Analysis of State Power and Public Aspirations in Legislative Budget Conflicts

Abstract

This research examines the dialectical relationship between the people and the state in the context of legislative budget policies, which often generate controversy, as well as the repressive responses of officials to public demonstrations. In Indonesian constitutional practice, the state budget is not merely a technical document but a manifestation of legal politics that should reflect the principle of popular sovereignty. However, political reality demonstrates a crisis of representation, where legislative policies prioritize elite interests over the needs of the wider public. This situation has led to the emergence of public demonstrations as an instrument of informal democracy to correct policy deviations. The method used is normative juridical with a qualitative approach through analysis of legislation, constitutional law doctrine, and related academic literature. The results show that public demonstrations have constitutional legitimacy as a manifestation of citizen participation in maintaining accountability for state administration. However, repressive actions by officials against demonstrations reflect a fundamental contradiction in constitutional democracy. Officials, who should function as protectors of people's rights, instead act as coercive instruments that restrict civil liberties. Reflections on this phenomenon reveal a gap between constitutional ideals and political reality. The implications are the erosion of the legitimacy of legislative institutions and the decline of public trust in democracy. Therefore, a repositioning of the state's paradigm is necessary, positioning demonstrations as a space for dialogue, not a threat, and strengthening transparency and accountability in budget management. These steps can strengthen substantive democracy in Indonesia while ensuring that sovereignty remains in the hands of the people.