Journal of Information Technology & Politics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/witp20

Indonesia’s rise in digital democracy and youth’s

political participation

Muhammad Saud & Hendro Margono

To cite this article: Muhammad Saud & Hendro Margono (2021): Indonesia’s rise in digital
democracy and youth’s political participation, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, DOI:
10.1080/19331681.2021.1900019

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1900019

Published online: 16 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=witp20
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1900019

Indonesia’s rise in digital democracy and youth’s political participation

Muhammad Saud and Hendro Margono

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The platform of digital media has particularly reshaped the political structure of Indonesia. The Digital democracy;
public is using social media applications for political participation and an expression of their information technology;
political opinions. This survey was conducted in Indonesia to examine the impact of digital media politics; Indonesia;
participation; protests;
among youngsters and their political engagement through digital platforms. The study was
youths
influenced by the phenomenon of massive student participation, which occurred in August 2019,
in Indonesia as a reaction to a new corruption (KPK) law. The study opted for the public sphere
theory of Jürgen Habermas; ‘The Public Sphere’. This correlates to the study objective whereby
youth participate in political matters to learn and to discuss their common beliefs in the public
spheres. The study design is quantitative and more than four hundred respondents were selected
during the protests through random sampling techniques. The conclusion of the study demon­
strates that youth participate in multiple activities, such as protests for new laws, which indeed
strengthen democracy and contribute to the political structure of Indonesia. Therefore, youth
participation through social media platforms shows their political participation in Indonesia. The
study also suggests a few recommendations for youth to show their participation through online
spheres.

Introduction the protests in South Korea for anti-beef imports

(Yun & Chang, 2011), and the Umbrella Revolution
People living in Indonesia are witnessing the for­
in Hong Kong in 2014 (Lim, 2015). The facility of
mation of emerging technologies in the world for
frequent Internet usage is also a feasible way to
the use in political communication (Darmawan,
participate in political activities (Nuncio, 2017).
Kustandi, & Syah, 2019; Djelantik, 2016; Jandevi,
However, digital platforms provide opportunities
2019). The development of e-democracy in the
to engage in collective actions for the general public
political institutions of Indonesia is moving to
living in Asian countries (Castells, et al., 2007).
a new phase and era (Aspinall & Berenschot,
The spirit of community involvement in the
2019; Kumar, 2017). The E-participation in digital
democratic processes has focused in many ways
spheres has gained the attention of users and poli­
on contributing to the political structure of the
tical parties who revisit their policies in order to
nation. Therefore, e-democracy becomes a more
sensitize the general public (Hennen, 2020). The
open platform, for the political participation of all
facilities of digital media are strengthening democ­
segments of society to participate proportionally,
racy in Indonesia and are becoming an arena for
and to become involved in every aspect and group
political participation, which is not only traditional
of society. The Internet has redefined social inter­
but rather deeply rooted in the social life of various
action between community and individuals;
elements. The digital landscape of democracy dra­
indeed, it has redefined the meaning of community
matically enables networks which empower groups
involvement, especially for youngsters (Feng &
or individuals to raise their voices, participate in
Literat, 2017). The importance of physical interac­
campaigns, and show awareness and to mobilize
tion may be impossible for several reasons, but
through collective actions (Howard, 2010).
digitalization has provided a platform to initiate
Indeed, few studies suggest that online commu­
new online communities, digital participation, and
nities empower the public to participate and speak
a new kind of political engagement (Allen & Light,
up for common interests; for example, the 2001
2015; Masiha et al, 2018). Therefore, the formation
SMS campaign in the Philippines (Coronel, 2001),

