Capital city relocation in Indonesia: compromise failure and potential dysfunction

Abstract

The relocation of Indonesia’s capital city from Jakarta to Nusantara in East Kalimantan, as proposed by President Joko Widodo, represents a profound shift in the nation’s urban and political geography. This initiative, founded on development equity and national unity goals, seeks to shift from an ‘evolved city’ framework to a ‘designed city’ model. However, the rapid decision-making process, which lasted only 43 days, and the apparent lack of inclusive public deliberation and participation in critical decisions raises concerns about the democratic underpinnings of this endeavour. Historical precedents from countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia highlight the benefits of a democratic approach to capital determination, while examples from Nigeria highlight the risks associated with non-democratic processes. For Indonesia, ensuring a democratic, participatory, and inclusive approach is critical not only for successfully relocating the capital but also for preserving the integrative, symbolic, and cultural functions of a capital city. In Indonesia, the hasty passage of the capital city law jeopardizes not only the successful implementation of the relocation but also the integrative, symbolic, and cultural roles that a capital city should play. This paper contends that the absence of democratic and spatial compromise could jeopardize the relocation’s intended goals, putting Indonesia’s new capital’s functional efficacy at risk.

IMPACT STATEMENT

The Capital City represents the heart and embodiment of a nation. Consequently, it serves not only as the administrative center of government but also plays a crucial role in supporting national integration, symbolizing the nation, preserving its values, culture, and history, and embodying its identity. Therefore, the Capital City should encapsulate the general spirit of a nation. The ongoing process of relocating the Capital City in Indonesia must consider various factors, including geographical, environmental, social, economic, and legal aspects, particularly involving active participation from the public. This ensures that the entire spectrum of the Indonesian nation shares ownership of the Capital City. Without this holistic approach, relocating the Capital City in Indonesia risks failure.

Keywords:

• Capital city relocation
• democratic deliberation
• integrative function
• spatial compromise
• national unity

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Cristina Elena Popa Tache, Law, Andrei Şaguna University, Bucharest, Romania

SUBJECTS:

• Public Law
• Democracy
• Constitutional Law
• Government
• Sociology & Social Policy

1. Introduction

Joko Widodo, the President of the Republic of Indonesia, recently announced that Indonesia would move its capital city from Jakarta to Nusantara, located on East Kalimantan Island (Gorbiano, 2019). East Kalimantan Island was chosen because of natural resource scarcity, clean water threats, natural disaster safety, geopolitics, and the necessity for equitable development (Baharuddin et al., 2022).

The new capital city aims to embody principles of equality, ecological balance, resilience, sustainable development, viability, connectivity, and innovative city initiatives. These principles guide the planning to ensure that IKN becomes a model for future-oriented economic opportunities, ecological sustainability, and robust urban infrastructure. Therefore, the new city’s development and governance will focus on creating a national identity and addressing challenges such as urbanization, economic change, and sustainable development (Anirwan et al., 2024).

The relocation is governed by Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city. According to Joko Widodo, the relocation is urgent because Jakarta can no longer support such a significant burden as the capital city. By relocating the capital city, Joko Widodo hopes to achieve development equity. According to him, development in Indonesia is currently centred on Java Island, leaving the other islands behind. As a result, the population on Java Island is dense, which contradicts the conditions on the other islands. Joko Widodo is also considered East Kalimantan because it is located in the centre of Indonesian territory, hoping for greater national unity (Bhwana, 2022).

This article will discuss the impact of capital city relocation on the function of the capital city in Indonesia. The capital city serves not only as a centre of administration but also as an integration, symbolization, and preservation of the nation’s culture and history (Daum & Mauch, 2005). In some cases, the capital of a country may be unable to perform the functions of the capital. The old capital, for example, is regarded as a source of discord and is geographically vulnerable to natural, social, or military attacks. As a result, several countries worldwide decided to relocate their capitals, hoping the new capital would be superior to the previous one (Rossman, 2017). As a result, Joko Widodo desires that the new capital city perform the function of integrating and symbolizing better than Jakarta will be a significant legacy of Joko Widodo’s presidency.

The relocation of the capital city means that Indonesia’s capital will no longer have an ‘evolved city’ character but rather a ‘designed city’. Evolved capitals are the result of a long evolutionary process that has resulted in cities gradually developing in economics, government, and other facilities, making them critical cities. Paris, London, Tokyo, and Rome are examples of this character. Jakarta is considered an evolved city because it was never intended to be a capital before the Dutch colonial government, but it evolved into one due to its role in trade. Because Jakarta is not a planned city and it was decided by the colonial government, Indonesians as a nation have never had the opportunity to design their capital city, resulting in uncontrolled development and some chaotic problems. So far, Joko Widodo’s plan to build a planned city and relocate the capital city from Jakarta makes sense and is receivable.

However, one critical point that Joko Widodo’s administration overlooked was the need to make a spatial compromise and use democratic methods before deciding on the location of the capital city. People have raised numerous concerns about the relocation plan. The main reason for the objection is that relocating to the capital requires a large sum of money, with the risk of an economic crisis. Meanwhile, Indonesia is still dealing with the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many socioeconomic issues remain unresolved. Furthermore, many Indonesians believe that shifting the capital city from Jakarta to Borneo is unrealistic because the distance between Jakarta and the designated new capital city location exceeds 2500 kilometres. Then, a capital shift will require crossing the sea for the first time in modern history.

