Journalism and Democracy:
The State of the Indonesian Media Ecosystem
August 16, 2022
Scholars and political commentators have debated over the relationship between democracy and the free press for decades. Indonesia, the world’s third largest democracy, faces a trend of democratic regression in recent years under the Joko Widodo administration, seeing similar patterns of increased State power and control unseen since the fall of the authoritarian New Order regime in 1998 (Sambhi, 2021). Freedom House (2022) labels Indonesia as partly free with a Global Freedom score of 59/100, a decline from 61in 2020 and 65 in 2017. On internet freedom, Freedom House (2021) scores Indonesia at 48/100, down from 49 the year prior. Journalists and journalism in general face challenges in the pursuit and reporting of news, where Reporters Without Borders ([RWB], 2022) ranks Indonesia at 117 of 180 on the World Press Index.
This essay will thus examine the state and role of the press during the New Order regime, in present-day Indonesia and an analysis of the relationship between journalism and democracy within the Indonesian media ecosystem.
Press Freedom Challenges During Soeharto’s New Order Regime
Soeharto’s New Order regime between 1966 to 1998 were infamous for its authoritarian military-backed rule and widespread corruption.
At a certain point during the regime, the government progressively allowed more public debates in matters of politics and security through their policy of keterbukaan, or openess (Avonius, 2008). State authorities, however, were quick to oppress and react with open violence once journalists or activists publicly criticised the regime and demanded changes (Avonius, 2008). During this period, the regime also diminished the freedom of the press through a range of preventive institutional mechanisms such as the press permit or publication license, whereby not only was it to censor news, persbreidel, or press curbing, was to prevent power concentration by the media and weakened public opposition to the government (Wiratraman, 2010).
In 1994, Tempo, a weekly news magazine known for its high degree of investigative journalism, had its license revoked and effectively banned from publishing after writing an exposé on the inflated budget earmarked for the government’s plan on purchasing East German warships (Avonius, 2008). Despite filing a lawsuit against the Department of Information, citing that the ban on Tempo was against the constitutional freedom of expression and the Press Law (Siriyuvasak, 2005).
The relationship between the state and the press then closely aligns with Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s (1956) theory of authoritarian and Soviet Communist theory, whereby the press should only function as an extension of the state and tell the truth as how the state sees it, emphasising with threat should they deviate from that. Although unlike authoritarian theory, where the press was nearly entirely directly owned by the state, privately-owned news outlets tend to be forced to comply out of fear of being punished. The condition of the Indonesian press during the New Order regime was at it’s worst, with the majority of news orchestrated by the state despite the brave few who dare to speak against the government.
Press Freedom Challenges in Contemporary Indonesia
The media landscape in contemporary Indonesia is different in many ways, but with the current trend of democratic backtracking, journalists increasingly face many of the same obstacles experienced during Indonesia’s authoritarian era.
Most journalists resort to self-censorship to avoid various forms of intimidation by police or soldiers or when they affect the private interests of the Indonesian media conglomerates that dominate the mainstream media market (RWB, 2022). As the traditional powerbrokers, the intimidation power of the armed forces and those tied to it should not be underestimated, in which many cases involve both the military and conglomerates.
In March 2003, Tempo reported how businessman Tomy Winata, who has strong links to the military, orchestrated the fire that destroyed Jakarta’s largest open-air market, allegedly three months after Winata submitted a plan to city officials to renovate the market and replace it with a shopping centre (Borsuk, 2003). Denying the allegations, Winata sought $23 million in damages, a libel action against Tempo co-founder Goenawan Mohamad, and had 200 pro-Winata protesters storm the Tempo headquarters and physically attack journalists and other staff (Borsuk, 2003). Facing a total of $40 million in court costs, the Alliance of Indonesian Journalists, that lobbied on Tempo’s behalf fears if such a large news outlet like Tempo faces this kind of pressure, it may be detrimental to local level journalists as well (Borsuk, 2003).
Despite the press themselves showing signs of Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s (1956) liberatrian theory, the general condition remains that of Soviet Communist theory. Drawing from Herman and Chomsky (cited in Mullen, 2017), the press has the power to shape public opinion, whereby with that the socio-political elite should closely control the narrative so that it furthers their own ambitions and does not work against them. Although the Indonesian press have made great strides and have become the most aggressive in the region after the downfall of Soeharto, an growth in democracy has not translated equally to a more democratic press.
Media Oligarchy and the Challenge to the Public Sphere in Indonesia
The Indonesian example has shown the conflicting relationship between journalism and democracy. The majority of Indonesia’s media industry is controlled by oligarchs and conglomerates, which started during Soeharto’s rule but has since continued into post-New Order Indonesia, where they have always been significant providers of political information through the consolidation and homogenisation of the media (Johansson, 2016).
However, that brings into question of the public sphere. Habermas, Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox (1974) defines the ‘public sphere’ as the public participation of ordinary citizens that is facilitated through newspapers and the media, an almost mirror reflection of society and the blurring between public and private life. Through Siebert, Peterson and Schramm’s (1956) model of social responsibility theory, which dictates that the near-monopoly of the media impose an obligation to be socially responsible, may fulfill this definition of the public sphere, the lived reality is that much of what we see in the Indonesian media is heavily curated, just through different means.
In the past, it was quite clear the degree of censorship and control that the state had over the media, at which point was difficult to fight. The current state, however, relies on relatively more subtle means of coercion unattached to the state apparatus. The Indonesian media ecosystem, then, sees a blend of control by the socio-political elite, something unchanged despite the transition to a democracy.
The Indonesian example shows that in undemocratic situations, journalists and the press are better able to fulfill their watchdog roles, despite the many factors that serve to undermine them. In the current trend of democratic backtracking, it would not be surprising to see greater restrictions on journalists and the press.
Bibliography
Avonius, L. (2008). From Marsinah to Munir: Grounding Human Rights in Indonesia. In L Avonius & D Kingsbury (Eds.), Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate (pp. 99–119). Palgrave Macmillan.
Borsuk, R. (2003). How to Stay on Top. Far Eastern Economic Review, 166(42), pp. 24-28.
Freedom House (2022). Freedom in the World 2022: Indonesia [report], Freedom House, Washington. https://freedomhouse.org/country/indonesia/freedom-net/2020
Freedom House (2021). Freedom on the Net 2021: Indonesia [report], Freedom House, Washington. https://freedomhouse.org/country/indonesia/freedom-net/2021
Johansson, A.C. (2016). Social Media and Politics in Indonesia (Stockholm School of Economics Asia Working Paper No. 42).
Mullen, A. (2017). The propaganda model after 20 years: Interview with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 6(2).
Reporters Without Borders (2022). Indonesia. https://rsf.org/en/country/indonesia
Siebert, T. P., Peterson, T. B., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do, 10. University of Illinois press.
Siriyuvasak, U. (2005, Dec). People’s Media and Communication Rights in Indonesia and the Philippines. In Third Asian Public Intellectuals Workshop on the theme “Power, Purpose, Process and Practice in Asia”, Japan.
Wiratraman, R.H.P. (2010, March). New Media and Human Rights: The Legal Battle of Freedom of Expression in Indonesia. In 11th Annual Student Human Rights Law Conference, United Kingdom.
Originally submitted as coursework for the Master of Global Media Communication, University of Melbourne
The Perantau 