CONTACT Muhammad Saud muhhammad.saud@gmail.com Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia.
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
2 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO
of digital platforms has forced youngsters from
Indonesian society to participate in digital democ­
racy and this may contribute to the political sector
of the country.
Participation through various social or political
groups for collective action is now extremely com­
mon among youngsters, and especially students
(González, 2020). A number of previous studies
show that student movements are collectives par­
ticipating in politics in order to develop demo­
cratic life (Effing, Van Hillegersberg, & Huibers,
2011). However, it is debatable as to whether the
struggle of the student movement is oriented
toward moral values or tends toward political
aims. Student’s activists are vocal in protecting
and defending their rights, interests and benefits
and fights against social, political, economic and
injustice in society (Teferra & Altbach, 2004).
Such student movements sensitize the general
public to participate in politics to mobilize and
gather for collective action (Mahmood, Sohail,
Mushtaq, & Rizvi, 2014). Social movement can
be defined as networks of individuals having com­
mon interests, for collective action in pursuit of
political and social goals (Gill & DeFronzo, 2009).
Student movements, as a pathway toward political
participation, have a function vital for stability and
change in a country. However, student move­
ments are encourage others to frequently partici­
pate in national issues or cases (Millward &
Takhar, 2019). The history of student activism
has also shown its struggle in raising voices
through movements often pursued in Indonesian
communities (Lee, 2016).
Indonesia is a fast-growing developing country,
where the people are becoming well aware of and
quite familiar with their political rights (Putra,
2018; Taylor, 2017). The term political participa­
tion means that every citizen has the right to parti­
cipate in the public sphere. It can be seen that
citizens cannot achieve empowerment without tak­
ing a role in democratic activities (Masiha et al.,
2018). Therefore, it is to exemplifies that political
participation is a well-constructed formation where
the political system can be refined and re-designed
(Saud et al., 2020; Saud, 2020). The same phenom­
enon happened in Indonesia, where a large number
of students participated in many political events for
participation in demonstrations on the streets
(Santosa, Priyanto, Nuraeni, & Dzakiria, 2016).
This article examines the way student move­
ments are increasing and gathering for collective
action in Indonesia. The use of digital technology
benefits the national stance to create and strengthen
democracy. Online platforms interplay between
student movements, including political communi­
cation and the struggle for change in society (van de
Dock, et al., 2004). According to Peter Dahlgren
(2013), digital facilities or technologies assist stu­
dents to mobilize for political engagement.
However, student participation in virtual spheres
leads to a chance to participate in democracy.
Student movement and political activism
Historical events show that student activists have
participated in political movements (Beta, 2019;
SarDesai, 2018; Sastramidjaja, 2016). Such political
events have gained the attention of the Internet
which is used to enable participation through vir­
tual spheres. The purpose of social movement
actors in social structures is to raise voices and to
gather for the social cause of common interests,
such as affirmation of human rights, environmental
crises, and others triggered by violations of political
power (Holt, Shehata, Strömbäck, & Ljungberg,
2013). According to Enrique Larana (2009), one
thing that has led to student movements is a crisis
of credibility and participation in the physical
space. It is usually difficult for students to partici­
pate in the physical sphere to show their presence
or criticism for a special cause; however, student
participation in the social crisis, which was initially
captured by rational groups formed a wave of mass
action (Chikos, 2018).
In Indonesia, student activists in several cities
have raised concern over a new corruption (KPK-
2019) law, challenging the Indonesian government
to revise its amendment.1 However, there are two
ways to change such laws; constitutional pathways
through judicial review in the Constitutional
Courts, which are specialized courts with jurisdic­
tion over constitutional matters. In political psy­
chology, these actions in movement give a message
to the stakeholders public, legislative behavior, and
the political elite.

