Source: M Risyal Hidayat / ANTARA FOTO

JAKARTA, INDONESIA — Indonesia ranked 64 in the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s Democracy Index for 2020 — its lowest ranking in 14 years.

The archipelagic nation recorded an overall global score of 6.3, down from 6.48 in 2019. It was classified as a ‘flawed democracy’.

Regionally in Asia and Australasia, Indonesia ranked 11th, below Mongolia and ahead of Sri Lanka. Indonesia also ranked below Malaysia, Timor Leste, and the Philippines.

Malaysia, also grouped as a ‘flawed democracy’, ranked 39th globally with an overall score of 9.25. Regionally, the nation ranked sixth place behind South Korea and above Timor-Leste.

Flawed democracies are described by the EIU as nations in which free and fair elections are held, and “even if there are problems such as infringements on media freedom, basic civil liberties are respected”.

However, significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy are present in flawed democracies, “including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation”.

Another category used by the EIU in its Democracy Index is hybrid regimes, which are characterised by “substantial irregularities prevent the countries from being both free and fair”.

Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common in hybrid regimes. Pressure on civil society and the media is typical, where there is harassment of and pressure on journalists. The judiciary is not independent of the executive and the legislative body in such regimes, the EIU stated.

The other two categories — both on the extreme ends of the four types — are full democracies and authoritarian regimes.

In full democracies, basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected. Effective systems of checks and balances exist. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislative, and media — the Fourth Estate — are also independent. There are only limited problems in the functioning of democracies.

In authoritarian regimes, state political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed, with many being dictatorships.

“Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance. Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by groups connected to the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of the government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary,” according to the EIU.

Five indicators were used by the EIU to determine a country’s democracy index, namely electoral process and pluralism, government performance and functions, political participation, political culture, and civil liberty.

Scandinavian nationsNorway, Iceland, and Swedendominated the index last year in first, second and third place respectively.

Ranking due to stricter law enforcement in the government’s efforts to combat intolerance and radicalism

In response to Indonesia’s position in the EIU Democracy Index last year, Deputy V at the Presidential Staff Office, Jaleswari Pramodhawardani said that such was due to stricter law enforcement in the government’s efforts to combat intolerance and radicalism.

Jaleswari added that the index did not include the current internal situation in a particular country when assessing the level of democratic conditions.

She stressed that the Indonesian government is committed to maintaining and strengthening democracy in Indonesia.

Ranking could have been worse if indicators used in index were more in-depth, says legal aid advocate

Overall, the EIU stated that the global average democracy index declined in 2020, with an average overall score of 5.37, down from 5.44 in 2019.

The score is the lowest since 2006 when the report was released in 2006 for the first time.

Era Purnama Sari, Advocacy Deputy at the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), told TOC that Indonesia’s ranking in index could have been worse if the questions used for each indicator had been more specific and in-depth.

“Ironically, political elites have used the pandemic situation to pass policies that are harming people’s rights. For example, the rise in the premium of the healthcare and social security agency (BPJS).

“Previously, the Supreme Court issued a verdict that was against the rise, but the government reversed it. How are people able to deal with such an increase in a difficult situation like this? Many people have lost their jobs due to the pandemic,” Era said.

Throughout 2020, agrarian conflicts remained high amid the pandemic when social restrictions were imposed.

The number of land conflicts in 2020 reached 241, the data from the Agrarian Reform Consortium (KPA) stated.

Era claimed there were at least controversial policies during the pandemic, including the introduction of the much-debated Omnibus Law on Job Creation that triggered nationwide protests as the law is considered a pro-investment.

Freedom of expression curtailed during pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic also exacerbated the curtailment of press freedom worldwide.

Several countries have censored the press from reporting something that can tarnish their government’s image, including by blocking critical media outlets that are often critical of the establishment, the 2020 World Press Freedom Index stated.

Indonesia’s outspoken media outlets Tempo and Tirto, for example, were hacked after publishing reports on questioning the military and the intelligence role in the COVID-19 medicine production.

At the end of 2020, a Tempo journalist admitted facing a hack attempt after reporting on the distribution of social aid graft scandal involving former social minister Juliari Batubara, who has been charged for the alleged offence.