The decision-making process for the relocation also lacks deliberation. The Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 took only 43 days, which is very short for such a fundamental decision as relocating the capital city. The law-making process also excluded affected parties, such as the indigenous community in the new capital city location, residents, and civil servants who will be relocated to the new capital.

Deliberation alone will not suffice to determine the location of the capital. It must also be involved in determining the architectural design of the capital in order for the capital to carry out its integrative and symbolization functions effectively. Participation in selecting the state capital’s architectural design is also crucial because the capital, as a city, serves to visualize the nation through symbolization, so the architecture or design of the capital plays an important function. The architecture or design of the capital city must reflect the nation’s inherent identity. ‘Capital cities always do more than house the institutions of sovereignty; they must also display them’, wrote Vale in his writings (Vale, 2008).

The significance of a capital city to a country has led many nations to incorporate the concept of a capital city into their constitutions. As per research conducted by Ran Hirschl, there are currently 119 countries whose constitutions contain provisions related to the capital city. These provisions vary; some constitutions directly designate the capital city. For example, Article 18 of Brazil’s constitution states, ‘The federal capital is Brasília’, and Article 20 of the Constitution of Belarus declares, ‘The capital of the Republic of Belarus is Minsk’. Article 154, section 1 of the Constitution of Malaysia specifies, ‘Until Parliament otherwise determines, the municipality of Kuala Lumpur shall be the federal capital’ (Hirschl, 2020).

In Indonesia’s context, it has not incorporated the designation of its capital city into the constitutional framework. Even though it is not part of the constitution, the capital city still needs special attention regarding its deliberation because of its crucial function. Meaningful deliberation and participation in determining the location of the capital will ensure that the capital functions optimally.

As we mentioned earlier, in the context of Indonesia’s capital city relocation, the law-making process has not undergone sufficient deliberation. Most countries that make a capital city a constitutional matter require a referendum to relocate the capital city. For example, as discussed in section 5 of this paper, South Korea faced a situation where a significant change would necessitate a national referendum to garner public support and legitimacy. On the other side, the referendum concept is not familiar in Indonesia’s political and legal systems, which raises questions about the most appropriate method for engaging the public in such a monumental decision.

Instead, a more fitting approach for Indonesia could have been the utilization of deliberative mini-publics, which will be elaborated upon in section 5 of this paper. Deliberative mini-publics involve randomly selecting a representative sample of citizens to deliberate on policy issues in a structured setting, providing recommendations or making decisions that reflect a broader, more inclusive public opinion. Unfortunately, this method was not employed in the decision-making process for the capital city relocation in Indonesia.

The authors believe that less participation and deliberation in the decision to relocate the capital city will be dangerous, failing to achieve the goal of capital city relocation. As a result, this article will describe the disadvantages of relocating Indonesia’s capital city. We will start by explaining what the capital city does and why it sometimes needs to be relocated. Second, we will review why public participation is vital in relocating the capital. Finally, we will contextualize the case of Indonesia to conclude that the relocation of the capital city will reduce its function. Therefore, this paper disagrees that the capital city will be carried out in a hurry and will suggest that a kind of deliberative mini-public be created to ensure that the function of the capital will not be reduced.

The decision made by President Joko Widodo to relocate the capital of Indonesia from Jakarta to Nusantara in East Kalimantan marks a substantial radical shift. This study investigates the critical implications that arise from the shifting paradigm from an ‘evolved’ to a ‘planned’ city in the context of promoting development justice and national unity. By comparing Indonesia’s expeditious, hierarchical decision-making process with the more democratic methods observed in nations such as Canada, the United States, and Australia, this research highlights the critical importance of inclusive public discourse in undertakings of this magnitude. The drawbacks of evading political participation are further underscored by the parallel to Nigeria, which highlights potential obstacles in cultural assimilation and the symbolic roles of a newly established capital.

This article provides valuable contributions to the worldwide dialogue surrounding sustainable development, governance, and urban planning by shedding light on the intricate nature of capital movement within a multicultural framework. This highlights the vital necessity for democratic approaches and geographical compromise to guarantee that the relocation process accomplishes its physical objectives and safeguards and improves a capital city’s cultural, symbolic, and integrative functions. The Indonesian case offers an original examination of how countries might reshape their urban landscapes while navigating the complex equilibrium between participatory democracy and authoritative decision-making.

The research presented in this study holds importance that is not limited to the Indonesian setting; rather, it offers insightful guidance for policymakers, scholars, and worldwide observers intrigued by the intricacies of capital city relocation, democratic governance, and urban sustainability. This principle underscores the general applicability of incorporating democratic norms and public participation throughout the capital relocation process. This paper contributes a critical viewpoint to the discussion on urban growth by examining the relationship between swift legislative measures and the necessity for inclusive discourse. It provides an exhaustive examination of the ramifications of capital relocation in a democratic society. Therefore, the unique contribution of this paper is its comprehensive analysis of capital relocation in Indonesia, which serves as a case study to illustrate the broader consequences of such endeavours on democratic government, cultural conservation, and national identity.

