<![CDATA[This study examines the discourse strategies employed during Indonesia’s Omnibus Law protests in 2020, analyzing how legal narratives were mobilized to contest democratic legitimacy and shape public perceptions of state power. The Omnibus Law on Job Creation triggered widespread protests across the country, with civil society, labor unions, student organizations, and political activists framing the law as a threat to workers’ rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability. Using qualitative discourse analysis of protest speeches, social media content, news media coverage, and official government statements, the research investigates how competing actors constructed legal meaning, legitimacy, and democratic claims. The findings show that protesters used a combination of legal critique, moral rhetoric, and participatory discourse to portray the law as undemocratic, illegitimate, and reflective of elite interests. They strategically employed narrative techniques such as legal storytelling, symbolic framing, and emotional appeals to mobilize public support and reframe the law as a democratic issue rather than merely a policy matter. In contrast, government narratives emphasized economic necessity, legal formalism, and national stability, framing opposition as misinformed or politically motivated. The novelty of this study lies in its focus on the discursive construction of law and democracy in the context of mass protests, highlighting how legal texts become sites of political contestation through communication practices. The study contributes to scholarship on law and politics by demonstrating how discourse strategies influence democratic contestation and public legitimacy during major policy reforms. It concludes that understanding the communicative dynamics of legal protests is essential for strengthening democratic deliberation and recommends enhancing transparency, inclusive policymaking, and participatory legal processes to mitigate democratic erosion.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
