Issue

Vol. 4 No. 5 (2026): International Research of Multidisciplinary Analysis

Copyright (c) 2026 Irmanjaya Thaher

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Government Communication and Public Participation in the Policy-Making Process in Indonesia: The Role of Constitutional Dialogue in Strengthening Democratic Legitimacy and Policy Accountability

https://doi.org/10.57254/irma.v4i5.89
Irmanjaya Thaher
Universitas Esa Unggul

Corresponding Author(s) : Irmanjaya Thaher

Irman.Jaya@esaunggul.ac.id

International Research of Multidisciplinary Analysis, Vol. 4 No. 5 (2026): International Research of Multidisciplinary Analysis

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to analyze the role of government communication and public participation in the policy-making process in Indonesia, with a focus on the contribution of constitutional dialogue to strengthening democratic legitimacy and policy accountability. Methods: This study employs a qualitative approach using a case study design, involving an in-depth analysis of policy documents, government digital communication platforms, and relevant academic literature. Data were analyzed thematically to identify communication patterns, participation mechanisms, and practices of constitutional dialogue. Results: Findings indicate that while there has been a significant increase in transparency and the use of digital technology for public participation, its implementation remains procedural in nature and is not yet fully deliberative. Public participation is often dominated by groups with better digital access, creating inequities in the deliberative process. Constitutional dialogue, although present in some policy initiatives, has not been strongly institutionalized and often does not result in substantive change. Conclusion: This study concludes that constitutional dialogue offers a potential normative framework for bridging the gap between government communication and public participation, but requires institutional strengthening and governance reforms to enhance democratic legitimacy and policy accountability in Indonesia effectively

Keywords

Government Communication, Public Participation, Constitutional Dialogue, Democratic Legitimacy, Policy Accountability, Indonesia
Thaher, I. . (2026). Government Communication and Public Participation in the Policy-Making Process in Indonesia: The Role of Constitutional Dialogue in Strengthening Democratic Legitimacy and Policy Accountability. International Research of Multidisciplinary Analysis, 4(5), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.57254/irma.v4i5.89
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Angelsen, A., Martius, C., de Sy, V., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., & Phạm, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007045
  2. Annicchino, P. (2013). Freedom of religion or belief in foreign policy: which one? European University Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/30059
  3. Aspinall, E., & Crouch, H. (2003). The Aceh Peace Process: Why it Failed. East-West Center. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/3503
  4. Barr, C. M., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Dermawan, A., McCarthy, J. F., Moeliono, M., & Setiono, B. (Eds.). (2006). Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia: implications for forest sustainability, economic development and community livelihoods. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002113
  5. Berman, P. S. (2012). Global Legal Pluralism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139028615
  6. Borrás, S., Haakonsson, S. J., Hendriksen, C., Gerli, F., Poulsen, R. T., Pallesen, T., Croxatto, L. S., Kugelberg, S., & Larsen, H. F. (2024). The transformative capacity of public sector organisations in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 52, 100904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100904
  7. Budlender, D., Elson, D., Hewitt, G., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2002). Gender budgets make cents: Understanding gender responsive budgets. Commonwealth Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848597648-en
  8. Farazmand, A. (Ed.). (2022). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3
  9. Firmandayu, N., & Elfaki, K. E. (2023). The Electronic Government Policy-Based Green Constitution Towards Good Governance. Journal of Sustainable Development and Regulatory Issues (JSDERI), 1(2), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.53955/jsderi.v1i2.11
  10. Harahap, H., Sihombing, B., & Hamid, A. (2020). Impact of the Omnibus Law/Job Creation Act in Indonesia. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM), 8(10), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v8i10.lla01
  11. Harlow, C. (2006). Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values. European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 187-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi158
  12. Helberger, N. (2020). The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 750-769. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888
  13. Holzhacker, R., Wittek, R., & Woltjer, J. (Eds.). (2015). Decentralization and Governance for Sustainable Society in Indonesia. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22434-3_1
  14. Horn, P., & Grugel, J. (2018). The SDGs in middle-income countries: Setting or serving domestic development agendas? Evidence from Ecuador. World Development, 109, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.005
  15. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2018). 2018 Global food policy report. International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292970
  16. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2022). The Global State of Democracy 2022: Forging Social Contracts in a Time of Discontent. International IDEA. https://doi.org/10.31752/idea.2022.56
  17. Kan, S., & Morrison, W. M. (2013). U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc122213/
  18. Kishimoto, S., Lobina, E., & Petitjean, O. (2015). Our public water future: The global experience with remunicipalisation. Transnational Institute. https://www.greenwich.ac.uk/research
  19. Lucas, A., & Warren, C. F. S. (2003). The State, the People and their Mediators: The Struggle over Agrarian Law Reform in Post-New Order Indonesia. Cornell University. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/54302
  20. Marshall, P. (Ed.). (2015). New Accountabilities, New Challenges. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/nanc.04.2015
  21. Masango, R. (2001). PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN POLICY-MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PORT ELIZABETH MUNICIPALITY [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa]. Unisa Institutional Repository.
  22. Meier, B. M., Pardue, C., & London, L. (2012). Implementing community participation through legislative reform: a study of the policy framework for community participation in the Western Cape province of South Africa. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 12, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-698x-12-15
  23. Meinzen-Dick, R., Di Gregorio, M., & Dohrn, S. (2008). Decentralization, Pro-Poor Land Policies, and Democratic Governance. International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/capriwp80
  24. Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common But Differentiated Governance: A Metagovernance Approach to Make the SDGs Work. Sustainability, 7(9), 12295-12321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912295
  25. Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Water policy – Water politics: Social engineering and strategic action in water sector reform. SOAS University of London. https://www.soas.ac.uk/water
  26. Mpoyi, A. M., Nyamwoga, F. B., Kabamba, F. M., & Assembe Mvondo, S. (2013). The context of REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Drivers, agents and institutions. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/004267
  27. Mujib, M. M., & Muchlas, M. K. (2023). Achievements and Challenges of Human Rights Protection Policy in Realizing Good Governance in Indonesia and China. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System, 3(2), 218-240. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v3i2.98
  28. Newman, E., & Visoka, G. (2016). The Foreign Policy of State Recognition: Kosovo's Diplomatic Strategy to Join International Society. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(3), 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw042
  29. Ojha, H., Persha, L., & Chhatre, A. (2009). Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation for local livelihoods. Indian School of Business. https://www.isb.edu/faculty-research
  30. Radtke, J., & Renn, O. (2024). Participation in Energy Transitions: A Comparison of Policy Styles. Energy Research & Social Science, 112, 103743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103743
  31. Raymond, M., & DeNardis, L. (2015). Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution. International Theory, 7(3), 572-616. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971915000081
  32. Ribot, J. (2002). Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation. VTechWorks
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.