2. The capital’s function

2.1. Development of capital function

In ancient times, the understanding of the capital city function was the location of the royal palace or the king’s residence. The kings frequently created a site and urban architectural design in the capital city that symbolized their power. Thus, historically, the capital city is an administrative centre and a tool for visualizing power. As a result, several ancient empires named their state capitals after their kingdoms, such as Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire and Babylon as the capital of the Babylonian Empire (Shevryev, 2003).

Based on this, some experts define a state capital as a location representing the state or power. Sheryev described the capital as the country’s face and heart (Shevryev, 2003). According to Shmuel Eisenstadt and Shachar, the capital is a kind of screen onto which nations will project their identity images (Eisenstadt & Shachar, 1987). Furthermore, Thomas Hobbes described the importance of the capital for a country as if the entire territory of the country is a human body - if the capital is the head, then other cities are the body -. As a result, the capital city must be capable of serving as the focal point for all state affairs, including government, politics, the economy, education, and others (Roche, 2000).

Furthermore, the understanding that the king is the centre of state sovereignty is slowly being eroded and replaced by the sovereignty of the people in the modern state concept, as various constitutions preambles state ‘we the people’, such as the United States Constitution as their opening sentence in the preamble. This indicates that the king is no longer everything in a country but has been replaced by the people (Paplekaj, 2020).

As the modern state evolves, so does the function of the capital city. The first change can be seen in the capital’s role as an administrative centre. Some modern countries no longer place the state capital as their administrative centre, such as the Netherlands, which has its capital in Amsterdam but its administrative centre in the Hague, and Malaysia, which has its capital in Kuala Lumpur but its administrative centre in Putrajaya (Rossman, 2017).

The second advancement is in the function of visualizing power or symbolization. The symbols and architecture of the Capital City were used to visualize the king’s power; this is why the symbols in the capital city are frequently associated with the royal palace. When modern countries adopted the nation-state concept, this symbolic function shifted. It also affects the visualization function of the capital city so that national identity is visualized rather than the king’s power. The role of the capital city in modern countries, particularly nation-states, grows as a means of unifying the nation or as an integrative function. The nation is a group that seeks to unite around a shared destiny, and modern nation-states frequently include elements such as ethnicity, religion, race, and language, each with its own sub-national identity (Eller, 1997).

With these sub-national identities, the capital city can serve as a unifying force and a source of conflict. Several factors influence whether the capital city serves as a unifying function or a source of conflict: the capital’s location, architectural design, and capital-building process. As a result, in the following section, the Authors will explain why it is critical to use democratic and deliberative processes in capital-building, such as determining the capital’s location and architectural design.

2.2. The capital function in democratic state

As previously stated, the capital function in modern states differs from that of the old monarchies’ capital in that it serves as more than just the sovereign king’s expression tools and the location where the kings lived. Because of the people’s sovereignty, modern capital, particularly in democratic states, must perform more functions. The democratic capital city must provide a unified vision of the people and the nation and unity in a nation’s diversity. To ensure that democratic capital performs its functions, it must be transparent and involve sufficient people in the capital-building process.

According to some experts, a democratic capital can represent all existing sub-nationals. Those who meet the following criteria are also eligible: (i) the democratic capital city must represent a nation as a whole, not just a dominant sub-nation or just a person in the sovereign; (ii) the democratic capital city must have an ideal location for the entire nation, not just the region where the capital is located; (iii) the democratic capital city must represent democracy by incorporating the values of inclusiveness in its architectural design and not being dominated by a particular culture, especially in a multicultural nation; and (iv) the democratic capital city must represent democracy by incorporating the values of inclusive, transparent, and accountable (Sonne, 2003; Vale, 2008).

A democratic capital considers not only the democratic process of formation but also the administration process. A democratic capital must balance the interests of the state in administering the capital with the interests of the capital’s citizens, which can sometimes conflict. According to John Taylor, a democratic capital must be run on the principle of ‘an open system, assessable to all, rather than a hierarchical and closed system’ (Taylor, 1986).

The democratic capital city also bridges a country’s regional and cultural divides (Vale, 2008). The capital city construction process and implementation must balance diversity and related antagonism (Almond, 2008). The inherent tension between the national government and its interests to make the capital the centre of government and a symbol of the country and the aspirations of the public, particularly those who are most affected or who live in the capital city daily, is the balance that the democratic capital city must achieve. So, in the future, the capital city will be the seat of government and a place where people live, work, and participate in politics, just like any other city. To summarize, the capital city must balance the nation’s and the capital city’s democratic demands (Karruz et al., 2007).

Furthermore, in Indonesia, the move from Jakarta to Nusantara is not merely a logistical or administrative task; it embodies a significant democratic endeavour that seeks to reflect the sovereignty of the people and the diverse identities within Indonesia. The democratic process can allow the actualization of a democratic capital that adheres to the outlined criteria, which are especially pertinent given Indonesia’s complex socio-political landscape and its ambitions towards deeper democratization.

