Sub-themes

Introduction

The global development of democracy over the past decade has demonstrated increasingly alarming tendencies. The phenomena of democratic backsliding, the resurgence of authoritarian regimes, and the intensifying social and political polarization have become clear indicators of the contemporary crisis of democracy. This crisis extends beyond the institutional level and penetrates the normative and imaginative dimensions of democracy, where fundamental values such as participation, representation, and social justice are increasingly being questioned.

In Southeast Asia, these dynamics possess their own distinct complexities. Countries within the region exhibit diverse trajectories of democratization shaped by colonial legacies, political-economic configurations, and unique socio-cultural dynamics. Challenges such as corruption, the shrinking of civic space, identity politics, and digital disruption through disinformation and algorithmic power further exacerbate the fragility of democratic systems in the region.

In response to these challenges, there is an urgent need for an academic forum that is not only reflective but also transformative. An interdisciplinary approach is essential to comprehensively and contextually understand the crisis of democracy. Therefore, the Nusantara International Conference on Contemporary Social Research (NICCSR) 2026 is organized as a strategic platform to bring together academics, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in reimagining the future of democracy, particularly from the perspective of Southeast Asia.

Theme

Democracy in Crisis: Reimagining Democratic Futures in an Era of Fragmentation and Transformation

Sub-Themes

1 – Democratic Backsliding and Authoritarian Resurgence

Optimism surrounding the global wave of democratization has increasingly come under scrutiny as patterns of democratic decline emerge in forms that are no longer abrupt, but gradual and institutionalized. Democratic backsliding cannot merely be understood as a regression from democracy to authoritarianism; rather, it reflects an internal transformation of democratic regimes through the reconfiguration of power relations. Democratic institutions remain formally intact, yet their fundamental functions experience distortion.

This process is characterized by strategic institutional capture, specifically the gradual control of key institutions through formal legal mechanisms. Law has been reoriented as an instrument of power, resulting in a shift from the rule of law to rule by law. Elections continue to be conducted regularly; however, they are increasingly losing their capacity as mechanisms of accountability and instead functioning as instruments of symbolic legitimacy.

The resurgence of authoritarianism no longer depends on institutional disruptions such as military coups, but rather on the internalization of authoritarian practices within procedural democracy. The boundary between democratic and authoritarian practices has become increasingly blurred, producing hybrid regimes that remain politically stable while simultaneously undergoing normative erosion. Political elites, economic oligarchies, and state apparatuses play significant roles in shaping a structure of power oriented toward the consolidation of dominance without dismantling democratic institutions.

This sub-theme encourages analytical approaches that move beyond formal institutional indicators by emphasizing the interaction between formal structures, informal practices, and configurations of power. The focus is directed not only toward the symptoms of democratic decline, but also toward the logic of power reproduction that enables democracy to persist procedurally while undergoing substantive transformation. Comparative and historical approaches are therefore essential to identify variations, patterns, and the conditions that enable either the consolidation or reversibility of these processes.

2 – Democracy, Inequality, and Social Justice

Democracy has long been associated with political equality; however, this assumption becomes problematic when situated within the context of socio-economic inequality. Rather than functioning as a corrective mechanism against inequality, democracy often operates under conditions in which the distribution of political power has already been distorted by the concentration of wealth and resources.

Inequality should not merely be understood as an external variable affecting democracy, but as part of the constitutive conditions that shape how democracy functions. Access to representation, participation, and political influence is not distributed equally. Instead, such access is mediated by class structures, patronage relations, and the material capacities of political actors. Procedural democracy, therefore, tends to reproduce existing inequalities rather than transform them.

The relationship between democracy and inequality is reciprocal in nature. On the one hand, economic inequality limits the capacity of marginalized groups to participate politically. On the other hand, democracies that have been co-opted by elite interests contribute to the reproduction of policies that further deepen inequality. This dynamic creates a cycle in which democracy and inequality reinforce one another within a stable yet exclusionary configuration.

At the same time, social justice today is increasingly understood as a question of power, recognition, and representation. Dimensions such as gender, ethnicity, and social vulnerability demonstrate that exclusion within democratic systems is layered and not always visible through formal indicators. Consequently, analysis must move beyond procedural evaluation toward a deeper examination of the extent to which democracy is capable of generating structural transformation.

This sub-theme encourages theoretical exploration of the limitations of procedural democracy in addressing inequality, as well as the possibilities for shifting toward forms of democracy oriented toward transformative social justice. The focus is directed not merely toward failures of distribution, but toward the institutional logics and configurations of power that determine who can participate, who is represented, and who ultimately benefits.