Secondly, as a message against the new corrup­
tion (KPK) law, massive public criticism toward the
election process, and changing regulations, oppo­
nents must show integrity, capability, and consis­
tency in the struggle against corruption. Thirdly,
they should confirm this to the new legislators, both
in the Indonesian representative council’s and the
legislature, which must show credibility and build
real public space in producing legislation.
In the history of democracy that has been agreed
upon since 1998, the formation of law has indeed
been regulated and must now be through the col­
laboration of two political institutions: the execu­
tive and legislative branches. This requires further
political party manifestation, such as the need for
each political party to socialize and delegate bills to
the regional level, through regional party affilia­
tions and to share this information and communi­
cation via the virtual sphere, such as websites or the
social media.
Democratic revolution in virtual spheres
Discussion and formation of the industrial revo­
lution 4.0, which created the revolution of the
digital-virtual society, such as the building of
online communities and political opinions
through social media (online opinion) and the
’participation’ of students to take to the streets,
are the manifestation of criticism of public
rationality and originality. Many studies endorse
the idea that, in order to expedite the process of
digital participation, social media has provided
these online opportunities to become involved in
virtual spheres (Bakker & De Vreese, 2011; Lee,
2015). In terms of numbers, age is relative, but
when talking about the quality of democracy
with the values of strengthening public involve­
ment, civil liberties, and rights, social justice and
law enforcement, an urgent political change is
needed (Dimitrova & Bystrom, 2013).
The substantial use of social media platforms,
such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others,
has also attracted youngsters to learn from political
dialogue. Studies illustrate that the use of social
media accounts is high in Indonesia, which indeed
support and enforce the youngsters to participate in
the virtual democracy (Lim, 2017).The purpose of
e-democracy is to include everyone for the benefit
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS 3
of the country (Kneuer, 2016). It involves all ele­
ments of the public to raise political issues and
policies symmetrically, openly and consistently.
Therefore, many subsequent revolutionary ideas
are implemented, such as criticism of the functions
of government institutions and political parties for
a lack of interaction with the public and dialogue
on social issues. Then, there is involvement of pub­
lic non-government (NGOs) or civil society institu­
tions in bridging the political dialogue between the
government and the public, such as disseminating
materials on certain specific issues at universities, in
community organizations, and in the mass media.
Additionally, the widest access to information is
available to the public through the Internet, social
media, and virtual spheres. These platforms allow
for the provision of information and communica­
tion facilities through virtual networks, providing
online and offline spaces for groups and individuals
to participate in open discussion forums, at both
local and national levels and to speak about and
even criticize new laws or policies. Therefore, for
the government and political parties, open discus­
sion may be useful in maintaining public trust,
strengthening democracy, and building
a substantial democratic system.
The primary objective of this research is to ana­
lyze the social media in digital platforms which
provide the opportunity for young students at
Indonesian universities to participate in protests
through online spheres. The questions are, what
kind of reason encourages youth to participate in
politics and what factors influence the youth to
participate in protests?
The present study has both theoretical and prac­
tical significance in its present form. The current
study is derived from the actual phenomena of
youth participation in massive protests in many
cities of Indonesia. The study aims to explain
youth struggle as a part of political activities and
also to motivate policymakers to create policies to
utilize the potential of youth.
Literature review
The literature on the active involvement of students
suggests that novel and various forms of participa­
tion have emerged, in which they can participate as
activists in cyberspace for political engagement
4 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO
(Muntean, 2015; Phillimore & McCabe, 2015). The
term youth political participation is defined by
Checkoway & Gutierrez (2006) and involves the
younger generation participating in democratic
practices, which include voting, campaigns and
youth mobilization to participate and integrate in
for a common purpose. The participation of acti­
vists through online spheres may involve a digital
form of participation, such as liking comments,
singing survey, or posting pictures. Social media
also plays an essential part in awareness within
society. John Thompson (2005) has contends that
social media also socialize society across the globe,
and it is a major public sphere in the industrialized
society. New emerging online social networks, such
as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube,
offer unforeseen possibilities for getting political
information across easily for campaigns as well as
for exchanging knowledge about activism
(Phillimore & McCabe, 2015). However, it is also
asserted by McChesney (2016) that, in this digital
era, the diversity of mass media and the Internet
has a major role in society allowing people to think
critically.
It is important to note that the Internet is
a positive factor. Generally, analysis shows that
the Internet helps to bring awareness and mobiliza­
tion to people through online participation, and it
can get become stronger over time (Christensen,
2011). The spirit of activism is also a keen factor
enforcing participation. Deborah Durham (2000)
explains that youth have a vital role to play within
political arenas in Africa, through which they are
involved in freedom or independence struggles,
mobilizing and campaigning against autocratic
governments, and championing opposition in vir­
tual forms of democratic government. The idea of
youth as a social changer is not limited, to age and
other demographic factors. Durham presents youth
as a socially constructed category, group of social
actors and as a relational concept. Therefore, acti­
vism offers new avenues in revealing the transient
nature of young people, as well as their diverse
skills.
Considering the literature on political participa­
tion, Dean (2004) states that it is evident that poli­
tical participation is energetically appreciated in
connection with youth. In the case of Indonesia,
the notion of democratic citizenship is quite
imprecise, and political participation is an impor­
tant part of it. In the context of youth in Indonesia,
young people are currently performing their roles
in online public debates, holding seminars and are
integrated into political parties. Jürgen Habermas
(1992), discussing the issue over three decades after
the structural transformation of the public sphere,
informs us that that purpose of public debate is to
add opinion and to form associations or groups,
voluntary organizations, religious missionaries,
campaigns, and other unions or clubs.
Di Gennaro and Dutton (2006) and Coleman
(2005) discuss the findings of a survey conducted
by ‘The Oxford Internet Survey’ indicating that the
public sphere depicts an individual’s voice which is
concerned about administrative responsibility, and
they imagine that the public sphere would be ben­
eficial in supporting them and has an impact on
political procedure. Therefore, the above literature
on youth in Indonesia explains how the importance
of youth could be useful for the nation and the
democracy in the country.
The present study aims to address youth partici­
pation in political demonstrations throughout
Indonesia but is limited to only a few universities
in Indonesia. Many student organizations and
groups joined hands and participated massively in
several protests in large Indonesian cities. There are
several reasons students are able to participate in
political activities (Norris, 2001). Since the dawn of
the new millennium, researchers and political
workers have been concerned regarding political
participation across many regions (Kisby &
Sloam, 2014; Keating & Janmaat, 2016; Norris,
2001; Torney-Putra & Amadeo, 2011; Masiha,
2018).
Research methodology
The present study deploys quantitative data and is
also analyzed through the secondary data collected
from the articles, newspapers, and books. The data
were compiled in September 2019, and the universe
is four local universities in Indonesia. These uni­
versities are 1). Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR), 2)
Universitas Gajah Mada (UGM), 3) Universitas
Muhammadya (UM), Malang, and 4) Universitas
Trunojoyo Madura (UTM) in Indonesia (see Figure
1). A comprehensive survey tool was designed to

