Massive protests erupted across Indonesia late last month. Students, motorcycle taxi drivers, civil society groups and other citizens took to the streets demanding economic justice and protesting government policies. What began peacefully descended into clashes, leaving casualties, parliament buildings and offices burned, and homes of legislators looted. International media quickly highlighted the chaos.
This raises a critical question: Will Indonesia’s protests be remembered merely as riots and looting, or could they evolve into a turning point for deeper social and political change?
Taiwan’s experience offers valuable lessons. In 2014 the Sunflower movement, a youth-led protest, became one of the most pivotal moments in Taiwan’s democratic consolidation. It began on March 18, when students and activists occupied the legislature to oppose the cross-strait service trade agreement with China. To protesters, the deal was not just about tariffs, but about sovereignty, fearing unchecked Chinese capital would weaken livelihoods and entangle Taiwan in economic dependence on Beijing.
The occupation drew massive support. At its peak, more than 500,000 filled the streets of Taipei, while protesters held the legislature for almost 23 days. The movement remained peaceful, organized, disciplined and free from looting or destruction.
The sunflower became its symbol, representing openness and hope. Ultimately, the government halted the fast-tracking of the trade agreement, allowed broader public debate, and the movement inspired a new wave of political activism among young Taiwanese.
Why was the Sunflower movement so impactful? First, it had a clear and specific focus, making it easy for the public to grasp and difficult for the government to distort. Second, it was driven by young people once thought politically apathetic. Third, it adeptly harnessed digital tools, such as livestreams, social media coordination and real-time fact-checking to counter government narratives. Fourth, it went beyond street protests, spawning new political parties and shaping electoral dynamics. Fifth, it strengthened Taiwan’s collective identity, particularly its resistance to Beijing’s influence.
In contrast, Indonesia’s protests reveal familiar weaknesses. Their demands are broad and fragmented, making narratives easy to twist. Critics dismiss them as anarchic outbursts, rather than movements for reform. Worse, the demonstrations have been marred by clashes, vandalism, burning of public buildings, including heritage sites, and tragic loss of life, providing the state justification for harsh crackdowns.
From Taiwan’s example, several lessons emerge. Protests are more effective when built around a single, specific issue. Social media must be used strategically to craft coherent narratives that sustain public support. Movements also need pathways into the political system.
Indonesia’s 1998 Reformasi birthed many activists-turned-politicians, yet many were co-opted by oligarchic structures. The challenge today is ensuring street energy evolves into a credible political alternative rather than dissipating. Finally, violence and anarchy ultimately undermine movements by handing their opponents grounds for delegitimization.
The protests shaking Indonesia could fade as another dark episode of unrest, or become a historic milestone if they generate genuine transformation. The Sunflower movement proved that mass mobilization need not be violent to be effective. It reminds us that people have the power to reshape the destiny of their nation. Long live the struggle.
Najamuddin Khairur Rijal is an associate professor in the International Relations Department at the University of Muhammadiyah Malang and in a doctoral program of social science at Airlangga University.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) last week made a rare visit to the Philippines, which not only deepened bilateral economic ties, but also signaled a diplomatic breakthrough in the face of growing tensions with China. Lin’s trip marks the second-known visit by a Taiwanese foreign minister since Manila and Beijing established diplomatic ties in 1975; then-minister Chang Hsiao-yen (章孝嚴) took a “vacation” in the Philippines in 1997. As Taiwan is one of the Philippines’ top 10 economic partners, Lin visited Manila and other cities to promote the Taiwan-Philippines Economic Corridor, with an eye to connecting it with the Luzon
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
RSS