Doing research on how the general public perceives democracy to develop social narratives that resonate with them

C4C is a consulting firm that works at the intersection of research and messaging, with the aim of advancing social causes in Indonesia and strengthening civil society. One of our key projects focuses on democracy, driven by our belief that narratives and public perception play a vital role in shaping democratic life. A clear example of this can be seen in the shifting public discourse in the United States and its profound impact on their democracy.

In Indonesia, democratic backsliding has brought the country dangerously close to the threshold of competitive authoritarianism, while political elites have actively eroded democratic institutions, research also suggests that citizen neglect contributes to this regression (Jeffrey & Warburton, 2024). This neglect is particularly concerning given that surveys consistently show strong public support for democracy. However, a study found that when presented with a clear definition of democracy in a questionnaire, less educated respondents were more likely to support autocracy. This study shows that democracy may not be understood in the same way or uniformly by many. Therefore, we decided to conduct a research to find out what democracy actually means for the general people. We designed a series of studies using qualitative and quantitative methods. In addition, we intend to turn the quantitative part of the research into a democracy and civic space barometer that annually monitors the level of public understanding and support for democracy. Through our research, we seek to explore how alternative narratives can be developed to build the general public support for democratic institutions, policies, and leadership in Indonesia

Here’s some of what we’ve learned from that research.

From the research, we find that some citizens perceive democracy primarily through its liberal or pluralist dimensions, such as equality and the protection of civil rights and freedoms. For instance, insights from FGDs, X, and Q Method reveal support for equal rights and treatment for all citizens, freedom of expression and association, gender equality in political participation, and tolerance.

While some citizens agree with the ideas of rights and tolerance that are central to liberal and pluralist democracy, this does not necessarily mean their understanding of democracy aligns with the full set of principles and norms required by liberal democracy. In our research, we identified five key themes in how ordinary people interpret the meaning of democracy:

The principle of equality in Indonesian society is often applied selectively, with rights and freedoms more strongly upheld for the majority of those considered to “fit the norm.” Q Method findings reveal that while freedom of expression and association is generally respected, the rights of sexual minorities are frequently denied. There is also consensus that, for the sake of the common good, individuals with extreme views should be barred from running for office or speaking in public forums, further reflecting the conditional support for political rights.

At the same time, the Q Method highlights positive attitudes toward gender equality in political participation. However, FGDs consistently show views rooted in traditional family roles, where husbands are seen as heads of the household and primary breadwinners, while wives are expected to manage domestic affairs. This suggests that the “selectivity” of equality applies not only to who receives it, but also to where it is recognized.

Findings from the FGDs and Q Method reveal that some citizens prioritize social order and stability over individual liberty. They view “unrestrained” democracy as a potential source of chaos, with some even believing that Indonesia’s democracy “has gone too far.” For certain respondents, democracy is defined less by freedoms and more by compliance with rules.

This concern that democracy has exceeded its limits is often accompanied by a belief—reflected in Q Method results, that the government should have “discretion” in exercising its authority to improve public welfare. Several FGD participants also described democracy as “cumbersome,” reinforcing this sentiment.

Additionally, many respondents highlighted “decisiveness” as a key trait of an ideal leader, suggesting that leaders are widely perceived as guarantors of stability and as solutions to political challenges.

Public discussions, especially on platform X, are dominated by talk about political figures, while policy or ideological issues are less prevalent. This confirms previous findings that citizens tend to focus on leader figures rather than ideologies or programs, signifying the characteristics of personalistic democracy.

The findings of X content analysis, FGDs, and Q Method show a consensus that the government should prioritize people's welfare by developing infrastructure and controlling the price of daily necessities. This finding aligns with previous research, which shows that democracy is seen as a system of government that brings economic benefits and justice to the people.

This view is reflected in the nostalgia for the New Order, as expressed by some FGD respondents, who consider it better than the current, more democratic era because the prices of essential commodities are considered more stable.

We see the possibility of a view where the government (read: the ruler) is a provider of favors, not a steward accountable to the people. This reflects that for some people, the practice of clientelism, or the offering of favors in exchange for the citizens’ support of the ruler, is normal.

Some citizens expect the government to bring social and economic benefits and reduce social inequality. Furthermore, the Q Method findings show the belief that redistribution through taxation is vital to reducing inequality. From FGDs, some respondents expect the government to fulfill people's basic needs in return for citizens' obligations, such as paying taxes.

The FGD findings reveal community concerns about disproportionate development and corruption. This finding is consistent with our other research findings, which show that regional development disparity and corruption are deemed the “saboteurs” of social justice for some communities.