collect data from these universities. A total of 414
respondents responded to the online question­
naires, and were expected to receive over 500
responses. All other missing data were removed
and analyzed on a 414 sample. The data were ana­
lyzed through SPSS and Microsoft Excel for the
coding and analysis parts.
Results and analysis
The above table shows a statistical analysis of the
demographic variables of the respondents (see table
1). Each variable shows personal information,
known as demographic variables, and these have
an impact on the study’s results. The greater num­
ber of the population backgrounds belongs to rural
areas (214 f, 51.7%), such as the suburbn of
Surabaya, Malang, Yogyakarta, and Madura,
which are the main hubs for economic and educa­
tional institutes (Das, 2017). The current study
Figure 1. Universe of the research.
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS 5
focuses on youth participation in social or political
protest. Therefore, the majority of the population
in this study belongs to the age group of between
eighteen and 24-years old (18 − 24 years, 323 f,
54.5%) called ’youth-pemuda’.
In the history of Indonesia, it is claimed by
scholars that youth pushed the Soekarno and
Hatta to proclaim Indonesia’s independence.
Therefore, the youth of Indonesia (pemuda) have
contributed to history as well as to the present
(Tumenggung & Nugroho, 2005a, 2005b).
The sample size of this study is four hundred and
ten (410 samples) with the greater proportion being
female (221 f, 53.4%). It is gathered from other
studies that that women are more likely to partici­
pate actively in society (Yao & You, 2018). The
geographical position varies from city to city.
Therefore, in Surabaya, the percentage is (119 f)
28.7%, in Malang (176 f) 42.5%, in Madura (99 f)
23.9% and in Yogyakarta is (20 f) 4.8%.
6 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO
Additionally, the last demographic variable shows
the educational attainment of the entire population
in this study. There is a supportive argument from
previous studies indicating that education socializes
voters to gain and think productively toward poli­
tical rights (Pontes, Henn, & Griffiths, 2019).
Therefore, the higher education of this analysis
explains that the majority (252 f, 61.9%) have
a Bachelor or Master Education.
Research on youth political participation has
shown that their efforts to change democracy and
participation are a dire need for the benefits of the
public benefits (Critcher Lyons, 2016). Therefore,
this need is fulfilled by information technology and,
indeed, the free social media space for youngsters
forced to be a part of community development
initiatives (Juris, 2016). The above democratic
activities describe the population perception
toward their participation in such activities. Other
variables explain the statistical results of the analy­
sis here, when a researcher asks the variable, ’How
often are you interested in participating in street
protests?’ (see Table 2). More than 125 respondents
state that they are regularly engaged in street pro­
tests. A study conducted by Van Stekelenburg and
Klandermans (2017) finds that ‘Facebook revolu­
tions’ and ‘Twitter protests’ inspire the coverage of
political news and that it is inappropriate that pro­
testers have connectivity with other individuals
because of technology and its availability and
access.
Indonesian youth is more concerned with
‘corruption’ in their country (Sihombing, 2018)
that has integrated youth or the younger genera­
tion. The second variable, “How often would you
like to participate in protests based on corrup­
tion?” discusses the status of popular participa­
tion in protests conducted by a local
organization. However, among 410 respondents,
only 372 are ‘regularly’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ and
‘often’ participants in protests concerning cor­
ruption; this shows their strong stance against
and concern about corruption. In the third vari­
able, ’How often would you like to participate in
protests based on wrong government decisions?’
179 of respondents are ’sometimes‘ interested in
participating in protests. It is a dilemma among
social activists to raise their voices against the
ruling authority or the state for wrong decisions
(Gargarella & Roux, 2017).
As technology and information have developed
within society, regulatory bodies on cyber use are
always creating problems for users. Therefore, the
variable, ‘How often would you like to participate in
protests based on cyber sanctions’ unite the public to
participate in such activities. However, while 89 of
respondents ‘regularly’ participate, and 209 of
‘sometimes’ participate in the call for cyber sanction
protests. Additionally, political affiliation expedites
the process of protests among voters. Usually, the
shadow government or opposition organizes pro­
tests for their political interests; moreover, the last
variable, “How often would you like to participate in
protests based on political demonstration?” shows
that 115 of respondents ‘regularly’ participated in
a call from political organizations.
In order to understand how the respondents
access information regarding protests, 10 variables
were mentioned in the closed ended questionnaire
to get the responses. It is found that information
technology (IT) increases the performance of the
group and promotes harmony for their collective
actions (Avgerou & Walsham, 2017; Badigannavar,
2016; Cardoso, Boudreau, & Carvalho, 2019). Other
studies on ICTs also show the great influence of
information technology and communication that
affects collective action and helps in the organiza­
tion of events; it also empowers and constrains the
agency of protesters (Chaison, 2002). In Table 3,
each variable has five indicators: (1) Never, (2) 1–2
times, (3) 4–6 times, (4) 7–9 times, and (5) more
often (see Figure 2). Therefore, the first variable
shows that 46.6% of the protestors receive informa­
tion about protests from ‘posters’ displayed in
streets, galleries or on signboards. These are usually
in printed form. Television and radio are also
sources of information about events. Therefore,
the statistical result shows that 25% (104 f) gets
information 4–6 times in their routines, while as
Radio; similarly, eighty-six percent claim to get
information more than twice while listening to
radio. In connection with this, personal conversa­
tion, through SMS or in-person can be a source of
information. However, personal conversations are
practiced more often (51%, 211 f) among respon­
dents, and SMS helps to share information speedily,
 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS 7

Figure 2. Histogram shows the activities and impacts of information technologies (ICTs).

