Digital Uproar or Democratic Alarm? Reading Indonesia’s Policy Debates

Rafi Hamdallah
Student of Da’wah Management, Faculty of Da’wah and Communication Sciences (FDIKOM), UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Recently, we have been increasingly hearing, reading, and even commenting on public discourse—both on social media and in everyday conversations. This is especially true when discussions are sparked by viral news or government policies that are already familiar in our national dialectic. Interestingly, we have become more aggressive in responding to these heated issues, to the point of drawing attention from the international community. As members of a public that is aware of the direction of national policy, we have the right to appreciate and to criticize anything that directly affects people’s lives.

There are four public issues that deserve our collective attention.

First, the flagship Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program, launched simultaneously on January 8, 2026, has received significant public criticism. The biggest concern regarding this program—initially budgeted at Rp335 trillion for 82.9 million beneficiaries—is its efficiency and its impact on the budgets of various ministries and other sectors considered more urgent.

The Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an independent institution focusing on macroeconomic research, fiscal justice, energy transition, and public policy, stated that if the MBG budget were allocated more efficiently and targeted more accurately, it could be reduced to Rp117.93 trillion, generating a surplus of Rp259.76 trillion. From this surplus, the government could reallocate funds to 10.16 million beneficiaries of the Family Hope Program (Rp30.37 trillion), 18.89 million recipients of the Smart Indonesia Program (Rp13.71 trillion), 19.10 million beneficiaries of the Basic Food Card Program (Rp45.93 trillion), and other programs. In addition, the government could fully subsidize BPJS Health at a cost of Rp151.7 trillion, easing the public’s financial burden. However, to date, the CELIOS proposal has not received an official response, prompting continued public calls for evaluation or even rejection of the MBG program.

Second, the public is urging the government to prioritize free education and the welfare of honorary teachers over ambitious projects such as MBG and the Nusantara Capital City (IKN). The argument is that the government appears to be neglecting the constitutional mandate on education funding in the 2026 State Budget, amounting to Rp757.8 trillion, as stipulated in Article 31, paragraphs (1) to (5), of the 1945 Constitution.

The education sector should remain a fundamental priority. This could include renovating 10,440 public and private schools across Indonesia, increasing honorary teachers’ salaries to match those of civil servant teachers (currently ranging from Rp300,000 to Rp2.5 million per month), and eliminating tuition fees for 52.9 million students.

Third, the public is discussing the impact of deforestation allegedly driven by palm oil business interests. In Indonesia, palm oil plantations have expanded to 16.8 million hectares, with total production reaching around 50 million tons per year, while forest areas have shrunk to 120.5 million hectares. If left unchecked, this decline threatens biodiversity and the environment.

Public narratives tend to blame palm oil expansion as the main cause of environmental damage, especially after disasters in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra from November 25–30, 2025. However, public discussion should also focus on mitigation efforts and viable alternatives if palm oil indeed has harmful impacts. For example, palm oil used in food and cosmetics could be substituted with recycled used cooking oil.

Fourth, the public questions the state’s consistency regarding the struggle for Palestinian independence. On January 15, 2026, the United States, through President Donald J. Trump, established the Board of Peace (BoP)—a special body consisting of 28 countries, including Indonesia—to discuss concrete steps in addressing the impact of de-escalation in Gaza.

The issue is that Palestine is not included as a member of the BoP, while Israel is an active participant. The forum should have served as a space for negotiation and acceleration of the Two-State Solution in accordance with United Nations resolutions. In addition, rumors have circulated that Indonesia voluntarily donated Rp16.7 trillion to support the body. This has been viewed as irrational and potentially inconsistent with the Constitution and Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy principle.

If we look closely, these public discussions on national policies reflect broader academic explanations.

McCombs and Shaw, in Agenda Setting Theory, argue that mass media tend to shift news agendas into public agendas. Media that should raise awareness can instead become drivers of biased discourse. If not addressed carefully, this condition may lead to hoaxes, misinformation, and hate speech.

Roger E. Kasperson, through the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF), explains how risk information can be emotionally amplified, making its impact feel greater than the actual risk. Circulating information often triggers doubt and panic that may be more dangerous than the real threat itself.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in social contract theory, explain that the state was formed out of humanity’s need for security and welfare. The state functions as a servant of the people based on a social contract. However, when legal legitimacy operates without active public participation, social criticism and opposition movements inevitably arise.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory outlines five levels of human needs: physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. When one need is fulfilled, individuals seek the next. Likewise, the public: once one demand is met, another will emerge.

Ultimately, the intense public discourse at the beginning of 2026 is not merely digital noise but an alarm for our social contract. National policies must not remain technocratic, elitist projects detached from society. They must become concrete responses to the basic needs of the people. It is time for national policy directions to be grounded in honest data and genuine empathy—not merely in orchestrated agendas that ignore grassroots voices.

This article was published in Media Mahasiswa Indonesia on Monday, February 21, 2026.