Bahasa Inggris

This study explores the interplay between digital discourse, public sentiment, and ideology in social media discussions surrounding demonstrations in Jakarta. Focusing on major protest hashtags such as #ReformasiDikorupsi and #IndonesiaGelap, the research investigates how online interactions construct, circulate, and contest political meanings in Indonesia’s digital public sphere. This phenomenon points to an underlying public administration problem: as citizens increasingly voice discontent, demand accountability, and negotiate legitimacy through digital platforms, government bureaucracies face growing pressure to become more responsive, transparent, and adaptive in managing public communication, service delivery, and crisis governance. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Advanced Network Analytics (ANA), this study analyzes discourse patterns, sentiment dynamics, and ideological clusters across three major platforms: Twitter (X), Instagram, and TikTok. The findings reveal that Twitter serves as the central arena for political critique and ideological confrontation. Meanwhile, Instagram emphasizes affective solidarity through visual and empathetic storytelling, and TikTok turns protest communication into creative, participatory, and performative activism. Sentiment analysis indicates that negative expressions primarily reflecting frustration toward corruption and governance dominate public discourse, followed by neutral and positive sentiments representing hope and unity. Network mapping identifies three dominant clusters: conflict escalation and accountability discourse, humanitarian and symbolic narratives, and field documentation networks. These clusters illustrate the coexistence of emotional, moral, and informational logics that collectively shape online activism. Overall, the results suggest that Indonesia’s digital public sphere operates as a hybrid ecosystem where discourse, sentiment, and ideology interact dynamically, transforming social media into a constitutive space for political engagement, ideological production, and democratic consciousness in the digital era. These findings carry direct implications for public policy and administrative reform, suggesting that government institutions need to strengthen digital-era governance capacities, including responsive crisis communication, participatory policy dialogue, and adaptive citizen–government engagement strategies, to manage digital public sentiment and sustain institutional legitimacy.