Table 1. Shows the demographic variables. Table 2. To what extend are you a part of such activities (n = 414,
No. Category f % f= people)?.
Living areas No Activities Regularly Rarely Sometime Often Never
Urban 200 48.3 1 How often are you 125 f 14 f 121 f 114 f 40 f
Rural 214 51.7 interested in
Age of the respondents (in years) participating in
18–24 323 54.5 street protests?
24–28 60 30.0 2 How often would you 127 f 122 f 120 f 03 f 42 f
28-above 31 15.5 like to participate in
protests bases on
Gender
corruption?
Male 193 46.6
Female 221 53.4 3 How often would you 03 f 105 f 179 f 70 f 57 f
like to participate in
City name protests based on
Surabaya 119 28.7 wrong government
Malang 176 42.5 decisions?
Madura 99 23.9 4 How often would you 89 f 90 f 209 f 89 f 33 f
Yogyakarta 20 4.8 like to participate in
Education protests based on
Secandary schools 102 24.6 cyber sanctions?
College 56 13.5 5 How often would you 115 f 114 f 01 f 113 f 71 f
Higher education [bachelor, master & above] 256 61.9 like to participate in
Total 414 100.0 protests based on
political
demonstrations?

in a similar way as personal conversation (44.4%

184 f) if the Internet access is not available.
Additionally, social media has numerous
applications which support sharing information
and communication. The social applications are,
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social
media platforms, such as Instagram and
Snapchat. These applications help the respon­
dents to share and communicate with their orga­
nizers during collective actions. Therefore,
people use to get more information from
‘Facebook’ are 197 f and 47.6%, respectively
(Etudo, Yoon, & Yaraghi, 2019). ‘Twitter’ is
also used for the as a communication channel
(Hermida & Hernández-Santaolalla, 2018), and
the current study results show that 185 f, 44.7%,
are more frequently getting information from it.
YouTube is also helping to provide information
as a video channel (Paul & Dowling, 2018), and
it is a source of information people use to get
information between more than seven times and
involves (154 f) 37.2% of the total population.
The last variable, social media, is where some
listed apps are influencing and supporting
groups’ communication (Mutsvairo & Harris,
8 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO

Table 3. How often do you use the following media to get information about protests? (n = 414).
No Media Never (0) 1–2 times 4–6 times 7–9 times More often
1 Posters 26 88 (21.3%) 193 (46.6%) 71 36
(6.3%) (17.1%) (8.7%)
2 Television 44 80 (19.3%) 104 94 92
(10.6%) (25%) (22.7%) (22.2%)
3 Social media 50 70 (16.9%) 99 125 70
(12.1%) (23.9%) (30.2%) (16.9)
4 Twitter 75 26 34 94 185
(18.1%) (6.3%) (8.2%) (22.7%) (44.7%)
5 Facebook 37 42 67 71 197
(8.9%) (10.1%) (16.2%) (17.1%) (47.6%)
6 YouTube 31 83 131 (31.6%) 154 (37.2%) 15
(7.5%) (20%) (3.6%)
7 SMS/MSG 34 26 95 75 184
(8.2%) (6.3%) (22.9%) (18.1%) (44.4%)
8 Newspapers 10 31 45 146 (35.5%) 182
(2.4%) (7.5%) (10.9%) (44%)
9 Radio 20 03 356 12 23
(4.8%) (.7%) (86%) (2.9%) (5.6%)
10 Personal conversation 3 90 106 (25.6%) 4 211
(0.7%) (21.7% (1%) (51%)

Table 4. Displays the Pearson Correlation between participation a predator of protest participation, are platforms
in protests, social networks, and respondent associations with for co-ordination of connective actions, and the
political parties, religious groups, or others. digital media foster the protesters mode of partici­
Digital Participation Social
No Variables media in Protests Networks Association pation in protests or campaigns (Lee & Chan,
1 Digital media 1 2016). Therefore, the digital media is the major
2 Participation in .679** 1
Protests
source of respondents’ participation in protests.
3 Social Networks .621** .796** 1 However, there could be other variables too, such
4 Political/religious .693** .842** .613** 1
Association as social networks, and different related affiliations.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 The simple linear regression indicats the effects
of protests (independent variable) on political par­
Table 5. Linear regression to check the affiliation of protests and
ticipation in Indonesian cities by a beta (see table
political participation. 5). The purpose of this paper is to define the inde­
Social media β R2 Value P. pendent and dependent variables, such as protests
Protests/Demo/Demonstration .792 0.627 <0.0001*** having an effect on the massive political participa­
tion of individuals. The standard regression coeffi­
cient is reported as 0.627, and the R-square of
protests indicates 0.792 (79%), which shows that
2016). Social media helps to influence at
protests as independent variables account for 79%
a maximum level, and results show that 70
variables in the political participation of young
respondents in the study usually gained informa­
people in Indonesian cities. The findings of the
tion from social media portals.
study suggest that protests or demonstrations or
The (Table 4) above shows that the performed
‘demos’ have a positive relationship to political par­
‘Pearson correlation’ between digital media leads to
ticipation and social media. It is also found that
participation in protests, social networks, and
protests encourage the youth to participate in
group associations encouraging people to partici­
demonstrations or protests. Figure 3 shows the
pate in protests. However, the results show that
significant value of set of variables.
there is a significant relationship between digital
media and participation in protests (r = .679**),
respondents association and social networks Conclusion
(r = .621**), and social networks and digital media
(r = .693**). Previous studies have found that social The scholarly literature notes that the student
media platforms are used as outlets for street pro­ movement uses the Internet and social media for
tests (Pearce & Rodgers, 2020), are recognized as participation in digital democracy in Indonesia.