The necessity for sufficient deliberation in relocating Indonesia’s capital emphasizes the importance of engaging with all sectors of society, from government bodies and local communities to experts and the general public. It should also be noted that in the capital city, there will be various interests that need to be accommodated by the government, such as the interests of residents and indigenous communities who previously occupied the location of the state capital, as well as the state’s interests in creating a capital that can represent its nation. Therefore, for Indonesia’s new capital city to become a democratic capital, the transfer mechanism must also be carried out using a democratic mechanism.

3. Democratic process in capital-building: how the spatial compromise is importance

According to Vadim Rossman, the capital city will serve as a means of unification if the decision involves compromises between national elements representing various ethnicities, religions, and tribes. It will transform the capital into a tool for bridging national divides (Rossman, 2017).

When the capital city successfully performs its integrative function, it will be referred to as the ‘melting pot of the nation’ because it serves as a meeting place for people from all over the country. As a result, the capital becomes more than just a city, and the state is compelled to intervene in its management (Toynbee, 1970). As a result of the interaction between people with different sub-national identities, the capital city will be able to become one of the supports for integrating multiple sub-nationals within the nation.

The theories presented by Toynbee about the role of a capital city as a ‘melting pot’ and a focal point for integrative functions resonate strongly with the context of Jakarta, Indonesia’s current capital. Jakarta reflects these theories by illustrating the complex dynamics between urban management, national integration, and the interplay of diverse sub-national identities within a singular metropolitan expanse. As the capital city, Jakarta has historically functioned as the epicentre of Indonesia’s political, economic, and cultural life. It attracts people from all corners of the archipelago, each bringing their unique regional cultures, languages, and traditions. This convergence of diversity within Jakarta’s urban landscape has positioned the city as a melting pot of the nation.

That is why, in determining the location of the state capital, a spatial compromise between existing sub-nationals is required. Several countries have relocated their capitals to achieve this spatial compromise and present a compromise between elements of different nations, such as moving the capital to the border between two tribes or an ethnically or religiously neutral location. This goal is pursued if a nation considers the location of the old capital to be a source of division and hopes that moving the capital will restore the capital’s integration function (Lecours, 2000).

To achieve a spatial compromise, the placement of the capital city must have two characteristics: centrality and marginality. The centrality character is the strategy of locating the capital city ‘in the middle of the country’. The term ‘middle’ can be interpreted geographically as being in the middle of a country’s territory, as between two robust and influential regional powers, or as being in the middle of two regions with distinct sub-national identities. Aside from that, marginality is a character. Countries that use the character of marginality will locate their capital in the ‘middle of nowhere’, which will serve as the capital city for social and economic development. Furthermore, the character of marginality is used to dominate minorities and majorities to form state capital in minority areas so that these minority areas can develop. In other words, character centrality is used to find a middle ground between two opposing identities, whereas character marginality is used to achieve affirmation (Hall, 2010; Karruz et al., 2007).

The state carries out the two characters that are used to answer the difficult task of designing each capital city and how to balance each different regional interest within a country because if this balance is not achieved, the stakes are the nation’s integration. The choice of location also impacts the performance of the capital city in becoming the single site that best symbolizes and represents the nation, its future, and its political regime (Abbott, 1999). Therefore, the deliberate act of state intervention in managing the capital’s location is based on the understanding that the capital city is more than just a seat of government; it is a nation-building project. The relocation aims to balance regional interests within Indonesia, a country characterized by vast geographical, cultural, and ethnic diversity.

Furthermore, The United States, Canada, and Australia are among the countries that have successfully used capital as a spatial compromise. In the case of the United States, there have been two regional powers since the country’s inception: the northern and southern regions. As a result, the primary concern in determining the capital city’s location is reducing tensions between the north and south regions. Finally, several founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, helped to achieve an agreement in which the northern states agreed that the capital city would be in the southern region. Meanwhile, the southern regions agreed that the capital construction would be carried out following Alexander Hamilton’s plan to pay off the national debt. Finally, it was decided that the United States federal capital would be built around the Potomac River, the southern territory (Bowling, 1991). The Act of Residence of 1790 finally formalized the decision. The act is also the first publicly fought compromise in the United States achieved through deliberation between the legislative and executive branches of government (Reps, 1967). Furthermore, the designation of the capital city in the United States is the first in a democratic country and also in a democratic manner (Cummings & Price, 1993).

Aside from the United States, Canada follows a similar strategy in naming the capital city. Canada faced difficulty establishing a capital city because it had two culturally distinct regions: English-speaking and French-speaking. Canada had two capital cities during colonial rule, Toronto for the English-speaking region and Québec for the French-speaking region, in 1791 (Minkenberg, 2014). Following the tension and violence, London united the regions into a single province through the Act of Union 1840 (Bothwell, 2006).

The Governor General wanted to make Kingston the capital, but parliament refused. The capital was returned to Montreal in 1844, but riots broke out, and the capital was relocated to Toronto. Again, parliament did not reach an agreement on this. The stalemate over the capital city prompted the creation of a capital with a ‘perambulating system’, the capital would be divided into two functions between Toronto and Québec, and the centre of government would rotate every four years (Minkenberg, 2014).

