CIVICUS discusses recent protests in Indonesia with Yati Andriyani, a lawyer, human rights defender and board member of Indonesia for Humanity (Untuk Kemanusiaan, IKa). Founded in 1995, IKa is a civil society organisation that mobilises resources to strengthen grassroots communities and advance human rights, gender rights and environmental justice for social transformation.

Protests erupted across Indonesia in August following parliamentary approval of substantial pay rises for lawmakers. What began as protests against these salary increases escalated into violent unrest after police killed Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year-old man, prompting calls for investigations into security force violence and bringing issues of lack of trust in political institutions to the fore.

What are the root causes of the protests?

The protests reflect deep frustration at economic and political realities. Rising unemployment, limited job opportunities and soaring living costs have fuelled frustration, alongside anger at injustice, corruption and controversial new laws that allow active military officers to hold civilian government positions and weaken judicial oversight of police investigations.

The immediate trigger was when the House of Representatives approved a major allowance increase for lawmakers despite protests from people struggling with economic hardship. The arrogant responses of politicians – such as mocking calls to dissolve the legislative body as ‘the words of the most foolish people’ – only reinforced perceptions that the institution serves oligarchic interests rather than the public. To make things worse, social media platforms were flooded with disinformation, including clips of lawmakers dancing, which were framed as them celebrating amid public suffering.

In that context, on 25 August protesters demanded the cancellation of parliament’s decision, called for the impeachment of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, son of former President Joko Widodo, and an investigation into his family’s corruption. Some voiced a more radical call for the dissolution of parliament.

How has the government responded, and why did protests turn violent?

The government’s response combined repression with small concessions. Police initially used water cannon and teargas against protesters, and clashes intensified on 28 August as protesters used stones and petrol bombs. That day, Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year-old motorcycle-taxi driver, was killed when he was run over by a Mobile Brigade Corps – known as Brimob – armoured vehicle.

Affan’s killing provoked nationwide outrage, with protests shifting into violent riots targeting parliament, police and local government buildings. Public anger was further fuelled by provocative content and live broadcasts circulating widely on social media. However, while social media amplified genuine outrage, early investigations from monitoring reports, including coverage by Tempo magazine and other media, suggest arson and looting were carried out in a planned and systematic manner. The military was deployed as police forces lost control.

President Prabowo Subianto expressed regret over the deaths of at least 10 people during the protests and convened party leaders to ease tensions. Parties dismissed several politicians targeted by protesters and, under pressure, parliament cancelled the allowance increase and opened dialogue with student activists.

Police also investigated quickly, bringing the Brimob officers responsible for Affan’s death to the ethical court. However, concessions were coupled with a crackdown. According to the Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation, between 25 and 31 August at least 3,337 protesters were arrested on incitement charges in 20 cities across Indonesia.

How has civil society responded to the government’s handling of the protests?

Civil society has been actively monitoring police violence and disappearances connected to the protests, calling for the police chief to resign and demanding police reform.

The Civil Society Coalition’s Advocacy Team for Democracy has provided legal assistance to protesters who were arrested, detained and charged. Others organised solidarity and support activities for detainees in different regions and consolidated diverse public demands, presenting what became known as the 17+8 demands, which combined the agendas of student groups and broader civil society. As part of the National Conscience Movement, senior civil society representatives from diverse backgrounds met with Subianto, urging him to release detained activists and students.

Journalists and media outlets conducted investigative reporting to uncover the truth about the events, including identifying those involved in the violence and destruction. Tempo, for example, found evidence of military involvement, which the military denied.

Civil society groups also called for a government-led joint fact-finding team to investigate the protest violence, but this was rejected, although independent institutions – including the Agency for the Protection of Witnesses and Victims, the National Commission for Women and the National Human Rights Commission – formed an initiative to investigate.

What do the protests tell us about the state of Indonesia’s democracy?

The unrest revealed a deep erosion of public trust, in political parties and parliament, and also in the police and judiciary. This breakdown of trust reflects deeper structural problems with Indonesia’s democratic institutions and economic injustice.

Economically and politically, risks of instability are rising as old oligarchs are gradually replaced by new players in Subianto’s patronage network, which itself is oligarchic. Foreign investors and markets have also grown more cautious. Adding to these pressures, tensions with Indonesia’s regional governments, fuelled by the central government cutting regional budgets to fund social programmes, risk further escalation.

The long-term consequences for the government will depend heavily on its economic and political responses.