Journal of Government and Civil Society

Articles

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Government and Civil Society (April)

Democratic Regression: Ecological Conflict and Mining Policy Inequality in Wadas

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v10i1.16026
Submitted
9 March 2026
Published
30 April 2026

Abstract

This study looks at how democracy has declined in andesite mining policy in Wadas Village, Indonesia, using an environmental democracy framework. It defines this decline as reduced public participation, reduced transparency, and weaker accountability in environmental decision-making. The research employed a qualitative case study. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with informants from government officials, community members, and civil society actors. Then, these interviews were supported by policy documents, media reports, and field observations. The analysis of data using an interactive qualitative method, employing open, axial, and selective coding to identify key governance patterns. The findings indicate that policymaking is mostly top-down, with little public consultation, limited access to environmental information, and state actions that include intimidation and the repression of dissent. These factors construct power imbalances between the state and local communities, leading to ecological conflict and threats to local livelihoods. This study contributes by showing how democratic decline can be measured at the local level and how the loss of environmental democracy leads to conflict. The policy recommendations are to create participatory mechanisms, make Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) more transparent, and strengthen accountability to prevent coercive environmental governance.

Studi ini meneliti bagaimana demokrasi telah menurun dalam kebijakan pertambangan andesit di Desa Wadas, Indonesia, menggunakan kerangka demokrasi lingkungan. Penurunan ini didefinisikan sebagai berkurangnya partisipasi publik, berkurangnya transparansi, dan melemahnya akuntabilitas dalam pengambilan keputusan lingkungan. Penelitian ini menggunakan studi kasus kualitatif. Data dikumpulkan melalui wawancara mendalam dengan informan dari pejabat pemerintah, anggota masyarakat, dan aktor masyarakat sipil. Kemudian, wawancara ini didukung oleh dokumen kebijakan, laporan media, dan observasi lapangan. Analisis data menggunakan metode kualitatif interaktif, menggunakan pengkodean terbuka, aksial, dan selektif untuk mengidentifikasi pola tata kelola utama. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa pembuatan kebijakan sebagian besar bersifat top-down, dengan sedikit konsultasi publik, akses terbatas terhadap informasi lingkungan, dan tindakan negara yang mencakup intimidasi dan penindasan terhadap perbedaan pendapat. Faktor-faktor ini membangun ketidakseimbangan kekuasaan antara negara dan masyarakat lokal, yang menyebabkan konflik ekologis dan ancaman terhadap mata pencaharian lokal. Studi ini berkontribusi dengan menunjukkan bagaimana penurunan demokrasi dapat diukur di tingkat lokal dan bagaimana hilangnya demokrasi lingkungan menyebabkan konflik. Rekomendasi kebijakan tersebut adalah untuk menciptakan mekanisme partisipatif, membuat Penilaian Dampak Lingkungan (EIA) lebih transparan, dan memperkuat akuntabilitas untuk mencegah tata kelola lingkungan yang bersifat memaksa.

