The concept of “deep state” has become a hot topic in global political discussions. In its scientific sense, the Deep State is an informal network operating behind the scenes, influencing or even thwarting legitimate government policies.
In America, many observers and academics analyze it. Two large groups have substantial control over the sustainability of the United States, namely the military and the prominent businessmen. Both groups are deeply rooted and have their own big agendas.
An in-depth analysis reveals that the two groups possess such great power that their combined influence can surpass that of the country itself. Military groups, for example. In the American tradition, there are federal institutions that have global power. Through the technological advances they master, the worldwide network with thousands of agents in each country, the American military has a long-term agenda, and even the government’s foreign policy sometimes has to accommodate their interests. With mastery of advanced technology, the American military has an interest in the arms industry. This is what makes their influence in every war in any part of the world very obvious. There are businesses with vast sums of money in the arms industry that they master.
Similar to the military, businesspeople in America, represented by multinational companies, have power and business networks in each country, which certainly have a more substantial influence on the American state itself. Not only do they have capital, but they also have employees in every country that is the market for their products. Companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Twitter, and Tesla certainly have long-term interests for the world economy.
Then what about in Indonesia? Some of the characteristics of the deep state include its long-term interests and influence on a country’s policies. There are several perspectives that Bis Akita uses to identify the deep state in Indonesia.
Conservative Perspective
For conservatives, the “deep state” is often seen as a hidden force that seeks to undermine elected officials who are perceived as reformists or carry a different agenda. In this narrative, we can blame the deep state in Indonesia on the bureaucracy (ASN), law enforcement, and the military. They certainly have their own agenda, which sometimes does not align with the leadership agenda in Indonesia, which is produced through democratic processes, resulting in a change in leadership every five years.
Regardless of who the president, governor, mayor, or regent is, the individuals who carry out the technical work of the government are the civil servants, law enforcers, and the military, who remain unchanged. The state has favored them for a long time and have their own interests, including the desire to collect capital. This is what sometimes hinders the running of leaders’ work programs in Indonesia. We usually call it the term “Bureaucracy”. Worse, in Indonesia, corrupt practices and nepotism have eaten away at them, and they are firmly entrenched.
Progressive Perspective
On the contrary, from a progressive point of view, the “deep state” of the bureaucracy is stable. It serves as a brake on political change that is too radical or authoritarian. In this perspective, the deep state is blamed on the successful teams and the business people who circle the leaders of democracy.
It is no secret that democracy in Indonesia requires a tremendous amount of capital so that a political leader will have his own circle of financiers. Termed as “Brokers”, they are a group that helps win and finance elections.
Brokers have different interests from formal governments; they are more inclined to seek profit and group profits through the control of resources in a country or region. They form companies and then seek land use permits or take on the role of implementers of government projects.
Academic Perspective
Academics tend to see the “deep state” not as a conspiracy, but rather as a phenomenon of institutional inertia. It is a natural tendency of large bureaucracies to resist change due to complicated procedures, rigid rules, and an established organizational culture. Radical policy changes often take a long time to be absorbed and implemented by large bureaucracies.
Which deep state group will we accuse? In this case, we see that groups that have a long-term agenda and have a strong influence on the government are political parties. Political parties in Indonesia are given a special mandate by law to determine the leadership of the nation. Only leaders proposed by a political party can participate in the election.
A political party is an organization that has a particular ideology and specific interests. They determine who the leaders and implementers of government programs will be. Political parties also have acute inertia. Those with their respective ideologies tend to maintain the status quo through various strategies. Although democracy results in a change in leadership, political parties have their own institutions that make them remain in the government, namely the legislative or the House of Representatives (DPR). Many political party leaders have been entrenched in the House of Representatives for decades, forming laws without significant change.
The second group that we can accuse of being a deep state in Indonesia is foreigners!. Jeffrey Sachs, a leading development economist, has a distinctive perspective on the role and impact of foreign interests in developing countries. The World Bank and the IMF, for example, he said, have forced developing countries to implement specific economic policies, such as market liberalization or privatization, that may not be in line with local conditions. He argues that these policies often serve the financial interests of rich countries and multinational corporations more than the interests of the poor in developing countries.
Not only the World Bank and the IMF, but also foreigners come to Indonesia through foreign companies that invest their capital to build or acquire businesses in Indonesia. The goal is to make a profit, take advantage of natural resources, and access a large market. This investment can create jobs and technology transfer, but it can also draw criticism for its potential resource exploitation and environmental impact. Freeport and Shoope, to Companies – Foreign mining companies operating in Indonesia have long established their influence on the sustainability of the Indonesian nation.
