RAKYAT : Designing a 'Rencana Kebijakan yang Nyata' To Strengthen Public Involvement in the Legislative Process (integrative governance)
Keywords:
e-democracy, legislative participation, sustainable policies, deliberative innovation, policy co-creationAbstract
This study develops an innovative model called RAKYAT (Rencana Kebijakan yang Nyata) to address the democratic deficit in Indonesia’s legislative process, particularly the lack of meaningful public participation. Although public involvement is a constitutional mandate, existing mechanisms remain largely symbolic and procedural, failing to bridge the gap between citizens and policymakers. Using a Research and Development (R&D) method, this study adopts a multi-stage design approach involving conceptual modeling, literature synthesis, stakeholder analysis, and prototyping. The proposed system integrates three normative pillars visibility, accessibility, and permeability adapted from parliamentary studies and deliberative democracy frameworks. Findings indicate that embedding participatory mechanisms within the legislative cycle can enhance transparency, improve feedback responsiveness, and institutionalize citizens' influence on policymaking. RAKYAT is designed as a digital co-legislation platform that includes legislative dashboards, e-consultation features, and deliberative public forums. Comparative insights from Norway and Finland support the feasibility and scalability of the system, while local political realities underscore the urgency of inclusive reform. This research contributes a hybrid policy-design framework that merges normative theory with system architecture to restore legislative legitimacy and democratic accountability. The model has potential to transform public engagement from episodic protest to structured deliberation, thereby strengthening democratic resilience in developing political system.
References
Alon-Barkat, S. (2020). Can government public communications elicit undue trust? Exploring the interaction between symbols and substantive information in communications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz013
Berg, S., & Hofmann, J. (2021). Digital democracy. Internet Policy Review, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.4.1612
Berman, S. (2021). The causes of populism in the West. Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102503
Cole, W. M., & Schofer, E. (2023). Destroying democracy for the people: The economic, social, and political consequences of populist rule, 1990 to 2017. Social Problems, 70(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spac060
da Silva, F. C., Manucci, L., & Veloso Larraz, D. (2022). Populism and nationalism revisited: A comparative study of the Spanish and Portuguese New Left. Nations and Nationalism, 28(3), 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12817
Damanik, E. R., Farina, T., & Nugraha, S. (2025). Krisis partisipasi publik dalam pembentukan undang-undang di Indonesia: Problematika hak konstitusional dan pengabaian aspirasi rakyat. INNOVATIVE: Journal of Social Science Research, 5(2), 2518–2540. https://j-innovative.org/index.php/Innovative
Dawson, S. (2023). Social Perspectives towards Biobased Products and Textiles. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032284
Fernández, V., Laborda, E., Del-Busto, F., & Bartolomé, C. (2023). Social Perspectives towards Biobased Products and Textiles. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032284
Fishkin, J. S. (2020). Deliberative democracy and public consultation: Designing better participation. Cambridge University Press.
Gandhi, J., Noble, B., & Svolik, M. (2020). Legislatures and Legislative Politics Without Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 53(9), 1359–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020919930
García-Río, E., & Baena-Luna, P. (2024). Epistemology of e-democracy and e-governance through scientific mapping. Tourism and Management Studies, 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2024SI01
Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., & Berge, J. (2025). Does Democracy Matter? Annual Review of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060820
Hasan, H., & Linger, H. (2020). Letting the public in: dialectic tensions when local governments move beyond e-government to e-democracy. In Australasian Journal of Information Systems Hasan & Linger (Vol. 2020).
Hermanto, B., Nur, A. I., & Subawa, M. (2024). Indonesia parliamentary reform and legislation quality backsliding phenomenon: Case of Indonesia post reformasi. The Theory and Practice of Legislation. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2024.2316507
Indikator Politik Indonesia. (2024, April 21). Survei kepercayaan publik terhadap MK mulai pulih. Kompas.com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2024/04/21/16324381/survei-indikator-kepercayaan-publik-terhadap-mk-mulai-pulih
Indonesia Sentinel. (2025). Survey said: Indonesian National Military and President the most trusted public institutions. https://indonesiasentinel.com/survey-said-indonesian-national-military-and-president-the-most-trusted-public-institutions/
Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 73-93). Academic Press.
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia. (2023). Partisipasi Publik dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 20(1), 15–28. https://jlj.unja.ac.id/index.php/home/article/view/169
Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 666–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116657677
Liputan6. (2024, April 28). Indikator Politik Indonesia: Kejaksaan jadi lembaga paling dipercaya publik. https://www.liputan6.com/news/read/5577953/indikator-politik-indonesia-kejaksaan-jadi-lembaga-paling-dipercaya-publik
Magalhaes, G., & Roseira, C. (2020). Open government data and the private sector: An empirical view on business models and value creation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.004
Matheus, R., & Janssen, M. (2020). A Systematic Literature Study to Unravel Transparency Enabled by Open Government Data: The Window Theory. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(3), 503–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1691025
Matsusaka, J. G., McCarty, N., Orlando, A., Peltzman, S., Spadijer, S., & Young You,
H. (2022). Is Direct Democracy Good or Bad for Corporations and Unions?
MAVRIKI, P. V., & Karyda, M. (2022). Big data analytics in e-government and e-democracy applications: privacy threats, implications and mitigation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 14(1/2), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeg.2022.10046669
Mu, R., & Wang, H. (2022). A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review, 24(4), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1838787
Nikiforova, A., & Mcbride, K. (2020). Open Government Data Portal Usability: A User-Centred Usability Analysis of 41 Open Government Data Portals A Data Object-driven Approach to Data Quality Evaluation View project Open Government Intelligence (OGI)
View project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346322953
open Government Partnership. (2023). Indonesia: Strengthening public participation through digital legislation. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/indonesia/commitments/ID01 06
Orian Harel, T., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2020). A conflict within a conflict: intragroup ideological polarization and intergroup intractable conflict. In Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 34, pp. 52–57). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013
Pattyn, V., Blum, S., Fobé, E., Pekar-Milicevic, M., & Brans, M. (2022). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: the cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780
Pelke, L., & Croissant, A. (2021). Conceptualizing and Measuring Autocratization Episodes. Swiss Political Science Review, 27(2), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12437
Pepinsky, T. B. (2025). Cleavages, Institutions, and Democracy in Indonesia: The 2024 Elections in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034251349467
Stratu-Strelet, D., Gil-Gómez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Oltra-Gutierrez, J. V. (2023). Developing a theory of full democratic consolidation: Exploring the links between
democracy and digital transformation in developing eastern European countries.
Journal of Business Research, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113543
Thürk, M. (2022). Small in Size but Powerful in Parliament? The Legislative Performance of Minority Governments. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12329
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.
van Zomeren, M., d’Amore, C., Pauls, I. L., Shuman, E., & Leal, A. (2023). The intergroup value protection model: A theoretically integrative and dynamic approach to intergroup conflict escalation in democratic societies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 28(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231192120
WFD Indonesia. (2022). Democracy and Citizens’ Assembly in Southeast Asia. Westminster Foundation for Democracy. https://www.wfd.org/where-we-work/indonesia
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Proceedings International Conference on Aligning Sustainability with Vocational Innovations (ICASVI)

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