A recent article published in the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies in January, titled “Business-Politics Relations in Indonesia: Oligarchization of Democracy”, provides an academic foundation for the long-held hypothesis that oligarchs play a dominant role in Indonesia’s legislative process.
Written by Greenpeace Indonesia activists Iqbal Damanik, Arie Rompas and Zulfa Nadia, alongside academics Ward Berenschot (University of Amsterdam) and Eve Warburton (Australian National University), the article examines how key legislative products in Indonesia have been shaped to serve oligarchic interests.
One of the main findings of their study is the shift in political actors over time. Under Soeharto’s New Order regime, bureaucrats and career politicians dominated the scene. In contrast, post-1998 democratic Indonesia has been increasingly led by “politician-capitalists”, or individuals who simultaneously hold political power and maintain direct business interests. In other words, the country’s legislative and policymaking processes have become deeply knotted with oligarchic control.
The composition of the House of Representatives reflects this trend: 45 percent of members serving the 2019-2024 term have direct ties to the business world, up from 44 percent in 2014-2019. A similar pattern is evident in the executive branch, where 65 percent of government ministers in the 2019-2024 cabinet had business affiliations, up from 54 percent in the previous term.
This “oligarchization” of politics has resulted in a significant decline in public representation in policymaking. Rather than advancing the people’s aspirations, politicians are increasingly accommodate business interests.
But how exactly do these oligarchic networks ensure their priorities are manifested in law? At least five recurring strategies are employed to push through problematic laws, often benefiting business elites at the expense of public interest.
First is sidestepping legislative priorities. One common tactic is the insertion of draft legislation not originally included in the National Legislative Program (Prolegnas). This method has been used to fast-track controversial bills into law. Examples include the 2020 revisions to Constitutional Court Law and the Minerals and Coal Law, the 2024 amendments to the laws on state ministries and presidential advisory councils, as well as the recently passed revision to the Indonesian Military (TNI) Law.
These changes often violate the country’s formal lawmaking procedures. According to Law No. 12/2011 on lawmaking and House Regulation No. 1/2020 on standing orders, any revision to the Prolegnas should be subject to evaluation by the House Legislation Body (Baleg). However, in the case of the TNI Law, the revision was approved directly in a plenary session without prior Baleg consideration.
Data from the Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK) shows that over the past three legislative terms, the House has met less than 30 percent of its Prolegnas targets. Instead, over 50 percent of the laws enacted each year originate from outside this priority list, demonstrating the loss of the Prolegnas’ legitimacy as a planning and political direction tool.
Second is the executive using the House as a proxy. When a president has a particular interest in a bill, he or she often uses the House as a front to propose it as a legislative initiative rather than a government-led draft.
This practice, which was previously difficult to prove, became evident in the TNI Law revision. The official records for a meeting on March 11 revealed that the defense minister had formally requested House Commission I to act as the revision’s primary proponent.
This approach reduces legislative sponsorship to a mere procedural formality. In a true democracy, the bill’s initiator should be the party with the strongest commitment to addressing societal needs, not a token representative strategically used to fast-track government priorities.
Third is a rushed, nontransparent deliberation. Another frequently used tactic is to conduct legislative deliberations behind closed doors on an accelerated timeline with minimal public participation. A glaring example is the passage of the controversial Job Creation Law in 2020.
While Indonesia was under strict COVID-19 mobility restrictions, the House rushed the omnibus bill’s deliberation in less than six months, effectively bypassing public scrutiny and protests. Notably, discussions on the bill took place during a legislative recess, when lawmakers are supposed to be in their electoral districts engaging with constituents.
Similarly, the House set a record by passing amendments to the Constitutional Court Law in just seven days, ensuring changes to the rules on judicial tenure. Like the Job Creation Law, this bill was also debated during a recess, further limiting opportunities for public engagement and oversight. While the TNI Law revision was not deliberated during a recess, lawmakers still held closed-door meetings, convening weekend discussions at a five-star hotel rather than at the Senayan legislative complex.
Fourth is eliminating key legislative steps. In several cases, the House has bypassed procedural stages to fast-track legislation. For instance, in deliberating the Job Creation Law, Baleg skipped the usual inventory of issues (DIM) review and handed the process directly to a working committee (Panja). According to Article 155(1) of House Standing Orders, Baleg should discuss the list of problems in a draft law before it is handed over to a Panja.
Bypassing this process undermines the principle of democratic representation. Unlike Baleg, which includes representatives from all factions, Panja is smaller and does not necessarily reflect proportional representation of all political parties. The result is a decision-making process dominated by a select few rather than the full legislative body.
Fifth is suppressing public dissent with security and intelligence approaches.
The most alarming strategy is to involve the state security apparatus in suppressing critics. During the 2020 jobs law protests, the National Police issued an intelligence directive for officers to monitor social media, counter critical narratives and prevent public demonstrations. Amnesty International Indonesia reported that 402 protesters across 15 provinces were subjected to police violence. A similar pattern was observed in relation to the TNI Law revision. When civil society groups attempted to engage in discussions, the government responded with intimidation, even initiating criminal charges against activists, although the police report was later dropped.
By weaponizing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to repress dissent, oligarchs ensure their legislative agenda moves forward without resistance. This creates a chilling effect on public discourse, further eroding transparency and democracy.
The collusion between oligarchs and lawmakers exemplifies what Padjadjaran University professor Susi Dwi Harijanti calls “abusive lawmaking”: a legislative process that contradicts democratic principles. International frameworks, such as the ASEAN Handbook on Good Regulatory Practice and the Guidelines on Democratic Lawmaking for Better Laws of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), emphasize stakeholder engagement, transparency and inclusivity as fundamental principles of good, quality legislation. Indonesia’s oligarchic legislative process disregards these principles entirely.
The Constitutional Court remains a potential avenue for challenging problematic laws, and its 2021 ruling that declared the Job Creation Law unconstitutional demonstrates that formal judicial review can still serve as a corrective mechanism.
However, as with any form of systemic abuse, prevention is key. To safeguard Indonesia’s democracy, civil society must consolidate its resistance against undemocratic lawmaking. Academics, journalists, labor unions, youth groups and grassroots organizations must unite in demanding legislative transparency and public-centered policymaking. Without such collective action, Indonesia risks further entrenchment into an oligarchic state, where laws serve the few at the expense of the many.
Penulis: Rizky Argama