- 26/08/2024
- Category: Commentaries
Author : Audley Thania T S
Editor : Iradat Wirid
The relocation of Indonesia’s capital city to Nusantara represents an ambitious project under President Joko Widodo’s administration.This vision seeks to establish a sustainable, technology-driven, and inclusive capital that symbolizes Indonesia’s aspirations for the future [1]. The relocation policy seeks to establish Nusantara as the heart of a renewed Indonesia, with ambitions to make the new capital a major ASEAN hub and a source of national pride, while also shaping regional and global economic trends [2].
The IKN development discourse emphasizes the critical role of digital citizenship and technological solutions in urban governance. This emphasis on technology and digital literacy informs policies designed to prepare citizens for the smart city environment, while also revealing that there may be significant influence of corporate narratives on shaping the IKN vision [3]. This focus might risk overlooking the needs and perspectives of the people who will inhabit IKN. Despite the grand ambition for Nusantara, questions remain about the readiness and the willingness of society to adapt to such a transformation.
Balancing Technological Ambition with Social Realities and Global Lessons
IKN aims to develop a technology-centric “smart city” by leveraging advanced technologies [4]. The blueprint emphasizes smart transportation, building management, energy systems, unmanned vehicles, and electronic data exchange to address urban challenges [5]. While these data-driven governance promise efficiency, concerns arise about their capacity to foster active citizen engagement, crucial for inclusive urban environments [6]. Critics warn that this focus on technology risks prioritizing efficiency over social rights and political participation, potentially masking issues of social polarization and inequality [7] [8].
The IKN planning process is marred by flaws that undermine its democratic legitimacy and long-term viability. The 43-day decision-making period for this critical project may be insufficient, potentially limiting the scope of impact assessments and public participation, which are important for ensuring democratic inclusivity [9]. This top-down approach contradicts best practices that emphasize community involvement in urban development [10].
Global examples offer cautionary lessons for IKN Nusantara. Nigeria’s 1991 capital relocation to Abuja failed due to undemocratic processes and unresolved issues, highlighting the need for genuine democratic engagement and comprehensive reforms. Masdar City in the UAE scaled back its ambitions due to financial constraints and low demand, showing that smart city success depends on addressing local needs and involving communities [11] [12].
Are We Ready and Willing?
The implementation of smart city technologies in IKN Nusantara faces challenges rooted in Indonesia’s socio-economic, cultural, and technological landscape, influenced by readiness and willingness—two key factors for success.
Readiness is reflected in the Digital Literacy Index (IMDI), where Indonesia scores 3.54, with East Kalimantan slightly higher at 3.62. However, disparities exist within the IKN area itself: Kabupaten Kutai Kartanegara has a lower IMDI score, while Kabupaten Penajem Pasar Utara exceeds provincial and national averages [13]. These digital literacy gaps could lead to uneven engagement, favoring the digitally literate and advantaged [14].
Beyond digital literacy, readiness also involves infrastructure, system adaptability, and institutional capacity. As of June 2024, internet coverage remains a challenge, with many areas in IKN lacking cellular signal (blank spot). Although Telkom is working on infrastructure, gaps remain [15]. The plan to implement 6G technology is ambitious but highlights current limitations that must be addressed to build a solid foundation for smart city implementation [16].
Willingness to adopt smart city technologies is influenced by social, cultural, and personal factors. Citizens with lower digital literacy may be less inclined to adopt advanced technologies [17], while traditional cultural norms can hinder adoption if technologies are seen as threats to cultural practices [18]. The IKN planning process, which has faced issues with limited public and indigenous involvement, may also affect the public’s willingness to support and adopt new technologies. A 2022 LSI survey found mixed public trust, with 40.1% supporting the relocation but 46.2% concerned about its financial burden [19]. This trust deficit is particularly pronounced among marginalized and indigenous communities, who are worried about impacts on their ancestral lands [20]. Addressing these concerns is crucial for improving willingness to embrace smart city initiatives.
Bridging Indigenous People and Smart City
The proposed data-driven governance model for IKN introduces new considerations for civic participation, potentially transforming citizen involvement into more passive forms of interaction [21]. This shift raises questions about the nature of democratic processes in smart cities and their ability to address the needs of diverse communities. In the Indonesian context, where informal networks play a significant role in resource access and state interactions [22], the efficacy of a predominantly data-driven approach requires careful consideration. For indigenous communities, this model presents both opportunities and challenges. While many indigenous people are digitally literate and engaged with modern technology, their unique cultural perspectives and traditional knowledge systems offer valuable insights that may not be easily captured by standardized data-driven approaches.
Bridging the gap between indigenous perceptions and the IKN smart city initiative is crucial for its success, as the adoption of new technologies requires active participation from these communities. The involvement of indigenous communities in the IKN project is particularly relevant when considering concerns about civic participation. The tension between modernization and traditional ways of life is evident in the resistance from local tribes in Borneo, who fear for their nature-based livelihoods and ancestral territories [23]. This resistance underscores the limitations of a purely data-driven approach and highlights the need for a carefully considered urban development strategy that incorporates diverse viewpoints.
