“INDONESIA COULD NEVER”: VICARIOUS POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT AND THE DIGITAL SPECTRE OF COMPARISONS IN INDONESIAN NETIZENS’ DISCOURSE ON ZOHRAN MAMDANI

Muhammad Rafly Akbar; Wichitra Yasya

doi:10.62567/micjo.v3i3.2883

Authors

Muhammad Rafly Akbar Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya
Wichitra Yasya Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62567/micjo.v3i3.2883

Keywords:

vicarious political engagement; spectre of comparisons; affective publics; civic despair; computer-mediated discourse analysis

Abstract

This study examines how a non-diasporic public in the Global South engages with a foreign election in which it holds no vote, no residence, and no direct material stake. Rather than asking how Indonesian netizens represent Zohran Mamdani, the first Muslim Mayor of New York City, it asks what talking about Mamdani does for these netizens as members of their own polity, and develops the concept of comparative civic imagination: the use of a foreign political figure as a discursive instrument for evaluating, criticising, and re-imagining one’s own democracy. The study applies qualitative Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) to public Indonesian-language discourse about Mamdani on platform X between 1 November 2025 and 30 June 2026, drawing on a purposively constructed corpus of 213 units—134 citizen-account units as the analytical core and 79 media-account units as contextual triangulation—recoded by comparative function and affective register rather than by stance toward the figure. The findings show that Indonesian netizens engage Mamdani through a comparative architecture organised by the vernacular frame “Mamdani Indonesia” (45% of citizen units) and enacted through three repertoires: analogical personification, institutional benchmarking, and counterfactual transposition. The discourse is animated by civic despair—crystallised in the idiom “Indonesia could never”—which operates as a participatory rather than an apathetic affect, while a domestic value-compatibility filter of doctrinal, sectarian, and purity tests renders the admired model discursively non-transferable, closing a recursive loop theorised here as a digitally networked spectre of comparisons. The article shifts the analysis of transnational digital engagement away from cosmopolitan and diasporic assumptions toward the vicarious engagement of non-diasporic publics, re-theorises despair as a mode of civic engagement, and recovers Benedict Anderson’s spectre of comparisons for platform-era political communication in the Global South.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, B. (1998). The spectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the world. Verso.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). Verso.

Ansar, A., & Khaled, A. F. M. (2023). In search of a Rohingya digital diaspora: Virtual togetherness, collective identities and political mobilisation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–13.

Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In V. Rao & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 59–84). Stanford University Press.

Aspinall, E., & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia. Cornell University Press.

Aziz, A. (2024). Rohingya diaspora online: Mapping the spaces of visibility, resistance and transnational identity on social media. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5219–5239.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.

Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (Eds.). (2019). Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions. Palgrave Macmillan.

Campbell, H. A., & Evolvi, G. (2020). Contextualizing current digital religion research on emerging technologies. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(1), 5–17.

Chouliaraki, L. (2013). The ironic spectator: Solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism. Polity Press.

Coleman, S. (2013). How voters feel. Cambridge University Press.

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.

Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.

DataReportal. (2026). Digital 2026: Indonesia. DataReportal.

Eckert, S., Metzger-Riftkin, J., Kolhoff, S., & O’Shay-Wallace, S. (2021). A hyper differential counterpublic: Muslim social media users and Islamophobia during the 2016 US presidential election. New Media & Society, 23(1), 78–98.

franzke, a. s., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., & Ess, C. M. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. Association of Internet Researchers.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press.

Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 127–151). Wiley Blackwell.

Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. Polity Press.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.

Hitchcock, J. (2016). Social media rhetoric of the transnational Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Social Media + Society, 2(1).

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.

Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427.

Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.

Power, T. P., & Warburton, E. (Eds.). (2020). Democracy in Indonesia: From stagnation to regression? ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.

Reuters. (2025, December 31). New York Mayor Mamdani vows to enact democratic socialist agenda. https://www.reuters.com/world/mamdanis-inauguration-new-york-new-year-new-mayor-2025-12-31/

Solahudin, D., & Fakhruroji, M. (2020). Internet and Islamic learning practices in Indonesia: Social media, religious populism, and religious authority. Religions, 11(1), 19.

Sorce, G., & Dumitrica, D. (2022). Transnational dimensions in digital activism and protest. Review of Communication, 22(3), 157–174.

Tapsell, R. (2017). Media power in Indonesia: Oligarchs, citizens and the digital revolution. Rowman & Littlefield International.

Treem, J. W., Leonardi, P. M., & van den Hooff, B. (2020). Computer-mediated communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 44–59.

van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Rowman & Littlefield.

Warburton, E., & Aspinall, E. (2019). Explaining Indonesia’s democratic regression: Structure, agency and popular opinion. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 41(2), 255–285.

Wright, S. (2012). From “third place” to “third space”: Everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. Javnost – The Public, 19(3), 5–20.

Zappavigna, M. (2018). Searchable talk: Hashtags and social media metadiscourse. Bloomsbury Academic.