The system worked so that Québec was the capital from 1851 to 1855, and Toronto was the capital from 1855 to 1859. During the 1851–1859 period, legislators debated whether Canada needed only one city as the seat of government, and this debate kept tensions between the two regions alive. The Canadian parliament voted on the location of the capital forty-eight times between 1849 and 1857, but none of these votes resulted in an agreement (Minkenberg, 2014).

As previously stated, the lack of agreement is primarily due to the community’s and parliament’s continued division into two groups. Finally, it was decided that the capital of Canada should be located between Canada East and Canada West, at the same distance as Québec, Montreal, Kingston, and Toronto, and that the region should be further away from the United States than the four cities. The area that meets the criteria is Ottawa, a small lumber town on Canada’s English-speaking and French-speaking borders. In the end, a vote was held in parliament, but Québec won with 64 votes, compared to Ottawa, which received only 64 votes (Minkenberg, 2014).

If the voting results are implemented, tensions between the two regions will resurface. Finally, the Queen took over the capital problem because the situation dragged on. Finally, the Queen designated Ottawa as the capital of Canada because only that city had the most opportunities to alleviate competition and tension between the two existing regions. As a result of the Compromise Solution, Ottawa became the capital (Taylor, 1986).

In determining the location of the capital, Australia has had a similar experience to the United States and Canada. When the British granted Australia self-government in 1900, the Australian Constituent Assembly successfully produced the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill. Section 125 mandated that the new capital city be located ‘in the state of New South Wales, and be at least one hundred miles away from Sydney. The Parliament will meet in Melbourne until it is summoned to the seat of government’ (Lovell et al., 1998). Later, the debate heated up in determining the capital, particularly between Sydney, the largest and oldest city, and Melbourne as a temporary ‘administration centre’ (Pegrum & Statham, 1988).

In fact, because of the intense rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney, the Australian parliament decided in its deliberations that the main criteria for a capital city were not climate, water supply, or scenic beauty. The main criterion in determining the location of the capital city is location, which both Sydney and Melbourne must compromise on (Pegrum & Statham, 1988). It was eventually agreed that the Australian capital would be located in the Canberra Area as a spatial compromise between Sydney and Melbourne to keep conflicts at bay. Finally, Canberra was designated as the capital in 1913 (Vale, 2008).

As described in the previous section, determining the location of the capital in the United States, Canada, and Australia is an example of democratically generated spatial compromise. Unlike Nigeria, which attempts to create a spatial compromise, it is being done undemocratic. The decision-maker will also impact the outcome of the spatial compromise and whether it successfully unites the existing sub-nationals.

Nigeria is divided into two regions, each with its sub-national government: regions with a Muslim majority and regions with a Christian majority. These sub-national differences have heightened tensions to civil war between various sub-nationals. The conflict is centred in the western region near the old capital, Lagos. There were six successful coups between 1960 and 1993, three of which were carried out by assassinating the Head of State (Reva, 2016).

The debate over moving the capital began in 1975 when General Murtala Mohamed succeeded General Gowon. Murtala Mohamed also desired to pursue a democratic path in 1979. Murtala Mohamed recognized the importance of reducing ethnic and religious tensions to achieve Nigeria’s democratization (Reva, 2016). As a result, Murtala Mohamed was forced to relocate the capital to launch the Steps to Realize Nigerian Unity. The success of the formation of Ottawa, Washington D.C., and Canberra to reduce tensions in the three countries inspired the idea.

As a result, he established the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) to investigate the location of the new capital in the heart of Nigeria, the city of Abuja (Salau, 1977). Murtala Mohamed was assassinated in a failed coup attempt in 1976. General Olusegun Obasanjo, his successor, maintained efforts to relocate the capital. However, due to its weak and corrupt government, political instability, and conflict, moving capital has always been hampered in its implementation. The most significant reason for the delay was the successful coup against the Obasanjo administration in 1983 (Osaghae, 1998). In 1991, the capital city was relocated to Abuja. Abuja’s location was heavily criticized because it was still considered a predominantly Muslim territory (Adebanwi, 2012).

The relocation of the capital did not result in immediate unity in Nigeria. Even though the capital had been relocated, a coup led by General Sani Abacha took place in 1993. Moving the capital has no bearing on unity or government performance. Nigeria is still plagued by conflict, most recently by the threat posed by Boko Haram, who seek an Islamic state and many of their recruits are motivated by economic rather than religious reasons (Adesoji, 2010). Instead of functioning as a Spatial Compromise, Abuja’s geographical location makes it more vulnerable to threats and attacks. It was demonstrated by the numerous armed attacks on Abuja, including one of the worst Boko Haram attacks in 2009, which killed over 200 people (Eze, 2013).

The government’s performance, particularly regarding corruption, is frequently cited as not improving after the capital was relocated. Even in 2021, Nigeria has a Corruption Perception Index score of 24/100, placing it 154th out of 180 countries. It is a terrible accomplishment that describes a highly corrupt government. Corruption is at the root of Nigeria’s conflict and division because it is at the root of various elements of society’s dissatisfaction with the government and the poverty that has plagued the country (Erezi, 2022).

