Aqida Salma – Indonesia's democracy faces the threat of digital authoritarianism. However, there are ways to mitigate the risks, even as state-driven propaganda floods digital public spaces.
In Indonesia's evolving democracy, the introduction of digital platforms in the mid-1990s initially sparked hope for greater inclusivity and civic engagement, offering citizens powerful tools to express opinions and influence policies. However, this period of optimism began to fade in the mid-2010s, coinciding with the rise of state-driven digital strategies that manipulated public discourse, creating a facade of democratic participation. In this environment, public engagement, defined as the active involvement of citizens in creating, amplifying, and responding to information, risks becoming a tool for state control, as the government employs digital tactics to shape narratives and stifle dissent.
This trend is not unique to Indonesia. Faced with threats from a networked society, authoritarian countries like China and Russia have shifted from overt, heavy-handed censorship to more subtle participatory forms of propaganda that integrate the audience into the process. Even in more established democratic settings, similar tactics first identified during the US' 2016 presidential election were subsequently found in online political activity in the UK and Canada. Nevertheless, in democracies, independent media and civil society networks remain crucial in challenging such manipulation. This paradox raises a critical question for democracies worldwide: can digital spaces remain arenas for authentic public engagement or will they continue to evolve as tools of control?
Indonesia's case exemplifies how governments can weaponise digital technology to create an illusion of democratic engagement while advancing authoritarian interests. Amid democratic backsliding, particularly during Joko Widodo's administration, the government increasingly relied on social media to mobilise support for its policies and to counter criticism. This modern twist on authoritarian control echoed the media strategies of Indonesia's New Order under Suharto but without the overt repression. Today, instead of direct censorship, the government employs "buzzers", paid social influencers and digital operatives, to spread its narrative, counter criticism, and divert attention from sensitive issues.
These tactics became especially evident during contentious moments when the government sanitised controversial policies, such as the weakening of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Omnibus law on job creation, both of which had sparked public outcry. Buzzers flooded platforms with pro-government messaging, often drowning out dissent. Unlike Suharto's regime, which exerted overt control over media, Widodo's administration leveraged the persuasive power of social influencers to simulate public support for him and to deter genuine debate. By harnessing influencers and online crowds, the government gave its propaganda the appearance of grassroots authenticity, as though these narratives emerged organically from civil society. Yet, these influencers are often motivated by profit rather than ideology.
According to Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), the Widodo government allocated over 90.45 billion rupiah (US$6.03 million) between 2014 and 2018 to influencers for political messaging. The roots of this strategy trace back to the 2012 Jakarta gubernatorial election and became more widespread during the 2014 presidential election. While such tactics are most prominent during elections, they have evolved into a year-round strategy and extend beyond social media. The government collaborated with traditional mass media, including print and television outlets, offering financial incentives. A recent example was the promotion of the new capital city (IKN) Nusantara, where media outlets were encouraged to focus on the troubled project's positive aspects.
As Indonesia has transitioned to President Prabowo Subianto's administration, early signs indicate that these tactics may persist. Prabowo has recruited high-profile influencers like Raffi Ahmad, a prominent celebrity and entrepreneur whose business is linked to one of Widodo's sons, and people with influence, including past ministers and top executives of state-owned enterprises, into his administration. This signals potential continuity in the state's strategic use of social media operatives, which highlights the entrenchment of participatory propaganda. This is where digital platforms blur the line between authentic civic engagement and state-sponsored messaging and raise troubling questions about the fragility of democratic engagement in the digital age.
The 22 August 2024 "emergency warning" protests provide a recent example of this dynamic. As citizens mobilised online to express discontent, they encountered a counter-narrative from pro-government buzzers. This "information war" reveals how the state strategically uses digital platforms to control narratives, turning participatory spaces into battlegrounds where public engagement is encouraged only if it aligns with the regime's agenda, effectively stifling democratic discourse.
An incident involving journalist Najwa Shihab, a prominent critic of the government, highlights how far this strategy can extend. In a coordinated attack involving multiple TikTok influencers, Shihab faced a wave of criticism after commenting on Widodo's flight aboard an Indonesian Air Force plane to his hometown after his presidential term had ended. Shihab accumulated over 45 million interactions dominated by negative sentiment, which culminated in the public burning of her book. Such incidents exemplify how digital engagement can be weaponised.
This manipulation of public participation has significant implications. In Indonesia's networked propaganda model, citizens inadvertently become co-authors of state narratives. Actions as simple as "likes", shares, and comments on social media platforms may amplify government-approved messaging, turning digital engagement – a potential tool for accountability – into an instrument of state control.
While Indonesia's experience exemplifies the risks of digital authoritarianism, it still offers hope. The August protests underscored the resilience of authentic public participation, especially among Generation Z (born 1997-2012) citizens. They used social media to organise and voice their concerns, demonstrating that digital platforms can still serve as spaces for genuine engagement. However, the government's response highlighted the difficulty of sustaining this engagement. In this context, civil society organisations (CSOs) and independent media must play a greater role in holding the government accountable and educating the public about the dangers of state-controlled narratives.
As digital authoritarianism becomes more sophisticated, the challenge lies in recognising and resisting the state's coercion masked as public engagement. Genuine participation should check government power, yet the rise of participatory propaganda threatens this function. Without safeguards, democracy risks becoming an illusion. To combat this, Indonesia must establish stronger legal frameworks that protect digital spaces from manipulation while ensuring transparency in the use of social media for political purposes. Fostering digital literacy can help empower individuals to critically assess online information and recognise state-driven propaganda. Indonesia should also work closely with social media platforms and big tech, urging them to ensure that frontline moderation teams are well-resourced and supported.
[Aqida Salma is a PhD candidate at Goethe University Frankfurt, specialising in digital politics and online manipulation.]