Between Reform and Repression: Why Are Activists Still Targets of Intimidation? -By Moh. Ja’far Sodiq Maksum & Edy Rudyanto

Reform and the Promise of Freedom

The 1998 Reformasi is often regarded as a turning point in Indonesia’s democratic journey. The wave of political change that toppled the New Order regime brought immense hope for the emergence of a more democratic, open political order that respects human rights. One of the central demands of the reform movement was civil liberty: freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and broader space for civil society to criticize those in power without fear.

Over the past two decades, Indonesia has indeed made notable progress. Elections are held regularly, mass media have developed rapidly, and civil society enjoys relatively open space to express aspirations. Many observers even regard Indonesia as one of the world’s largest democracies, with a level of political freedom significantly greater than in previous eras.

However, behind these achievements, numerous incidents of terror and intimidation against activists, academics, journalists, and human rights defenders suggest that the freedom promised by the reform era has not fully escaped the shadow of fear. Cases of intimidation against critical voices continue to emerge in various forms—ranging from physical threats and legal criminalization to digital attacks.

This reality raises a fundamental question: if reform promised freedom of expression, why do activists who voice criticism still become targets of intimidation?

The Trail of Terror Against Activists: A Recurring Pattern

In the history of Indonesia’s post-reform democracy, various acts of violence against activists reveal recurring patterns. One of the most iconic cases is the assassination of human rights activist Munir Said Thalib in 2004. Munir, widely known as a defender of human rights and a sharp critic of state abuses, died after being poisoned with arsenic during a flight to the Netherlands. To this day, although some perpetrators have been prosecuted, many believe that the intellectual mastermind behind the assassination has never been fully revealed.

Other cases show that intimidation against activists does not always take the form of direct violence. In 2020, for example, organizers of an academic discussion at the Faculty of Law at Universitas Gadjah Mada received threats and intimidation ahead of a forum discussing the issue of presidential impeachment. These threats were not only aimed at canceling the academic event but also created an atmosphere of fear within intellectual spaces that should be free from political pressure.

In 2021, the family of human rights activist Veronica Koman experienced intimidation through the delivery of suspicious packages allegedly containing explosive materials and chicken carcasses. The act targeted not only the individual activist but also her family, serving as psychological pressure intended to silence advocacy efforts.

This pattern of intimidation has intensified in recent years. In 2025, the office of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) reportedly experienced intimidation when unidentified individuals repeatedly rang the office bell in the early hours of the morning, shortly after the organization had criticized discussions surrounding the Military Bill.

During the same period, several digital activists and influencers who criticized government policies also faced various forms of threats, ranging from cyberattacks to physical intimidation. Reports indicate hundreds of cases of threats against activists within a single year.

The most recent incident drawing public attention was the acid attack against Andrie Yunus in 2026, a human rights activist and Deputy Coordinator of KontraS. The attack not only reflects brutal violence against human rights defenders but also shows that physical risks for activists remain very real.

From these various cases, a certain pattern becomes apparent. First, intimidation does not always take the form of direct violence but may also involve psychological and symbolic pressure. Second, the digital sphere has become a new arena for repression through account hacking, doxing, and disinformation campaigns. Third, intimidation often operates strategically, aiming to create a chilling effect that discourages civil society from voicing criticism.

In political literature, this phenomenon is often referred to as strategic harassment, the systematic use of intimidation to weaken the role of civil society in democratic life.

Reform versus the Reality of Democracy

To understand this phenomenon more deeply, it is important to view it through the lens of democratic theory. In political science, scholars such as Robert Dahl and Larry Diamond distinguish between procedural democracy and substantive democracy.

Procedural democracy refers to the presence of formal democratic institutions such as free elections, multiparty systems, and freedom of the press. In this respect, Indonesia has relatively succeeded in building a stable democratic mechanism since the reform era.

However, substantive democracy demands more than formal procedures. It also requires the protection of civil rights, including the right to dissent, the right to criticize authority, and security for citizens who advocate for the public interest.