“Data from YLBHI showed that 351 violations on civilian freedoms were recorded in 2020. People were banned from searching for information, expressing their opinion, and also a personal data breach.

“Around 52 per cent of the cases were criminalisation. We note that 20 had died from extrajudicial killings,” Era elaborated.

Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

“莫互相责难” 陈清木吁不分朝野专注防疫

新加坡前进党秘书长陈清木医生呼吁,对抗武汉肺炎当前不应分党派,应共同遏制疫情而不是互相责难。 他认为当前不论来自哪个政党,应共同努力、各司其职,并确保每个人都充分理解有关疫情。“我们当前的焦点是防堵(武汉肺炎)。要怪别人很容易,但如今应群策群力,打好防疫战。” 前进党在大年初三为党总部举行开幕仪式,有媒体在记者会上询问武汉肺炎对来届选举的影响,对此陈清木作出上述回应。 若疫情持续,太早选举不明智 不过他提醒我国必须严正看待武汉肺炎,若疫情持续,他认为太早举行选举并不明智,因为还必须考量到竞选和拉票活动高人流量带来的隐患。 他回溯2003年,我国政府也花了些时间,才得以完全理解沙斯疫情的散播和防堵方式。 “过去新加坡曾被英国广播电台赞誉,在防疫沙斯上采取“全球最严谨的措施”。”陈清木也忆述当时得知自己也成为沙斯患者后,便选择在家中隔离,并透过视频连线参与国会会议。 陈清木是前行动党议员、前总统候选人,也曾是一名执业医生。他在2018年底正式宣布“悬起听筒”,结束半世纪的行医生涯,再度踏上政坛。 “现今医院太靠近商场” 他认为本地医院大多与其他购物商场链接,这可能影响到武汉肺炎的防堵措施。他称对于未来医院的设计有必要重新检讨,他更倾向能设立独立的医院,以有效控制疾病传播。 “我还看到有病患在咖啡店喝茶,我有点担心。”

Seven workplace deaths in February alone sets a “worrying trend” for the year, says Zaqy Mohamad

A total of seven workplace casualties have been recorded so far in…

I will survive: website for GLBT to be launched

PRESS RELEASE Personal gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender stories in Singapore collected…

马外长:马新水供仍可谈 惟外交部重申尊重原协议

马来西亚外交部长拿督赛夫丁阿都拉于本周一(30日)到访狮城,拜会总统哈莉玛、总理李显龙和外交部长维文,表达马新合作、加强双边关系意愿。 此次拜访,也被视作马国新政府成立后,正式拜会我国,并针对一些主要课题如两国合作议程、马新高铁、马新水供等课题,进行初步照会。 赛夫丁向马国官方媒体马新社(Bernama)透露,马新水供协议仍可进行检讨。他认为,1962年马新水供协议,双方可在签署后的25年检讨,并不代表在第25年才能检讨条款,因此新马双方可继续讨论协议内容。 他说,在会面时,我国总理李显龙也主动询问马方在水供协议和马新高铁的立场,而他则尽量阐明,令我国明白当前马国面对的情况。 赛夫丁补充,经济部长阿兹敏已在7月23日针对马新高铁计划展延,致函新加坡,相信很快就会展开会谈。 在6月22日,马国首相敦马在接受彭博社专访时,曾提及马新水供水价“荒谬”,有意重新协商水价。 赛夫丁相信,上述两件课题,并不会影响两国友好关系。 外交部长维文也在脸书贴文,欢迎赛夫丁与夫人到访。他说,两国盘点了新马合作项目,并对新的契机交换意见。他也期待两国部长和官员继续互访。 维文伉俪也设午宴招待赛夫丁和夫人拿汀诺林及马方代表团。较后,赛夫丁也拜会我国副总理兼国家安全统筹部长张志贤。 外交部重申:双方不能单方面更改条款 虽然赛夫丁提及,马新都能针对水供协议提出新提案,但是外交部于7月31日发文告重申,对于1962年马新水供协议,新加坡立场与7月9日发出的声明一致,即马新两国必须尊重先前顶下的国际协议,双方都不能单方面更改条款。 “马来西亚在1987年,选择不调整水价,认为他们仍在协议中获益。”…