Figure 3. Shows the significance of the variables.
The present study finds that youth in Indonesia
massively participate in protests around the coun­
try. There are several reasons for this participation,
such as corruption and change in the democratic
pattern; suddenly, injustice is the case of protest. It
is discussed that protests motivate youth to take
part in political demonstrations or public sphere
gatherings for common interests. A number of
social scientists, such as Di Gennaro and Dutton
(2006) and Coleman (2005) state that the public
sphere is the voice of the individual concerned
about the government or of the state; they imagine
that using the public sphere will prove beneficial in
supporting them and that it will have an impact on
the politics of the day. It is to conclude that social
media apps, personal communication, and other
ICTs support individuals in gaining information
and promoting communication during their poli­
tical activities. Therefore, there are many vehicles
that support individuals in their quest for partici­
pation in democracy and help to raise their voices.
Note
1. In 2019, the Jokowi Government altered policy for the
corruption law, facing huge criticism from the public.
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS 9
Acknowledgments
We want to acknowledge all our respondents who were volun­
tarily involved in this study.
Disclosure statement
We declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding
this study.
Notes on contributors
Dr. Muhammad Saud is a young political researcher based in
Southeast Asia. He is the author of studies on youth and
political participation. He lectures in Sociology, worked in
the development sector (NGOs) and has contributed to
a series of youth development projects and particularly on
Health and Education, at the grassroots level. He is working
with think tanks to promote youth as the main indicator for
social change in the democratic society. He started his career
from the spirit of volunteerism and rewarded the Best
Volunteer Award from UNESCO partners in Asia. He is
currently engaged in funded projects with Indonesian and
Malaysian Universities on the Democratic Practice and
Youth political participation. He is also associated with
national and international forums.
Dr. Hendro Margono is currently a senior lecturer in the
Department of Information and Library Science, Faculty of
Political and Social Science, Airlangga University, Surabaya-
10 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO
Indonesia. He did a doctoral degree from Victoria University,
Australia. His research interest includes social computing,
data mining, data science, big data, library system information
and applied information technology for the library. He has
published reputable research papers in national, international
journals, and conference proceedings.
ORCID
Muhammad Saud http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5739-7238
References
Allen, D, Light, JS. (2015). From Voice to Influence:
Understanding Citizenship in a Digital Age. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for sale:
Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia. Cornell
University Press. ISBN-13: 978-1501732980.
Avgerou, C., & Walsham, G., (Eds.) (2017). Information tech­
nology in context: Studies from the perspective of developing
countries: Studies from the perspective of developing coun­
tries. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315187785.
Badigannavar, V. (2016). Union experience of social dialogue
and collective participation in India. In Employee voice in
emerging economies (pp. 45–71). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. doi:10.1108/S0742-618620160000023003.
Bakker, T. P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the
future? Young people, Internet use, and political
participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470.
doi:10.1177/0093650210381738
Beta, A. R. (2019). Commerce, piety and politics: Indonesian
young Muslim women’s groups as religious influencers.
New Media & Society, 21(10), 2140–2159. doi:10.1177/
1461444819838774
Cardoso, A., Boudreau, M. C., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2019).
Organizing collective action: Does information and com­
munication technology matter? Information and
Organization, 29(3), 100256. doi:10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2019.100256
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-
power in the network society. International journal of com­
munication, 1(1), 29.
Chaison, G. (2002). Information technology: The threat to
unions. J Labor Res, 23, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12122-002-1005–7
Checkoway, B. N., & Gutierrez, L. M. (2006). Youth participa­
tion and community change: An introduction. Journal of
community practice, 14(1-2), 1–9.
Chikos, M. (2018). Facebook pages and public spaces:
Guatemala’s 2015 movement and the years that followed.
Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/
10150/626729
Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet:
Slacktivism or political participation by other means?. First
Monday
Civic engagement, youth socialisation and participation in pub­
lic spheres in Indonesia. (2020). Children and Youth Services
Review, 119, 105669. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105669
Coleman, S. (2005). Blogs and the new politics of listening.
The Political Quarterly, 76(2), 272–280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
923X.2005.00679.x
Coronel, S. S. (2001). The media, the market and democracy:
The case of the Philippines. Javnost-The Public, 8(2), 109–
126.
Critcher Lyons, R. (2016). A rationale for public library civics
instruction. Public Library Quarterly, 35(3), 254–257.
doi:10.1080/01616846.2016.1210462
Dahlgren, P. (2013). The political web: Media, participation
and alternative democracy. Springer.
Darmawan, D., Kustandi, C., & Syah, R. (2019). Web-based
information openness to increasing political participation
in Indonesia. International Journal of Multicultural and
Multireligious Understanding, 6(3), 642–651. doi:10.18415/
ijmmu.v6i3.820
Das, A. (2017). A city of two tales: Shelter and migrants in
Surabaya. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 8(1), 1–21.
doi:10.1177/0975425316686501
Dean, K. C. (2004). Practicing passion: Youth and the quest for
a passionate church. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. (2006). The Internet and the
public: Online and offline political participation in the
United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299–313.
doi:10.1093/pa/gsl004
Dimitrova, D. V., & Bystrom, D. (2013). The effects of social
media on political participation and candidate image eva­
luations in the 2012 Iowa caucuses. American Behavioral
Scientist, 57(11), 1568–1583.
Djelantik, S. (2016). Political communication and interna­
tional public opinion: A study of Jokowi’s Indonesia.
Journal of Media Critiques, 2(8), 147–160. doi:10.17349/
jmc116200
Durham, D. (2000). Youth and the social imagination in
Africa: Introduction to parts 1 and 2. Anthropological quar­
terly, 73(3), 113–120.
Effing, R., Van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011, August).
Social media and political participation: Are Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems?
In International conference on electronic participation
(25–35). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-642-23333-3_3.
Etudo, U., Yoon, V. Y., & Yaraghi, N. (2019, January). From
Facebook to the streets: Russian troll ads and black lives
matter protests. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.24251/
HICSS.2019.109
Feng, Y., & Literat, I. (2017). Redefining relations between
creators and audiences in the digital age: The social