Based on Nigerian experience, even if the designed capital is located between two regional powers, its integrative function will not be realized if it is not implemented democratically. In contrast, determining the location of capitals in the United States, Canada, and Australia has proven successful in achieving a Spatial Compromise that can extinguish existing tensions and successfully function as the capital’s integrative function.

4. Compromise failure of the capital-building process in Indonesia

4.1. The vision and plan of Nusantara

The idea of relocating a country’s capital city has historically been rooted in the government’s desire to lay the groundwork for a new civilization. The idea desires to create a visible barrier that separates a country’s achievements from its ambitions to establish a new administrative centre. Furthermore, the capital city relocation boosts the country’s international competitiveness while fostering national unity (Nugroho et al., 2023).

According to academic studies like that of Vadim Rossman, relocating to a capital city is far from an unusual occurrence. Capital relocations have occurred roughly every two or three years since the beginning of the twentieth century. These movements are primarily motivated by two overarching factors: historical and functional, as demonstrated by Germany’s reunification in the 1990s (Rossman, 2017).

In the case of Indonesia, previous administrations have been conspicuously absent of capital relocation. Establishing locations such as Palangkaraya and Jonggol was driven more by socioeconomic considerations than administrative intentions. Regardless, Leclerc’s metaphor of a ‘lighthouse’ serves as a symbolic thread that connects the policies of different administrations (Jati, 2022b).

Furthermore, President Jokowi’s current strategy for developing the new capital, Nusantara, remains consistent with this ‘lighthouse’ philosophy. The current relocation policy is more than just a continuation; it aims to elevate Nusantara’s status as the nucleus of a revitalized nation. The new capital aspires to be the ASEAN hub of Indonesia’s geographical and maritime advantages. As a result, it hopes that the new capital city will herald a new era of national pride and actively shape the regional and global economic landscape (Jati, 2022a).

The plan to relocate the Capital City under Jokowi’s administration brings a mission to have a capital city that is a sustainable, technology-driven, inclusive growth centre. The term ‘Nusantara’ serves as a unifying concept embodying the diverse hopes of the new capital city (Nugroho et al., 2023).

These historical capital relocation attempts reveal a pattern of unfulfilled aspirations, primarily hampered by legal and financial constraints. Then, President Jokowi’s administration appears to recognize these failures, putting policy foundations first and aiming to correct past shortcomings. Despite the existing law on establishing the new capital city (Undang-Undang Ibu Kota Negara - UU IKN), the threat of potential discontinuity looms large, casting doubt on Nusantara’s future development trajectory because of the undemocratic process in deciding the relocation of the capital city.

Besides the participation and undemocratic process, environmental issues are highlighted in the relocation process. Despite initial plans to adopt strict environmental policies, the government faced criticism for environmentally damaging construction projects. The development is expected to impact forest landscapes and trigger environmental issues like flooding (Nurkaidah et al., 2024).

4.2. Undemocratic decision of capital relocation

Many people believe that the transfer of the capital came as a surprise because it was never mentioned as a political promise during President Jokowi’s campaign for the 2019 presidential election. Furthermore, the relocation of the capital has never been mentioned in any long-term or medium-term development planning documents (CNN Indonesia, 2022b).

The process of making laws governing the transfer of capital is also speedy and not deliberate. The community’s involvement in discussing capital relocation was minimal, and the people involved were not those who directly impacted the relocation of the capital and did not represent Indonesian sub-nations. There are also issues with community involvement in determining this capital relocation. The discussion process leading up to the ratification of the determination of capital relocation was relatively quick, with the legislature passing Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city on January 18, 2022, in 42 days (Vitorio & Santosa, 2022).

The variety of criticisms and suggestions that the public can convey regarding the making of Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city is also limited due to the rapid process of deliberating the Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city. The public can only provide extensive input on Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city during a four-day public hearing meeting. This situation was exacerbated when the public was denied adequate access to participate in the relocation of the capital. Furthermore, only seven agenda items for discussing Indonesian Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the capital city were accessible, while the public could not access 21 other agenda items out of 28 (Ryandi, 2022).

Aside from that, many people opposed the relocation of capital because the implementation time coincided with the country’s efforts to eliminate the economic impact of COVID-19. Because there is no reflection of compromise from the various existing sub-nations in determining the location of the country’s capital alone, relocating the capital to Indonesia could be a compromise failure. As a result of the failure to reach this compromise, the functions of the state capital in Jakarta may become dysfunctional, and the opportunity for the Indonesian people to design their capital may be lost (CNN Indonesia, 2022a).

Thus, the hurried legislative procedure that resulted in the passage of UU IKN is a clear example of a failure to meet the criteria for spatial compromise. The lack of proper public participation in deciding the new location of the capital city demonstrates that the move was neither representative of Indonesia’s diverse sub-nations nor in line with its citizens’ needs and aspirations.

The failure to reach a spatial compromise endangers the efficient operation of the new capital. It ignores the necessary socio-political complexities underlying such a massive decision, risking the new capital becoming a site of division rather than unity. A capital city is a symbol of national identity and a hub for political, economic, and cultural integration. To function correctly, it requires broad public support, which is achieved through geographical compromise.

