AUGUST 31 — When Indonesians take to the streets, the world must not dismiss these uprisings as parochial outbursts.
They are part of a recurring global pattern in which economic deprivations become political earthquakes. Whenever the cost of living overwhelms daily survival, societies snap; especially when elected representatives of Indonesia chose to increase their living allowances to a maximum of US$6,000, while their salaries were at US$9,500 respectively.
History reminds us that once households are unable to secure bread, shelter, or dignity, they no longer remain silent.
Consider five historical episodes. In 1981, English towns like Brixton erupted when unemployment soared — above 40 per cent in some areas and beyond 80 per cent among Black youths.
In 2018, the Yellow Vests in France began with fuel tax hikes, but the deeper cry was against exclusion and elite arrogance. In Chile, a minor increase in subway fares in 2019 set off months of turmoil that exposed decades of entrenched inequality. The Arab Spring of 2010 was triggered by food inflation and the despair of youth, but its impact toppled governments across North Africa and the Middle East. And the Russian Revolution of 1917 began not in ideological classrooms, but in bread queues where hunger defeated fear.
The common thread is unmistakable: when survival becomes impossible, legitimacy crumbles. And once legitimacy unravels, no amount of security force deployment can restore it.
Indonesia’s uprising
Indonesia now finds itself caught in this historical undertow. Three structural forces drive the unrest.
First, youth discontent. With half of its 270 million citizens under 30, Indonesia is rich in demographic potential. Yet many young Indonesians remain locked in underemployment or precarious work. The promises of a “demographic dividend” ring hollow when graduates drive motorbikes for app-based platforms to scrape by.
Second, fiscal imbalances. Ministries have faced budget cuts of 25 to 30 per cent while the government’s sovereign wealth fund amasses billions for long-term projects. For citizens, this feels like deprivation today for promises tomorrow. Local governments, strapped for cash, have hiked taxes sharply — sometimes by 200 per cent or more — further burdening already stretched households.
Third, elite insensitivity. In the midst of this hardship, Indonesia’s 580 Members of Parliament voted to raise their own salaries by nearly US$6,000 a month. Such gestures become symbols of abandonment. They are not perceived as policy, but as betrayal.
This combustible mix — youth frustration, fiscal austerity, and elite detachment — forms the architecture of revolt.
Lessons from history
Indonesia’s trajectory echoes earlier uprisings across the world. The lesson is not that people rise for abstract ideals. They rise when daily life becomes intolerable and when leaders appear immune to the suffering of the governed.
In Chile, the subway protests quickly broadened into a referendum on inequality. In Tunisia, Mohamed Bouazizi’s desperate act resonated because millions shared his despair. In Russia, decades of aristocratic privilege collapsed overnight because bread lines made injustice visible.
Indonesia’s protesters are not simply asking for subsidies or lower taxes. They are demanding recognition, fairness, and a government that shares in their sacrifices.
The strategic implications
First, economic grievances are never “just economic”. Rising prices, tax hikes, or subsidy cuts quickly become political demands. Governments that treat them as technical issues miss the deeper legitimacy crisis.
Second, symbolism is decisive. In moments of deprivation, every gesture by elites carries amplified meaning. A salary hike in Parliament or lavish state ceremonies during austerity is not forgotten.
Third, delay breeds escalation. The longer grievances are ignored, the more movements evolve from economic protest into systemic rejection. Early relief — cash transfers, food support, or temporary suspensions of hikes — can defuse unrest.
Fourth, legitimacy must be collective. Citizens endure hardship if they believe leaders are enduring it too. If leaders are shielded, the social contract breaks.
Fifth, reform is safer than repression. History shows repression may quiet protests temporarily, but it hardens anger. Credible reforms — economic and political — are the real antidote.
Asean’s stake
Indonesia is not only the region’s largest economy but also the fulcrum of Asean’s credibility. If Indonesia falters, Asean’s claim to centrality in regional affairs weakens. The democratic struggles of Myanmar and the praetorian instincts of Thailand’s military will appear vindicated if Indonesia’s model of civilian governance unravels.
Moreover, instability in Indonesia sends ripples across maritime South-east Asia. As in 1998, when the Asian Financial Crisis and the fall of Suharto reshaped regional dynamics, unrest today could destabilise trade, investment, and security cooperation. Asean’s cohesion depends on its largest member projecting stability at home.
The danger of complacency
It is tempting to believe that Indonesia, with its history of resilience, will weather these storms. But history warns otherwise. Few regimes believed they were on the verge of collapse until it happened.
The Shah of Iran in 1979, Hosni Mubarak in 2011, and even the Tsar in 1917 all assumed their security forces could contain discontent. They underestimated the moral power of economic desperation.
Indonesia’s leaders must resist that temptation. The present unrest is not an anomaly. It is part of a century-old rhythm in which economic deprivation undermines legitimacy. Recognising this pattern is the first step to preventing a deeper rupture.
Conclusion
Indonesia’s revolts are not only a domestic story. They are a reminder of a global truth: when people cannot afford to live, they will no longer agree to be governed. History — from Brixton to Tunis, Paris to Santiago, and St. Petersburg to Jakarta — speaks with one voice.
The choice for Indonesia’s leaders is stark. They can heed these lessons, sharing the burdens of austerity and cushioning the vulnerable. Or they can continue down a path where every price hike and every symbol of privilege adds fuel to the fire.
The outcome will determine not only Indonesia’s future, but Asean’s credibility in a turbulent world.
* Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS). Luthfy Hamzah is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS).
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