So what do citizens do if they feel that government “services” in bringing economic benefits do not meet their expectations? Or if they witness or experience injustice? Findings from FGDs and Q-Methods expose the opinion that the way to complain to the government is to protest through social media (some mentioned the term “no viral, no justice”) or take to the streets. However, from the FGDs, we find many respondents who feel anxious that their protests will be retaliated against by the government, such as village officials terminating their provision of services.

In addition to “the meaning gap” between the mind of some people and the principles and norms in the minimum requirements of democracy, we found that their conception is related to the moral foundations used by people with conservative views, which are often not in line with the principles of liberal democracy.

The moral foundations theory states that our judgments about right or wrong are intuitive, and we use reasoning to justify the “verdict” only when we have to.
Moral intuition can be likened to a human tongue with five taste receptors. The “taste receptors” for moral intuition are called moral foundations. Everyone is born with six moral foundations. The moral foundations present at birth can be compared to the first draft of a piece of writing. Life experiences influenced by social and cultural environmental factors constantly revise this first draft.

If the tongue recognizes five taste receptors (sweet, salty, bitter, sour, umami), then moral intuition, according to Haidt, has six foundations.

• Harm vs care, which is related to the suffering of others. “Others” is defined by liberals as ‘all humanity’, and by conservatives as ‘my community’.
• Fairness vs cheating. Conservatives associate fairness with proportionality, while for liberals, it is equality.
• Liberty vs oppression is related to the universal hatred of bullies. Liberals will focus on defending the victims of oppression, while conservatives fight against the oppressors.
• Loyalty vs. betrayal is related to a strong emotional attachment to the in-group. In-groups include nations, tribes, races, religions, and other social identities. Unlike conservatives, liberals tend not to use this moral foundation.
• Authority vs. subversion relates to obedience to authority figures, conformity, and order. Conservatives care about this foundation, but liberals do not.
• Sanctity vs. degradation relates to disgust for things perceived to contaminate the purity or sanctity of things that a group considers sacred. Again, this foundation is essential for conservatives but not for liberals.

As we found in our 2021 research, most Indonesians' moral views tend to be conservative. Our study confirms previous findings from the World Value Survey (2016), which characterized Indonesia as a country where the majority of citizens uphold traditional values (obedience to parents and authority, importance of religion, family unity, nationalism) and those oriented towards group survival (tribalism and ethnocentrism, low trust and tolerance in other groups).
The conservative view is reflected in our findings on themes in the meaning of democracy:

• Freedom brings chaos: Freedom needs to be strictly regulated to maintain order and social harmony. This relates to the foundation of authority versus subversion.
• Equality, for some: Equality in rights or liberties is limited to groups that are considered “clean” and conform to traditional or religious norms. This relates to the foundation of sanctity versus blasphemy.
• Politician fan clubs: The basis for preferring leaders or politicians who promise priority to in-group embodies the foundation of loyalty versus betrayal.
• “Service” providers that are open to protests: Democracy is more about people getting what they “deserve” based on their contributions than about equality of rights or opportunities. This relates to the foundation of proportional versus fraudulent justice.

Based on these findings, we are developing alternative narratives about democracy that resonate with Indonesia’s conservative majority and foster broader public support for strengthening democratic institutions. Once tested and refined, these narratives, together with our research, will be compiled into an open-access data platform for CSOs and think tanks to strengthen their advocacy and campaigns, helping them move beyond the echo chamber.

What we have shared here is only a glimpse of our work. To learn more about our research, methodology, and narrative outputs, follow us on our social channels.

If you're interested in learning more about our research findings and the alternative narratives we've developed, we invite you to follow us on our social media channels. There, we’ll be sharing updates, insights, and the events that will follow up after that which is our data platform, named Lab Narasi, launch event in October 2025
Instagram: @c4c_id
LinkedIn: Communication for Change
Twitter: @C4C_ID 

At Communication for Change (C4C), we’ve supported institutions in crafting and delivering policy recommendations that are evidence-based, politically savvy, and tailored to resonate with their stakeholders. Contact us to explore how we can help turn your research into strategic, impactful communication, whether through message testing, narrative development, or stakeholder engagement support.

C4C is the architect of narrative change, we bridge research and communication to craft compelling messages and narratives that drive change.

We translate data and insights into strategic storytelling, helping organizations in the social sector engage audiences, inspire action, and create meaningful change. Whether you are a nonprofit looking to refine your storytelling or seeking research-backed strategies to enhance your influence, C4C has the expertise to bring your vision to life.

C4C is the architect of narrative change, we bridges research and communication to craft compelling messages and narratives that drive change.

We translate data and insights into strategic storytelling, helping organizations in the social sector engage audiences, inspire action, and create meaningful change. Whether you are a nonprofit looking to refine your storytelling or seeking research-backed strategies to enhance your influence, C4C has the expertise to bring your vision to life.