The 42-day debate and eventual passage of the measure demonstrate the complexities that should be considered before transferring a capital city. Such hasty decisions leave little room for comprehensive assessments of the socioeconomic and environmental consequences of the relocation, increasing the likelihood of functional failure in the new capital. Furthermore, the lack of public participation raises concerns about the legitimacy and accountability of such a radical decision. When opportunities for public participation are limited, a democratic deficit develops, leading to public scepticism or outright rejection, undermining the stated goals of the new capital.

5. Discussion: the democratization of capital-building

As previously stated, the democratic process must be followed to reach a compromise and allow the capital function to function optimally. The chapter will then attempt to answer the question of how the democratization process can be carried out regarding capital movement. In 2002, South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun announced plans to relocate the capital from Seoul to achieve economic equality (Rossman, 2017).

Then, in April 2003, President Roh Moo Hyun established the New Capital Planning Organization to develop capital-movement plans. The capital relocation bill was finally submitted to parliament in October 2003, but it was miraculously approved by parliament in December 2003 with no opposition. It only took three months of negotiations to settle on something as fundamental as the capital, which surprised many South Koreans then. The mayor of Seoul was among those who vehemently opposed moving the capital. The mayor of Seoul stated that relocating the capital ‘contaminates history and culture’ (Rossman, 2017).

The Special Act on Establishing the New Administrative Capital was finally reviewed by the South Korean Constitutional Court by several parties. The main point of the judicial review is the lack of public participation in discussions about capital transfers. The state capital should be viewed as the constitution’s contents because it is fundamentally a capital city. However, the South Korean Constitution makes no mention of it.

In 2005, the South Korean Constitutional Court granted the complainant a request for judicial review. The Constitutional Court argued that Seoul’s designation as the capital was a constitutional custom incorporated into the unwritten constitution. The South Korean constitution does not state that Seoul is Korea’s capital, but the constitutional practice has kept Seoul as Korea’s capital since the Joseon Dynasty. That is, Seoul has been Korea’s capital for 600 years. As a result, the South Korean Constitutional Court considers Seoul to be a constitutional custom. As a result, the relocation of the capital city must result from a fundamental decision made by the people regarding the nation (Constitutional Court of Korea, 2005).

The South Korean Constitutional Court believes that because Seoul is the content of an unwritten constitution, the capital transfer should be carried out through a constitutional amendment. A referendum must be held first to change the constitution, according to Article 130 of the South Korean Constitution. Aside from a formal constitutional amendment, the constitutional custom may lose legal force if it loses national support. According to the South Korean Constitutional Court, this did not occur and could not be confirmed at the time because the referendum was not held or there was no social unrest that caused the capital to be relocated. Furthermore, the law governing the transfer of the capital city to South Korea was debated for three months (Constitutional Court of Korea, 2005).

Based on this, the situation in South Korea is very similar to the situation in Indonesia, namely the lack of participation in deciding on the transfer of capital. The difference is that South Korean constitutional judges know that rushing through the process of relocating the capital will result in no compromise, leading to the capital’s dysfunction. In contrast, Indonesian constitutional judges are unaware of this.

So, how should the decision to relocate the capital be made in the Indonesian context? Is it necessary to hold a referendum, as South Korea’s Constitutional Court suggested? There is no such thing as a referendum in Indonesian law. Furthermore, in Indonesia’s diverse, multicultural context, a referendum is not an appropriate way to generate sufficient deliberation in moving the capital.

Referendums have indeed been held for some crucial constitutional decision-making, such as the creation of new states, the creation of amendments to constitutions, deciding on the autonomy of a region, and other essential matters (Tierney, 2012). On the contrary side, there are weaknesses in the referendum system. Based on the terms made by Suteu and Tierney, ‘the elite control syndrome’ and ‘the deliberation deficit’ (Suteu & Tierney, 2018). Arend Lipjhart also criticized the referendum system, saying that ‘most referendums are both controlled and pro-hegemonic’ (Lijphart, 1984).

This makes the referendum very open to manipulation, so it threatens not to achieve a compromise in moving the capital. The referendum allows everyone to determine the location of the capital, but the participation is a veneer because the elite is pulling the strings. The referendum also leaves little room for discussion or reflection regarding the ideal capital for the country (Suteu & Tierney, 2018).

Another reason why a referendum is not suitable to be carried out in the context of moving the capital in Indonesia is that in a free-competition referendum, it is very likely that large sub-nations will dominate, for example, religion and ethnicity in the Indonesian context. That way, it is feared that there will not be a compromise or consensus because the minority group will follow the majority’s will. The referendum also included several strategies for relocating the capital, such as spatial compromise, historical reintegration, or economic integration and balancing. These were challenging to achieve because the majority would likely win the referendum. The architectural design is also likely only to symbolize one dominant tribe.

Therefore, what Indonesia needs to do in deciding on capital relocation is to create a deliberative forum consisting of ethnic, religious and regional representatives in Indonesia. Kimmo Groenlund terms the forum as ‘Deliberative Mini-Publics’, in which citizens from different viewpoints gather to deliberate on a particular issue (Grönlund et al., 2015). The characteristics of the forum or body are (Farrel et al., 2013):

1. they address big, national questions of constitutional/institutional design;

2. the government establishes them to meet a specific objective in a time-delimited fashion;

3. they are ‘deliberately and distinctly treated as a supplement (rather than a competitor) to the existing system of representative democracy;

4. they include ordinary citizens;

5. their membership is based on random selection rather than an election;

6. the roadmap for the deliberative process is evident from the start; and

7. the heart of the enterprise is deliberation.