3 – Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law in Fragile Democracies

The quality of governance and the rule of law are often positioned as the normative foundations of democracy. However, in practice, both may experience distortion through politicization, patronage, and the instrumentalization of law. Law is not absent; rather, it is applied selectively, resulting in a configuration of rule by law that sustains, rather than constrains, political power.

Institutional weakness should not merely be understood as a deficiency in institutional capacity, but as a condition produced and maintained through existing configurations of power. Judicial institutions, bureaucracies, and anti-corruption bodies frequently become arenas of contestation between formal autonomy and political intervention, while informal practices such as patronage and clientelism are embedded within governance processes.

This sub-theme encourages analyses that approach governance and law not as separate domains, but as interconnected arenas of power contestation. The focus is directed toward understanding how formal institutions interact with informal practices, and how institutional reform should be understood not merely as a technocratic design process, but as a political process that shapes the distribution of accountability. The expected approaches are intended to contribute toward the development of contextual theoretical frameworks that do not rely exclusively on Eurocentric assumptions regarding the neutrality of law and institutions.

4 – Human Rights, Citizenship, and State Power

The relationship between the state and its citizens cannot be reduced merely to a protective function. The state simultaneously acts as the producer, regulator, and limiter of rights, meaning that human rights do not emerge as neutral entities, but rather as outcomes shaped by configurations of power. Human rights violations, therefore, are not simply deviations from legal norms, but consequences of how the state defines and governs citizenship.

Citizenship itself operates as a mechanism of both inclusion and exclusion. Legal status, identity recognition, and access to rights are not distributed universally; instead, they are mediated through political and legal categories constructed by the state. This process produces hierarchies of citizenship in which minority and vulnerable groups are more likely to become subjects of marginalization, criminalization, or even exclusion from legal protection.

The language of human rights is appropriated within frameworks of security, public order, or morality, thereby legitimizing restrictions imposed upon particular groups. Consequently, analysis must move beyond the assumption that the state functions solely as the guardian of rights, toward an understanding of the state as an arena of contestation that determines the boundaries of rights themselves.

This sub-theme encourages critical approaches that position human rights, citizenship, and state power within a unified analytical framework. The focus is directed toward understanding how legal categories and public policies shape who is recognized as a subject of rights, as well as how these boundaries are negotiated, imposed, or challenged in practice. Expected contributions should combine theoretical reflection with empirical evidence to explain the dynamics of the production and limitation of rights within contemporary contexts.

5 – Digital Democracy, Disinformation, and Algorithmic Power

Digital transformation has reconfigured power relations within democracy. Technology is not neutral; it shapes how information is produced, circulated, and consumed. Democracy is increasingly mediated by platform logics, in which algorithms, attention economies, and data become central determinants in the formation of public opinion.

Disinformation, polarization, and information manipulation have become integral components of digital communication, enabling political actors to mobilize support while simultaneously distorting public deliberation. At the same time, global technology corporations exercise substantial control over information flows, positioning them as quasi-political actors operating beyond the scope of formal democratic accountability.

This sub-theme encourages analyses of how digital technology transforms democratic practices, with particular focus on the interaction between the state, the market, and society in governing digital spaces. Attention is directed toward the implications for sovereignty, regulation, and the quality of public deliberation, as well as toward the need to develop theoretical and methodological approaches capable of capturing the complexity of the contemporary digital ecosystem.

6 – Political Economy of Democracy and Capitalist Transformations

Democracy does not operate in a space detached from the economy. It is inherently intertwined with the logics and transformations of capitalism that shape the distribution of power. Developments within global capitalism (such as neoliberalism, financialization, and the digital economy) not only affect economic structures but also reconfigure the relationships between the state, the market, and society.

Democracy increasingly operates under conditions of concentrated economic power that constrain its capacity to generate equal representation and accountability. Corporations, oligarchies, and market actors do not merely influence public policy; they actively shape the political arena itself. Consequently, economic policies tend to reflect concentrated interests, while simultaneously deepening inequality and limiting the space for democratic transformation.

The transformation of capitalism has also generated new forms of power that extend beyond classical institutional structures, including financial dominance and control over data within the digital economy. These developments challenge the assumption that democracy is capable of regulating the market and instead demonstrate that democratic systems often operate within boundaries determined by global capitalism.

This sub-theme encourages analyses that connect economic structures with political dynamics, focusing on how economic power is converted into political power, as well as how resistance and alternatives to dominant economic models may create opportunities for more inclusive and socially just forms of democracy.