As a consequence, the cascading effects are now more and more visible and worrisome.

The country’s liberal democratic institutions are not yet facing imminent danger or receiving a final nail in their coffin. But as many pundits and experts have warned, democracies do not collapse in a sudden flash of thunder and lightning. Rather, the process of collapse is more likely to follow incremental steps, decision after decision, until the damage is done.

President Prabowo Subianto, as noted by Cornell University professor, Thomas Pepinski, in an essay for Journal of Democracy, does not have the “crassness or brashness” of someone like Rodrigo Duterte.  This is an important factor that should not be forgotten.

Despite a life in the military and being in the “command”, exercising power at the highest levels, President Prabowo is a rational actor. This means that pragmatism and convenience often determine his decisions.

That is why to ensure that Indonesia democratic decline does not slide even further, it might be useful to deploy a mixed toolkit of actions. Some of these tools might be considered as part of the traditional approaches to contrast declines of democracy with some new agency for the citizens. Others would be more unconventional and require opposition from within the system.

Through the former, Indonesia has already gone through waves of political changes but this time, the game is different.

It is going to be paramount to have a civil society exercising its influence in a stronger and better way.

A more organized civil society led by a clear vision, coupled with street protests and online movements would, without any doubt, play an important role in fighting back against the most worrisome trends shown by the Prabowo administration. This would represent a more traditional playbook that is often used to support sliding democracies.

But a stronger civil society, with the support of students, must not only demand but also start practicing more direct forms of democracy, because Indonesia, like most democracies around the world , needs to undertake a whole rethinking of the system.

It is now clear that Prabowo, like his predecessor, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, is just a symptom of a much wider problem. The two are the tip of an iceberg that represents entrenched interests assiduously and steadfastly pursuing their goals supported by an alliance of the political class, the economic oligarchy and the military.

The traditional civil society, with support of students, can do a lot to create and maintain pressure on the government. A savvy use of social media can harness popular discontent in the streets through an organized and inclusive movement with a clear agenda.

Pressure from the bottom may, with great effort and sacrifice, win the battle, as evident in the watered-down amendments of the Indonesian Military (TNI) Law, which could otherwise entrust the military with a direct say in the administration of civilian affairs. 

But in the aftermath of these potential victories, the same majoritarianism tendencies could easily prevail once again with other initiatives against the public interest. The unfolding dynamics would be very taxing for members of a movement that might lose steam and vigor.

That is why Indonesia needs to embrace new forms of practicing democracy. People need to be enabled to have a much stronger voice in decision making, starting from local levels up to the top.

Deliberative democracy could ultimately challenge the conventional election-based system, although it will take a very long time. The goal is to ensure that the existing model can be strengthened and complemented with deliberative forums on the ground.

Traditional civil society organizations should get serious about the business of running and facilitating citizens’ forums around the country, possibly in partnership with sympathetic and progressive local governments. Around the world, there are plenty of examples in which citizens discuss and deliberate through either consensus or final voting.

Deliberative democracy reminds us that elected officials are not the only and exclusive guardians of the res publica. The citizens are actually the masters of democratic government.

But bottom-up forms of activism augmented with peaceful manifestations and a push for deliberations would not be enough to secure the foundations of Indonesian democracy. The country needs a serious opposition that is ready to challenge the Prabowo administration, opposing its short-sighted policies but also proposing new progressive ones.

Such opposition that eludes Indonesia could design legislation that, even if not passed, could offer a blueprint for the future. A rethinking of a political and economic system that many believe is rigged could start from the streets, from people’s assemblies and from within the legislature.

The country needs a stubborn opposition, perhaps only a few elected politicians who are not yet co-opted by the system. But some help should come from within the inner circle of the President, among its key advisors and even ministers.

One or two among them might have to start proposing alternatives and offering views that may go against entrenched interests. They will require some fortitude but their attempt could pay off for the nation.

To keep Indonesian democracy alive, President Prabowo must be openly challenged whenever the people feel the need to do so. The House of Representatives must regain its responsibilities and reaffirm its duties while the citizens must come together and speak up.

It is entirely up to President Prabowo how he is written about in the history of Indonesian democracy. The former general could do everything in his capacity to stay the course and further weaken the Indonesian res-publica, or he could show he is a quick learner and understand how to navigate the ship in the right direction.

The latter could indeed be a historical legacy.

***

The writer is a freelance columnist focusing on regional integration in Southeast Asia, human rights and development and democracy.