Our democracy is deprived of healthy contestation of ideas
Why agonistic democracy remains elusive in Indonesia
This op-ed reflects the author’s own analysis and views and does not necessarily represent those of The Reformist.
Democracy is not just about holding free and fair elections; it requires a vibrant space where ideas clash productively and disagreements are seen not as threats but as necessary ingredients for a healthy political life.
This vision, often referred to by Chantal Mouffe as agonistic democracy, rests on the recognition of political opponents as legitimate adversaries rather than enemies to be destroyed. In an agonistic democracy, debates are fierce but constructive, and political competition strengthens rather than weakens the democratic order.
Yet in Indonesia, such an ideal remains difficult to achieve. Yes, our elections are held regularly, voter turnout is high, and peaceful transfers of power have become the norm since the fall of Suharto in 1998. But this is only what it looks like on the surface; somewhat deceptive signs of democratic consolidation. Beneath this surface, however, lies a structural problem that undermines the depth of Indonesia’s democracy.
The country’s unique combination of a presidential system and multiparty politics, coupled with the paradox of a poorly institutionalized opposition, produces a configuration that looks stable but deprives democracy of the contestation it needs to thrive.
The complexities of presidentialism and multiparty politics
Political scientist Scott Mainwaring once described the combination of presidential and multiparty systems as a “difficult combination.”
In a presidential system, the head of government is directly elected by the people, enjoying strong legitimacy and a fixed term in office. At the same time, when the legislature is fragmented into multiple parties, no single party holds a majority. This forces the president to build broad and often unwieldy coalitions in order to govern effectively.
Indonesia embodies this tension clearly. Since the introduction of direct presidential elections in 2004, every president has faced the challenge of governing without a dominant party in parliament. Instead of working with a single strong base, presidents must negotiate with multiple parties, each with its own interests and constituencies.
The result is that Indonesian presidents routinely build coalitions that resemble parliamentary cabinets, where ministries are distributed as bargaining chips to maintain legislative support. Although the constitution enshrines a presidential system, the day-to-day practice of politics often follows the logic of parliamentarism.
The missing institutionalized opposition
The key difference from a true parliamentary system lies in the role of opposition. In classic parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom, the opposition is not only tolerated but also institutionalized. It often takes the form of a shadow cabinet, with clearly defined leaders and portfolios that present themselves as a government-in-waiting.
Opposition in this sense is not destructive. Rather, it ensures accountability by providing the electorate with a visible and credible alternative.
In Indonesia, opposition plays a much weaker role. Parties that campaign as critics of the government often end up joining the ruling coalition once the election dust settles. In some cases, opposition parties cross over mid-term, trading their critical stance for positions in cabinet or access to state resources.
This fluidity produces a paradox. Indonesia’s presidential system emulates the coalition logic of parliamentarism, but without the institutional guarantees of a stable and recognized opposition. The result is a political environment where nearly all parties eventually gravitate toward the government.
This dynamic weakens democratic contestation. Opposition is no longer anchored in parties with organizational infrastructure and long-term strategies. Instead, it becomes fragmented and sporadic. Criticism of government policy tends to come from civil society groups, activists, or media commentators rather than from an institutionalized political opposition. This makes dissent less effective in shaping the direction of government and less visible to citizens who need clear alternatives in a functioning democracy.
The paradox of our democracy
When opposition is poorly institutionalized, the vitality of democracy inevitably suffers. Ideological differences are muted within oversized coalitions. In practice, many parties appear to support the same policies, even if they entered elections with different platforms. Citizens are left with the impression that politics is about power-sharing rather than genuine competition.
This creates a paradox. On one hand, Indonesia enjoys relative stability; most parties fold into the governing coalition, gridlock is rare, and presidents can count on legislative backing. On the other hand, this stability comes at the cost of democratic quality. The space for agonistic debate shrinks, and democracy becomes more about managing elites than about providing citizens with meaningful choices.
In this context, elections risk becoming ritualistic rather than substantive. Voters may participate enthusiastically, but the range of alternatives available to them is narrow. Without a strong and principled opposition, debates about policy direction remain shallow. Democracy becomes procedural, fulfilling the requirements of elections and civil liberties, but it falls short of cultivating the agonism necessary for responsiveness and accountability.
A procedural democracy
Indonesia is often celebrated as one of the largest democracies in the world. Its peaceful transitions of power and high levels of electoral participation are indeed impressive achievements, especially given its authoritarian past.
Yet, measured against the standards of agonistic democracy, Indonesia’s democracy appears thin. What has emerged is a procedural democracy. It meets the minimal requirements of electoral competition, freedom of expression, and political participation. However, it lacks the vibrant clash of ideas that could push policies to better reflect the interests and aspirations of diverse citizens.
The presidential-multiparty system incentivizes coalition-building that swallows up opposition, leaving little room for citizens to perceive clear alternatives in either vision or policy.
Stability at the cost of shallow democracy
The Indonesian case highlights an important paradox. Stability has been achieved by constructing oversized coalitions that minimize political conflict. Yet in the process, the very essence of democracy, its capacity for constructive contestation, has been hollowed out.
This raises a critical question for the future of Indonesian democracy: Is stability enough if it comes at the expense of substance?
Agonistic democracy requires visible disagreements and adversarial politics. It depends on the recognition that differences in vision and ideology are legitimate, and that their expression strengthens rather than weakens the democratic order.
Without an institutionalized opposition, Indonesian democracy risks drifting into a form of elite consensus politics, where the absence of conflict is mistaken for harmony, and citizens are deprived of meaningful choices.
Looking ahead: correcting the imbalance
The challenge is how to correct this imbalance. One possible solution lies in reforming the party system. Some scholars argue that raising the parliamentary threshold could reduce fragmentation and encourage the emergence of clearer lines between government and opposition.
Others point to the need for a cultural shift in how opposition is perceived. Rather than treating opposition as disloyal or destabilizing, Indonesian political culture could evolve to recognize its value as a necessary counterweight.
Another pathway lies in strengthening civil society and independent institutions. If parties fail to play the role of opposition, other actors may step in to provide critical scrutiny of government policy. However, this is not a perfect substitute. For agonistic democracy to flourish, opposition needs to be institutionalized within the political system itself, not left to ad hoc movements or individuals.
Ultimately, democracy without a healthy opposition cannot mature into an agonistic democracy. Indonesia has succeeded in maintaining stability through oversized coalitions, but stability without vibrant debate risks producing a shallow democracy. To move forward, Indonesia must confront the paradox of its presidential-multiparty system and the weakness of its opposition. Only then can the country begin to approach the ideal of a democracy that is both stable and genuinely agonistic.
Rosita Miladmahesi is an expert staff at The House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI)
Want to share your views on public policy reforms or other political issues?
Write to us: connect@thinkpolicy.id
 | A guest post by
|