This is where the challenges of Indonesian democracy become evident. Although freedom formally exists, various acts of intimidation show that protection for critical voices is far from guaranteed.

This phenomenon can also be explained through the concept of shrinking civic space, which refers to the gradual narrowing of civil liberties in political practice. In many contemporary democracies, restrictions on civil society do not always occur through formal prohibitions but through subtler mechanisms such as intimidation, legal harassment, disinformation campaigns, and anonymous attacks.

Furthermore, in his book Fear: The History of a Political Idea, Corey Robin explains how fear is often used as a political instrument to control society. When individuals or groups who express criticism face threats and intimidation, the impact is not limited to the direct victims but spreads throughout society, making people more cautious about expressing their views.

In other words, intimidation against activists can create a politics of fear, where freedom of expression is gradually eroded not by explicit legal restrictions but by fear that permeates society.

The State and Its Responsibility for Protection

In a democratic system, the state has a fundamental obligation to protect its citizens, including those who serve as human rights defenders. Criticism of power is not a threat to the state; rather, it is an essential mechanism for democratic correction.

Constitutionally, the protection of freedom of expression is guaranteed in Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution, which states that every person has the right to express opinions and thoughts. In addition, Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights affirms the right of individuals to freely convey their ideas and opinions.

Indonesia has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which explicitly protects freedom of opinion and freedom of expression as fundamental human rights.

However, these normative guarantees must be accompanied by consistent law enforcement. When cases of intimidation against activists are not thoroughly investigated, what emerges is a situation of impunity, where perpetrators of violence are not held legally accountable.

In the long term, such impunity can weaken public trust in legal institutions and increase the likelihood of similar acts of intimidation in the future.

Reform as an Ongoing Process

More than two decades after the reform movement, Indonesia’s democratic journey remains a long and evolving process. Reform was not a single historical event that ended in 1998 but a political transformation continuously tested by power dynamics, political interests, and the strength of civil society.

Cases of intimidation against activists show that Indonesian democracy has not yet fully matured. Protection for human rights defenders still requires serious strengthening through institutional reform, stronger law enforcement, and greater political commitment to human rights principles.

Civil society also plays a crucial role in maintaining this space of freedom. Activism, investigative journalism, and academic discourse are essential components of a healthy democratic ecosystem.

Without the courage of civil society to voice criticism, democracy risks becoming merely a formal procedure without the substance of genuine freedom.

Safeguarding Civic Freedom and the Rule of Law

Ultimately, the quality of democracy is measured not only by political procedures such as elections or peaceful transfers of power, but also by the state’s ability to ensure civic space and the rule of law for all citizens. As Robert Dahl emphasized, democracy requires the freedom to express opinions and criticize government without fear. Without such protection, democracy becomes an empty political procedure. Likewise, Larry Diamond highlights the importance of a strong civil society—including activists, academics, journalists, and human rights defenders—as a counterbalance to state power and a guardian of democratic quality.

Yet civil liberties can only endure if supported by a strong rule of law. A.V. Dicey’s concept of the rule of law emphasizes equality before the law and protection from arbitrary state power. In this context, many cases of intimidation against activists reveal that Indonesia’s democratic challenge often lies not in the absence of legal norms, but in weak law enforcement. When intimidation cases are left unresolved, impunity emerges—creating a chilling effect that discourages civil society from voicing criticism. This phenomenon also reflects symptoms of democratic backsliding, where democratic quality gradually declines through restrictions on civic space and increasing pressure on critical groups.

Therefore, reform should be understood as an ongoing process of democratization rather than a historical event that concluded in 1998. Democracy can only thrive when the state guarantees every citizen the safety to think, speak, and dissent without intimidation. From the tragedy of Munir to recent cases of intimidation against activists, one persistent question continues to echo within Indonesia’s democratic landscape: has reform truly freed citizens from fear?

Ultimately, democracy is not merely about who holds power, but about whether people are truly free to speak the truth without the shadow of intimidation.