References

  1. Arnoldy, F., Haslindah, N., & Afrisal, A. F. (2022). Kebijakan Pembangunan Proyek Wisma Negara Republik Indonesia Dalam Kawasan Centre Point Of Indonesia Di Makassar. Publican: Journal of Public Service, Public Police, and Administration, 1(1), 80-92. https://doi.org//10.56326/jp.v1i1.1262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56326/jp.v1i1.1262
  2. Ayuningtyas, Kusuma.(2022). Penambangan andesit dan Kekhawatiran Warga Desa Wadas.Dw.Com.Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/id/penambangan-andesit-dan-kekhawatiran-warga-desa-wadas/a-60746987
  3. Bose, P. (2023). Land Use Policy Equitable land-use policy ? Indigenous peoples - resistance to mining-induced deforestation. Land Use Policy, 129(August 2022), 106648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106648
  4. Eleonora.(2022).Akademisi IPB hinggga UGM Tolak Penambangan di Desa Wadas,Minta Ganjar Cabut IzinAmdal.Jogja.Suara.Com. .Retrieved from https://jogja.suara.com/read/2022/02/17/194724/akademisi-ipb-hingga-ugm-tolak-penambangan-di-desa-wadas-minta-ganjar-cabut-izin-amdal
  5. Guritno, Tatang.(2022).Komnas HAM:Ada Kekerasan dalam Penangkapan Warga di Wadas.Kompas.Com. .Retrieved from https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/02/24/16315431/komnas-ham-ada-kekerasan-dalam-penangkapan-warga-di-wadas
  6. Jama, O. M., Liu, G., Diriye, A. W., Yousaf, B., Basiru, I., & Abdi, A. M. (2020). Participation of civil society in decisions to mitigate environmental degradation in post-conflict societies: evidence from Somalia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(9), 1695-1715. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1685957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1685957
  7. Leyton-flor, S. A., & Sangha, K. K. (2026). Analysing the representation of ecosystem services and Indigenous well-being in the mining legislation of the Northern Territory, Australia: Opportunities for policy reform. The Extractive Industries and Society, 25(November 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2025.101812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2025.101812
  8. Matanzima, J. (2025). Ensuring fair and just participation of land- connected communities in critical minerals governance in Africa. Environmental Research Communications. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae2a97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae2a97
  9. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publication.
  10. Nur, A. I., Fatih, S. Al, & Intania, C. C. (2024). Revitalising Indigenous Rights Participation in Mining Lawmaking Process: Evaluation and Proposal for Indonesia. Law Reform, 20(1), 188-210. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v20i1.63684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v20i1.63684
  11. Parkins, J. R., & Mitchell, R. E. (2005). Public Participation as Public Debate : A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, August 2003, 529-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947977
  12. Purwadi, A. (2025). Challenges in Recognizing Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Mining Licensing in Indigenous Areas. Journal of Adat Recht, 2(2), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.62872/cyg29p16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62872/cyg29p16
  13. Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., Vente, J. De, Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli, J., & Delden, H. Van. (2018). A theory of participation : what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work ? Restoration Ecology, 26(April), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541
  14. Robinson, K. F., Baker, E., Ewing, E., Hemming, V., Kenney, M. A., & Runge, M. C. (2023). Decision analysis to advance environmental sustainability. Decision Analysis, 20(4), 243-344, C2. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.intro.v20.n4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.intro.v20.n4
  15. Rojas, D. I. C., & Montaño, M. (2022). Self-organization/self-mobilization of affected communities in impact assessment and decision-making: A case study in the Atrato River (Colombia). Cleaner Production Letters, 3, 100022.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2022.100022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2022.100022
  16. Sholihin, E. B. (2021). Why have Anti-Offshore Tin Mining Movements Failed in Bangka but Succeeded in East Belitung? Political Opportunity Structures and Political Settlement in the Context of Indonesia's Democratic Future. PCD Journal, 8(2), 203-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.v8i2.1483
  17. Siregar, S. N., Raffiudin, R., & Noor, F. (2022). Democratic Regression in Indonesia: Police and Low-Capacity Democracy in Jokowi's Administration. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 26(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.72129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.72129
  18. Spiegel, S. J. (2012). Governance institutions, resource rights regimes, and the informal mining sector: Regulatory complexities in Indonesia. World Development, 40(1), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.015
  19. Suprayoga, G. B., Witte, P., & Spit, T. (2020). Coping with strategic ambiguity in planning sustainable road development: balancing economic and environmental interests in two highway projects in Indonesia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(3), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1695462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1695462
  20. Syafi'i, I., Suryani, D., Satriani, S., Aulia, D., Dhiaulhaq, A., & Adaba, P. Y. (2025). Displaced by progress: The new capital development and the powers of exclusion in Balikpapan Bay, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 269, 107801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107801
  21. Tomsa, D., & Bax, N. (2023). Democratic regression and environmental politics in Indonesia. Asian Studies Review, 47(4), 740-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2023.2189690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2023.2189690
  22. Turner, S. J. (2008). A substantive environmental right: an examination of the legal obligations of decision-makers towards the environment. Kluwer Law International.
  23. VanNijnatten, D. (1996). Environmental governance in an era of participatory decision making: Canadian and American approaches. American Review of Canadian Studies, 26(3), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02722019609481194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02722019609481194
  24. Warburton, E., & Aspinall, E. (2019). Explaining Indonesia's Democratic Regression: Structure, Agency and Popular Opinion. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 41(2), 255-285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26798854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1355/cs41-2k

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.