Way Forward
Success in IKN Nusantara requires a balanced approach that addresses digital literacy gaps, aligns with local needs, and ensures democracy, community-centered planning. The rapid growth of the smart city industry has led most major cities to adopt smart city strategies, often driven by top-down designs influenced by large tech vendors and consulting firms. These approaches prioritize speed over inclusive design, raising concerns about whose vision is being implemented [24]. This context presents a risk that technologies may be driven more by corporate influence or international standards than by the actual needs of the local population.
To address these challenges, IKN must carefully consider user needs and empower local communities. Implementing tailored solutions that promote digital inclusion while engaging local communities in participatory design will boost readiness and willingness to embrace smart city initiatives. This strategy will ensure that smart city developments are both technically sound and culturally respectful, preserving local heritage and values.
An inclusive smart city model for IKN should also integrate indigenous knowledge and practices. Involving indigenous communities in the planning process can enhance adoption rates and create innovative, culturally responsive urban solutions. This approach will strengthen the smart city’s foundation, making it more resilient, diverse, and representative.
References
[1] Nugroho, Y., Jati, W. R., Dukarno, P. D., & Herdiansyah, I. A. (2023). 1. Nusantara: A Historical Perspective (pp. 11–31). https://doi.org/10.1355/9789815104233-008
[2] Admin_Orsh, & Admin_Orsh. (2022, March 2). A new Indonesian capital city: conflict pending – IPSH. IPSH. https://ipsh.brin.go.id/2022/02/24/a-new-indonesian-capital-city-conflict-pending/
[3] Wicaksana, R. (2023, August 30). City & Citizenship: Socio-technical Imaginaries on The Governmental Discourse of Indonesia’s Future (Smart) Capital City. https://essay.utwente.nl/96791/1/Wicaksana_MSc_BMS_2.pdf#page=16.09
[4] Wicaksana, R. (2023, August 30). City & Citizenship: Socio-technical Imaginaries on The Governmental Discourse of Indonesia’s Future (Smart) Capital City. https://essay.utwente.nl/96791/1/Wicaksana_MSc_BMS_2.pdf#page=16.09
[5] Susantono, P. H. I. B., Berawi, P. M. A., Setiono, T. A., Gunawan, A., Sari, D. M., Gunawan, D. G., & Mahendra, D. A. (n.d.). Cetak Biru Kota Cerdas Nusantara. https://www.ikn.go.id/storage/thd/blueprint/cetak_biru_kota_cerdas_nusantara.pdf
[6] Miller, T. R. (2019). Imaginaries of Sustainability: The Techno-Politics of Smart Cities. Science as Culture, 29(3), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1705273
[7] Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2018). Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal, 84(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8
[8] Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126
[9] Perwira, I., Harijanti, S. D., Susanto, M., & Adhihernawan, M. Y. (2024). Capital city relocation in Indonesia: compromise failure and potential dysfunction. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2345930
[11] Bornstein, L. (2010). Mega-projects, city-building and community benefits. City Culture and Society, 1(4), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2011.01.006
[12] Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. ideas.repec.org. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cjrecs/v8y2015i1p61-77..html
[13] Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Indonesia (2023) Indeks Masyarakat Digital Indonesia. https://imdi.sdmdigital.id/home_2023
[14] Haklay, M. (2013). Neogeography and the Delusion of Democratisation. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 45(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45184
[15] Abdullah, F. I. (2024, June 7). Masih Banyak Blank Spot Internet di IKN, Menkominfo: Jaringan 6G Disiapkan. beritasatu.com. https://www.beritasatu.com/nusantara/2821173/masih-banyak-blank-spot-internet-di-ikn-menkominfo-jaringan-6g-disiapkan
[16] Achmad, K. A., Nugroho, L., Djunaedi, A., & Widyawan. (2018). Smart City for Development: Towards a Conceptual Framework. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Smart-City-for-Development%3A-Towards-a-Conceptual-Achmad-Nugroho/deaf03c4fdbd3adb9c510af249c50b8e236d081c
[17] UNICEF. (2020). Strengthening Digital Learning across Indonesia: A Study Brief. Unicef, 1–14. https://www.unicef.org/indonesia/media/10531/file/Strengthening Digital Learning across Indonesia: A Study Brief.pdf
[18] Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.010
[19] Survei Indostrategic: Mayoritas Warga Tak Setuju IKN Segera Pindah. (2023, July 15). Nasional. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20230714183332-20-973640/survei-indostrategic-mayoritas-warga-tak-setuju-ikn-segera-pindah
[20] IKN Nusantara: “Anak-anak saya mau tinggal di mana”, suku asli yang merasa dilewatkan ketika Presiden Joko Widodo berkemah. (2022, March 14). BBC News Indonesia. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-60739196
[21] Tenney, M., & Sieber, R. (2016, June 6). Data-Driven Participation: Algorithms, Cities, Citizens, and Corporate Control. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3062698
[22] Berenschot, W., & Van Klinken, G. (2018). Informality and citizenship: the everyday state in Indonesia. Citizenship Studies, 22(2), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1445494
[23] Budhi, N. a. W. D. O. (2024, March 27). IKN: Masyarakat lokal “merasa terusir” saat Ibu Kota Nusantara digadang jadi “magnet ekonomi baru” – ‘Kami tidak akan melihat kota itu.’ BBC News Indonesia. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/cljl4lzw2dxo
[24] Hollands, R. G. (2008b). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126
