Fatigue seems to describe the state of democracy in Indonesia. At least this is true for some people in every political actor. The people, as voters who hold democratic sovereignty, are tired of the complexity of simultaneous elections. After the election-based government is formed, the rights, aspirations, and participation of the people are not fully fulfilled. Political parties and politicians who have experienced a decline in public trust also seem tired of facing the law of the jungle of competition and the extremely high cost of politics. In terms of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index and Freedom House’s political freedom index, Indonesia once achieved relatively good quality democracy and freedom but has recently experienced a significant decline.
However, this fatigue is not merely emotional exhaustion. It is a structural signal that our democratic system is at a saturation point. Each election period is becoming more tense, more expensive, more technical, and further removed from the aspirations of the people. Democracy is moving, but it is no longer generating positive energy; it is actually draining it. In the study of modern democracy, this condition is often referred to as “democratic fatigue,” a situation in which democratic institutions continue to function procedurally but fail to generate political satisfaction for citizens (Pippa Norris, 2011).
The five-box simultaneous elections are the clearest example of how our democratic design has reached its capacity limits. Election organizers work under extreme pressure, often without sufficient support. Disputes pile up. Technological adaptation is half-baked. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish between democracy as a space for participation and democracy as an exhausting political spectacle. When procedure trumps substance, democracy becomes an administrative burden rather than a process for shaping the will of the people.
Fatigue is also evident in representative institutions. On the one hand, political parties are required to present the best cadres and policies that favor the public. On the other hand, the logic of expensive competition and the open proportional system locks the political process in a cycle of internal competition, campaign funding sponsors, and survival strategies. It is no wonder that the public feels increasingly distant from their representatives. Institutions that should serve as bridges are often seen as walls. Studies on political parties in Indonesia also show that high political costs have strengthened parties’ dependence on informal funding sources, which risks weakening democratic accountability (Edward Aspinall & Mada Sukmajati, 2016).
Meanwhile, our public sphere is filled with disinformation, polarization, and debates that lack ideas. Freedom of expression is indeed wide open, but the quality of public conversation has declined sharply. When every difference of opinion is considered a threat, social fatigue becomes an inevitable consequence. Democracy requires the energy of dialogue, but we are running out of energy just to listen. This phenomenon is not unique to Indonesia, but is a global trend in which social media accelerates political polarization and weakens the quality of public deliberation.
This situation is exacerbated by the state’s weak capacity to manage election data and technology. Our digital infrastructure does not yet have solid security standards. Data leaks and the risk of algorithmic manipulation continue to loom. Without strong regulations and clear accountability, the modernization of democracy actually increases vulnerability rather than strengthening public trust. In many global cases, the digitization of elections without a strong governance framework can actually increase the risk of information manipulation and public distrust of election results (International IDEA, 2022).
Don’t Be Apathetic About Reform
At this point, it is natural for many citizens to feel tired of democracy. But what is more dangerous is when that fatigue turns into apathy. Democracy can survive criticism, but it collapses when its citizens abandon it. Blaming the public for being tired will get us nowhere; the root of the problem lies in the design and governance of democracy, which has not been reformed.
Therefore, what we need now is not more slogans or calls for participation. What is needed is the political courage to overhaul the architecture of our democracy.
First, the electoral system, which includes the design of simultaneous national and regional schedules, must be reformulated to be more humane for organizers, more rational for candidates, and easier for the public to understand. Simplifying simultaneous elections is a necessity, not an option. Direct regional elections must be ensured to be part of the change. Evaluations of the simultaneous election design have also long been voiced by many election studies that assess the complexity of simultaneous elections as potentially burdensome for voters and organizers.
Second, political parties must be reformed through reforms in funding, cadre development, and transparency. Democracy will not be healthy if parties continue to be exhausted by routine matters without adequate institutional support. Simplify the requirements for establishing political parties as legal entities. Also simplify the requirements for political parties to participate in the next election. Remember, political parties are what distinguish democracy from other political systems. Establishing political parties and allowing them to participate in elections is a human right that should not be reduced, let alone eliminated (Dahl, 1998).
Third, the public sphere must be nurtured. Democracy without free conversation will only lead to collective frustration. Political education through digital and offline literacy, protection of freedom of expression, and a strong media will be the foundation for reviving democracy. In deliberative democracy theory, the quality of democracy is largely determined by the quality of the public sphere where citizens exchange arguments rationally and equally (Habermas, 1996).
Fourth, legal certainty must continue to be ensured. Our state’s holy book, the amended 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, has confirmed that Indonesia is not only a sovereign state but also a state based on the rule of law. The election of regional heads through the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) was indeed part of the transition to democracy, but the current constitutional framework has stipulated that regional heads are elected through direct regional elections.
Legal certainty must also be linked to a clean and independent judiciary. The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, as judicial powers in the trias politica, must be guaranteed to remain transparent, accountable, and accessible. The selection of new Constitutional Court judges from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches must not become a factor that further undermines Indonesia as a country based on the rule of law and democracy. All Constitutional Court decisions regarding democratic reforms, such as the elimination of presidential nomination thresholds, changes to regional head nomination thresholds, and parliamentary thresholds, must not be overturned and then changed again by lawmakers. The independence of the constitutional judiciary is an important requirement for the sustainability of constitutional democracy (Tom Ginsburg, 2003).
Being tired of democracy is not a reason to give up. In fact, it is a sign that the system needs to be improved. Exhausting democracy is not destiny. It is a consequence of design and governance choices that we can fix. If we want democracy to return to being a shared home, rather than an energy-sapping battleground, then now is the time to make real improvements.
We may be tired, but we must not stop. Democracy only survives as long as we are willing to nurture it, with our common sense and the courage to keep fighting. []
USEP HASAN SADIKIN
Researcher at the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)