production and consumption of Chinese Internet literature.
International Journal of Communication, 11, 21. https://ijoc.
org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6194/2067
Gargarella, R., & Roux, T. (2017). Courts and social transfor­
mation in new democracies: An institutional voice for the
poor? Routledge. ISBN 9781138264540. Published
November 15, 2016 by Routledge.
Gill, J., & DeFronzo, J. (2009). A comparative framework for
the analysis of international student movements. Social
Movement Studies, 8(3), 203–224.
González, F. (2020). Collective action in networks: Evidence
from the Chilean student movement. Journal of Public
Economics, 188, 104220. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104220
Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere..
Habermas and the Public Sphere, 428.
Hennen, L. (2020). E-democracy and the European public
sphere. In European E-democracy in practice (pp. 47–91).
Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_3
Hermida, A., & Hernández-Santaolalla, V. (2018). Twitter and
video activism as tools for counter-surveillance: The case of
social protests in Spain. Information, Communication &
Society, 21(3), 416–433. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1284880
Holt, K., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Ljungberg, E. (2013). Age
and the effects of news media attention and social media use
on political interest and participation: Do social media func­
tion as leveller? European Journal of Communication, 28(1),
19–34. doi:10.1177/0267323112465369
Howard, P. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and
democracy: Information technology and political Islam.
Oxford University Press.
Jandevi, U. (2019). New media for increasing political participa­
tion in Indonesia. International Journal of Communication
and Society, 1(1), 1–8. doi:10.31763/ijcs.v1i1.19
Juris, J. S. (2016). Reflections on# occupy everywhere: Social
media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. In
Youth, space and time (pp. 385–414). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Keating, A., & Janmaat, J. G. (2016). Education through citi­
zenship at school: Do school activities have a lasting impact
on youth political engagement? Parliamentary Affairs, 69
(2), 2409–2429. doi:10.1093/pa/gsv017
Kisby, B., & Sloam, J. (2014). Promoting youth participation in
democracy: The role of higher education. In A. Mycock &
J. Tonge (Eds.), Beyond the youth citizenship commission:
Young people and politics (pp. 52–56). London: Political
Studies Association. ISBN 978-0-9569661-4-8.
Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for mea­
suring democracy. International Political Science Review, 37
(5), 666–678. doi:10.1177/0192512116657677
Kumar, T. V., (Ed.) (2017). E-democracy for smart cities.
Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4035-1_18.
Larana, E. (2009). New social movements: From ideology to
identity. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: Temple
University Press.
Lee, D. (2016). Activist archives: Youth culture and the political
past in Indonesia. Duke University Press. Paper ISBN: 978-
0-8223-6171-8/Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8223-6152-7.
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & POLITICS 11
Lee, Francis L. F., & Chan, J. M. (2016). Digital media activities
and mode of participation in a protest campaign: A study of
the umbrella movement. Information, Communication &
Society, 19(1), 4–22. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093530
Lee, J. (2015). The double-edged sword: The effects of journal­
ists' social media activities on audience perceptions of jour­
nalists and their news products. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 20(3), 312–329.
Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic
enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia.
Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427. doi:10.1080/
14672715.2017.1341188
Lim, T. W. (2015). The aesthetics of Hong Kong’s “Umbrella
Revolution” in the first ten days: A historical anatomy of the
first phase (27 Oct 2014 to 6 October 2014) of Hong Kong’s
Umbrella Revolution. East Asia, 32(1), 83–98.
Mahmood, B., Sohail, M. M., Mushtaq, S. K., & Rizvi, S. A.
(2014). Social factors hindering political participation in
Pakistan: A review article. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(23), 1933. doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p1933
Masiha. (2018). Exploring the link between the use of facebook
and political participation among youth in Pakistan. Journal
of Political Sciences & Public Affairs,6(1), 1–7.
McChesney, R. W. (2016). Rich media, poor democracy:
Communication politics in dubious times. New Press.
Millward, P., & Takhar, S. (2019). Social movements, collective
action and activism. Sociology, 53(3), NP1-NP12.
doi:10.1177/0038038518817287
Muntean, A. (2015). The impact of social media use of political
participation. Denmark: Aarhus University.
