This op-ed reflects the author’s own analysis and views and does not necessarily represent those of The Reformist.
The chants outside Jakarta’s legislative complex in late August felt like echoes from another era. Students waving banners, traffic grinding to a halt, and police barricades standing tense; all reminiscent of Indonesia’s Reformasi struggles a quarter century ago.
Then, anger toppled an entrenched regime. Today, frustrations boil over legislative perks, economic hardships, and police misconduct.
What struck us most was perhaps not only the intensity of the protests, but how familiar they felt: another chapter in Indonesia’s ongoing experiment with democracy, where public dissent tests the resilience of institutions built in 1998.
Behind the unrest
From 25 to 28 August, Jakarta’s streets around the parliament complex and other urban centers became the epicenter of widespread protests. Students led demonstrations against parliamentary allowances, economic struggles, and corruption. What began as peaceful gatherings quickly turned violent, with reports of vandalism, property damage, Molotov cocktails, and escalating clashes with police.
Public outrage intensified after a tactical vehicle fatally struck an online motorbike taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan, drawing national attention and renewed demands for police accountability.
Following Affan’s death, unrest spread across Indonesia, targeting government buildings, police stations, and public infrastructure. Violent confrontations, arson, and looting accompanied the protests, prompting the government to deploy both police and military forces.
Limited policy concessions, including the revocation of parliamentary allowances, were announced, yet tensions remain high. Media coverage continues to highlight the scale of public dissent, the ongoing debate over police reform, and the challenges authorities face in maintaining order while responding to citizens’ demands.
Global patterns found in local realities
Walking through Jakarta’s congested streets during the unrest, it is impossible not to feel that the city’s turmoil is part of a larger, global story. From the chants in front of the parliament building to images of students and laborers confronting police lines, Indonesia’s 2025 unrest reflects patterns seen across continents. Economic struggles, perceptions of elite privilege, and frustrations with government accountability have historically ignited mass mobilization, whether in the Andes, Europe, or Southeast Asia. Several recent cases illustrate these dynamics in concrete ways.
Economic grievances have frequently sparked widespread protest. In Chile, demonstrations began over a subway fare hike but quickly expanded into a nationwide demand for social justice, with students and urban citizens marching together.
Ecuador experienced similar unrest in 2019, when indigenous groups and transport unions blocked roads to oppose fuel subsidy cuts, showing how economic austerity can unite diverse communities.
France’s Yellow Vest movement combined middle-class anger over fuel taxes with broader discontent about inequality, highlighting the difficulty of addressing both immediate and structural concerns.
In each case, protests began with tangible grievances but quickly expanded to challenge systemic inequities.
A balancing act: The government’s response v. civil resistance
Elite cohesion and institutional posture shaped how governments responded. Indonesia’s divided leadership, dominated by security-aligned factions, mirrors Bolivia’s 2019 crisis, where Morales became isolated as military support waned. By contrast, cohesive elites in Poland and Thailand were able to impose decisive, sometimes authoritarian interventions, demonstrating how elite alignment affects state capacity and public perception.
Indonesia’s deployment of both police and military, alongside promises to review policies and hold law enforcement accountable, reflects a balancing act between maintaining order and preserving legitimacy.
Ecuador and Bolivia relied on militarized responses paired with limited concessions, while Chile, France, and Poland emphasized negotiation, legal adjustments, or institutional checks. Thailand represents an extreme case, where military intervention replaced civilian authority entirely.
Patterns of civil resistance further illuminate these dynamics. Indonesian protests spanned Jakarta, universities, and regional centers, mixing peaceful marches with episodes of violence. This mirrors Chile’s nationwide mobilizations, Ecuador’s road blockades, and Bolivia’s polarized demonstrations, whereas France and Poland were more urban-centered and Thailand featured prolonged street occupations.
Social media amplified mobilization everywhere, though press freedom varied. In Indonesia, harassment and reporting restrictions complicated transparency, shaping public perception of events.
Finally, constitutional pathways and institutional guardrails determined potential outcomes. Indonesia’s 1998 Reformasi-born institutions remain tested, with parliament hesitant to relinquish perks. Comparative experiences suggest that negotiation and dialogue (as in Chile and Ecuador), or elections and external oversight (as in Bolivia and Poland) can stabilize unrest.
Indonesia’s 2025 protests demonstrate how economic grievances, elite contestation, and public mobilization intersect, emphasizing that democratic resilience depends on not only street activism but also institutional capacity, media freedom, and measured state responses.
A work in progress: Indonesia’s democracy outlook
The events of August 2025 demonstrate that democracy in Indonesia remains a work in progress. Walking through Jakarta’s streets during the unrest, one encounters the raw energy of citizens demanding accountability, fairness, and justice. Protests over parliamentary perks, economic strain, and police misconduct are not isolated complaints; they reflect a broader conversation about how power is exercised and whom it serves.
Indonesia’s experience mirrors global patterns of unrest, yet its context is distinct. Demonstrations are concentrated in urban centers, media reporting faces restrictions, and Reformasi-era institutions continue to be tested by elite factionalism. The government’s response, combining militarized security measures with limited policy concessions, highlights the delicate balance between maintaining order and preserving legitimacy.
Lessons from past social movements abroad suggest several potential trajectories:
In the short term, over the next month, protests may subside if the government offers credible concessions and engages in meaningful dialogue. Symbolic gestures or intensified security measures, by contrast, risk prolonging unrest or escalating clashes.
Over the medium term, spanning roughly three months, outcomes hinge on institutionalized negotiations and the government’s ability to address structural grievances. Partial concessions may produce episodic violence and persistent instability, whereas sustained engagement with civic actors could stabilize the political environment.
Over the next six months, elite alignment and economic pressures will become decisive. Institutionalized reforms and the channelling of protest demands into formal mechanisms could deliver managed stability. If grievances remain unaddressed, however, chronic instability, economic drag, and eroded public trust are likely. Authoritarian consolidation remains a risk if security and political elites prioritize control over compromise.
These scenarios underscore that Indonesia’s democratic practice is continuously negotiated on the streets, within institutions, and in the spaces between power and the public. Sustainable stability will require transparent policymaking, resilient institutions, and responsive governance.
Short-term concessions may calm unrest, but lasting stability depends on addressing structural grievances while safeguarding democratic accountability. The trajectory ahead will hinge on the ability of leaders and citizens alike to convert public mobilization into durable reforms that strengthen both governance and trust.