In the Indonesian context, ‘deliberative mini-publics’ can be formed to answer the big question, ‘Where is the right location for the capital city?’. The forum can be filled with representatives of various ethnicities, religions or regions to create a natural capital that visualizes the nation with the hope that the new capital can strengthen national unity and equalize the country’s economy.

This is an opportunity for the Indonesian people to determine and design their capital, which has never been done. Therefore, the determination of the capital can reflect the ‘fundamental decision of the nation’. The forum should also be able to determine the design of the state capital, which is no less important than the geographical position of the capital.

Indeed, developing a ‘Deliberative Mini-Publics’ forum manifests the principle of participatory governance, which is key to the Indonesian concept of ‘Musyawarah untuk Mufakat’ (Deliberation for Consensus). Given Indonesia’s diversified society, this platform must contain a variety of perspectives in order to provide a complete picture of the nation’s collective ethos. In order to maintain transparency and fairness, the forum’s proceedings must be public and extensively reported by the media. This would not only help to educate the public but also to hold forum participants accountable for their actions and thoughts.

In addition, it is essential to highlight that no forum judgment should be deemed final until it has undergone a public examination period. After a decision has been made, there should be a temporary period during which the public can voice concerns or propose revisions, which the forum must consider. Involving the community is intended to produce a legitimate and widely accepted resolution. After the forum is resolved, legislative endorsement will be the next step. Given the significance of shifting the capital, a separate act may be required to legitimize the procedures and results.

The successful implementation of this deliberative framework will demonstrate Indonesia’s commitment to social fairness and participatory governance, as well as the maturity of its democracy. The new capital will symbolize Indonesia’s unity in diversity, its aspirations, and its values, as well as a metropolis.

6. Conclusion

The plan to move the capital city from Jakarta to Kalimantan will be extraordinary in Indonesian history. It should be considered that moving the capital city cannot only be aimed at moving government buildings. It must also be aimed at ensuring that the function of the new capital can carry out its functions more optimally, namely as not only an administrative centre but as a means of national integration, national symbolization, and preservation of historical value and culture. This research shows that the relocation of the capital in Indonesia did not involve sufficient deliberation because it was discussed in a very short time and did not involve sufficient sub-nation elements. This has the potential to cause the new capital to fail in carrying out its functions.

Based on some countries’ experiences we provided in the discussion, we find that democratic engagement and spatial compromise are crucial for realizing a capital city’s functions. The experience that has been successfully carried out by Canada, Australia and the United States should be a lesson for Indonesia to prioritize spatial compromise in determining the capital area, and the lesson of the dysfunction of the Nigerian capital due to insufficient deliberation can also be a lesson.

Therefore, implementing deliberative mini-publics emerges as a solid solution. This approach, which convenes a diverse group of citizens to deliberate on public issues, offers a platform for inclusive and substantive discussion, transcending the limitations of the traditional referendum system unfamiliar in Indonesia. By facilitating nuanced debate and collective reasoning, deliberative mini-publics can engender a broad-based compromise to the new capital’s relocation process, which is anchored in the Indonesian populace’s collective wisdom and genuine consensus. Therefore, relocating the capital city not only aligns with democratic ideals but also mitigates the risk of functional failure.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The study was funded by the Academic Leadership Grant from Universitas Padjadjaran No. 2203/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2022.

Notes on contributors

Indra Perwira

Indra Perwira is a senior lecturer in constitutional law at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran. Specializing in constitutional law and legal policy, Dr Perwira holds a Doctorate in Law (Dr.), a Master of Law (M.H.), and a Bachelor of Law (S.H.) from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran. In addition to his role as a lecturer, Perwira is actively engaged as a speaker and policy consultant for the government, contributing extensively to seminars on constitutional law.

Susi Dwi Harijanti

Susi Dwi Harijanti is a professor of constitutional law and the chair of the Department of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran. Professor Harijanti’s research focuses on procedural rights issues in governance and the relocation of the national capital from the perspective of constitutional law. She is mainly concerned with issues related to the democratic decline and constitutional retrogression in Indonesia.

Mei Susanto

Mei Susanto is a lecturer in the Constitutional Law Department at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran. With a Bachelor of Law (S.H.) and a Doctorate in Law (Dr.) from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, and a Master of Law (M.H.) from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, Susanto specializes in state institutions and constitutional conventions. He actively researches the relocation of the national capital from the perspective of constitutional law and constitutional conventions.

Muhammad Yoppy Adhihernawan

Muhammad Yoppy Adhihernawan is a researcher at the Center for State Policy Studies, Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran. Focusing on research related to state emergencies, local government, and legislative studies, Adhihernawan holds a Bachelor of Law (S.H.) from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, and is currently pursuing a Master of Law (LL.M) at Melbourne Law School.