Mutsvairo, B., & Harris, S. T. G. (2016). Rethinking mobile
media tactics in protests: A comparative case study of
Hong Kong and Malawi. In Mobile media, political partici­
pation, and civic activism in Asia (pp. 215–231). Dordrecht:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-024-0917-8_12
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, informa­
tion poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0521002233.
Nuncio, R. V. (2017). Bonding and autonomy: A critical dis­
course analysis of Singaporean youths’ Internet use and
identity politics in Amos Yee’s YouTube Videos. Asia-
Pacific Social Science Review, 16(3), 16–29.
Paul, S., & Dowling, D. O. (2018). Digital archiving as social
protest: Dalit Camera and the mobilization of India’s
“Untouchables”. Digital Journalism, 6(9), 1239–1254.
doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1493938
Pearce, S. C., & Rodgers, J. (2020). Social media as public
journalism? Protest reporting in the digital era. Sociology
Compass, 14(6), e12823. doi:10.1111/soc4.12823
Phillimore, J., & McCabe, A. (2015). Small-scale civil society
and social policy: the importance of experiential learning,
insider knowledge and diverse motivations in shaping com­
munity action. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2), 135–151.
Pontes, A. I., Henn, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Youth political
(dis) engagement and the need for citizenship education:
Encouraging young people’s civic and political participation
12 M. SAUD AND H. MARGONO
through the curriculum. Education, Citizenship and Social
Justice, 14(1), 3–21. doi:10.1177/1746197917734542
Putra, K. A. (2018). Youth, technology and Indigenous language
revitalization in Indonesia. Retrieved from http://hdl.han
dle.net/10150/630210
Santosa, R., Priyanto, A. D., Nuraeni, A., & Dzakiria, H. (2016).
The language of mass street protests in Indonesia. Advanced
Science Letters, 22(12), 4393–4396. doi:10.1166/asl.2016.8164
SarDesai, D. R. (2018). Southeast Asia, student economy edi­
tion: Past and present. Routledge. ISBN 9780429972683.
Sastramidjaja, Y. M. (2016). Playing politics: Power, memory,
and agency in the making of the Indonesian student
movement (Doctoral dissertation). Universiteit van
Amsterdam [Host]. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.523567
Saud, M. (2020). Civic engagement, youth socialisation and
participation in public spheres in Indonesia. Children and
Youth Services Review, 119, 105669. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2020.105669
Saud, M., Ida, R., Abbas, A., Ashfaq, A., & Ahmad, A. R. (2020).
The social media and digitalization of political participation
in youths: An Indonesian perspective. Society, 8(1), 83–93.
Sihombing, S. O. (2018). Youth perceptions toward corruption
and integrity: Indonesian context. Kasetsart Journal of Social
Sciences, 39(2), 299–304. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2018.03.004
Social networks and social ties: Changing trends of political
participation among youth in Punjab-Pakistan.
Taylor, J. G. (2017). Doreen Lee. Activist archives: Youth
culture and the political past in Indonesia. Asian Affairs,
48(2), 394–396. doi:10.1080/03068374.2017.1313630
Teferra, D., & Altbachl, P. G. (2004). African higher education:
Challenges for the 21st century. Higher education, 47(1), 21–50.
Thompson, J. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, culture &
society, 22(6), 31–51.
Torney-Purta, J. and Amadeo, J. (2011). ‘Participatory niches
for emergent citizenship in early adolescence’. In EarlsF.
(ed.), The Child as Citizen: Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, pp. 180–200. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Tumenggung, A. M., & Nugroho, Y. (2005a). Marooned in the
junction: Indonesian youth participation in politics. In
B. Martin (Ed.), Go! Young progressives in Southeast Asia.
Manila, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Philippines: FES–
Philippine Office.
Tumenggung, A. M., & Nugroho, Y. (2005b). Marooned in the
junction: Indonesian youth participation in politics. Go, 27–57.
Van de Donk, W., LoaderB. D., NixonP. G. and RuchtD., eds.
2004. Cyberprotest. New Media, Citizens and Social
Movements. London: Routledge, 2004.
Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2017). Protesting
youth. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225(4), 336–346.
doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000300
Yao, Y., & You, W. (2018). Women’s political participation and
gender gaps of education in China: 1950–1990. World
Development, 106, 220–237. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.
01.004
Young people and politics,edited by Andrew Mycock and
Jonathan Tonge. London: Political Studies Association.
Retrieved from https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/PSA
%20Beyond%20the%20YCC%20FINAL_0.pdf
Yun, S., & Chang, W. Y. (2011). New media and political
socialization of teenagers: The case of the 2008 candlelight
protests in Korea. Asian Perspective, 35(1), 135–162.