paradox: our democracy functions, but our republic weakens.
Political competition produces alliances of convenience rather than ideological commitment; parties that campaign as reformists often join the ruling coalition soon after elections. Citizens are treated as consumers of politics, not participants in public life. This is what republican thinkers have long warned against: democracy without virtue breeds domination. When politics loses its moral compass, power concentrates in elites, oligarchs and dynasties. The republics, while producerally alive, become ethically weak.
The result is a democracy that looks alive but feels empty. A political order that meets procedural standards but fails to cultivate the moral habits that sustain freedom. As Robertus Robet sharply observes, Indonesia’s political culture is “rotting from within,” eroded by moral fatigue and the collapse of public reason.
The decline of political party: Goodbye civic virtue, say hello to patronage
The decline of civic virtue is not unique to Indonesia, but it manifests in particularly acute ways here. The collapse of ideological politics after Reformasi, accelerated by the weakening of party identity, has transformed parties into electoral machines rather than vehicles of public philosophy.
Party recruitment often prioritizes loyalty and fundraising capacity over integrity and competence. Legislative candidates are expected to self-finance their campaigns, creating structural incentives for clientelism. Once in office, many see their position as repayment of political debts rather than a public mandate.
This patronage-driven system erodes the ethos of republican citizenship. Leaders no longer model virtue; citizens no longer expect them to. Cynicism, consequently, becomes a rational stance. In this climate, even well-intentioned reformists struggle to survive without compromising ideals. The problem, then, is not merely one of corruption or inefficiency. It is a deeper moral crisis, a corrosion of the civic foundation upon which the republic rests.
It is within this vacuum of civic morality that the proposal to return regional elections (Pilkada) to indirect mechanisms via DPRD has resurfaced. Proponents justify it under the guise of reducing costs and preventing corruption. But beneath this rhetoric lies a regression: when elites propose to limit the people’s right to choose, it signals not reform but fatigue with democracy itself.
Threat of returning to indirect elections
Recently, leading politicians have revived discussions about abolishing direct regional elections and returning to the pre-2005 system in which governors, mayors, and regents were chosen by local parliaments (‘DPRD’). They frame this as a pragmatic response to “expensive” elections and rising corruption. But the logic is deeply flawed.
To claim that corruption stems from popular participation is to misread the problem entirely. The disease lies not in the act of voting, but in the decay of institutions tasked with cultivating civic virtue.
If campaign costs are high, the answer is not to strip citizens of their rights but to reform political financing, enforce transparency, and democratize party recruitment. Returning Pilkada to DPRD would not purify politics; it would return it to the shadows, where deals are made without public scrutiny. It would entrench domination, the very condition republicanism seeks to eradicate.
Freedom, in a republic, is inseparable from participation. When citizens are excluded from the right to choose their leaders, freedom shrinks into permission, granted, not exercised. The irony is that those advocating indirect elections cite corruption, clientelism, and political cost, the very symptoms of the moral failures of parties themselves. The proposed cure is indistinguishable from the disease.
What Indonesia needs is not less democracy, but better republicanism, a revival of civic virtue in institutions, integrity in parties, and moral imagination in governance. Reform should not mean retreating from the people, but returning to them with humility and accountability.
Yet, from another point of view, proponents of DPRD-based elections could argue that such a return might not be entirely anti-republican. After two decades of costly and clientelistic direct elections, they may see indirect selection as a form of institutional prudence, an attempt to restore deliberation over popularity, restraint over excess.
In classical republican thought, not all power must flow directly from the people’s hands; what matters is that authority remains accountable to the public good. If DPRD truly acted as a deliberative body of virtue, embodying reasoned judgment rather than factional interest, one could claim that entrusting it with regional elections is consistent with the spirit of res publica: government by the wise for the common good.
But that ideal collapses against Indonesia’s present political reality. DPRDs are not immune from oligarchic capture. Nor is it exemplary in civic virtue. They often magnify the very maladies they claim to cure: money politics, transactional alliances, and patronage networks. Thus, the call to return Pilkada to DPRD does not reflect the restoration of republican prudence. Instead, it signals a loss of trust in citizens, in institutions, and in the moral capacity of the republic itself.
A republic worth reclaiming
Reviving republicanism does not mean resurrecting the past or idealizing the founders. It means rediscovering the ethical infrastructure of democracy; the shared moral commitments that make institutions work.
To do this, I suggest we change the very institutions that constitute our representative bodies: political parties. An important thing that we could reform is the ways political parties are financed: introduce strict caps in campaign spending, expand public funding tied to performance and transparency, and penalize opaque donations.
Moreover, political parties must start to reward virtue and merit. Party recruitment and financing mechanisms must shift from transactionalism to integrity. Public funding for parties could be linked to transparent performance indicators, gender representation, policy innovation, and ethical compliance. Without internal democratization, parties will remain the weakest link in our political system.
Beyond institutional reforms, we also need a cultural reawakening. The language of civic virtue must return to our public vocabulary. Media, academia, and civil society can play a key role in reintroducing the moral vocabulary of republicanism, reminding citizens that politics is not just about interest, but duty.
The current debate over returning regional elections to DPRD captures this crisis of civic virtue; a quiet retreat from the republican faith in citizens’ capacity for self-government. To believe that democracy can be purified by reducing participation is to misunderstand its moral foundation.
The path forward, therefore, lies in rebuilding the ethical and institutional soil in which participation can bear good fruit: transparent parties, virtuous leaders, and a vigilant citizenry. In a time when politics feels increasingly cynical, remembering that we are a republic, a community of free and equal citizens bound by shared virtue, may be the most radical act of hope we can undertake.
 | A guest post by
|