Echoes of the Flag: Symbolic Resistance and Communicative (De)legitimation in Indonesia Ainun Nimatu Rohmah(a*), Niken Nurmiyati(b), Muhammad Al Fatih(c)
(a,c)Study Program of Communication Science, Universitas Mulawarman, Jl. Muara Muntai, Gn. Kelua, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
*ainunrohmah[at]fisip.unmul.ac.id
(b)Study Program of Government Studies, Universitas Mulawarman, Jl. Muara Muntai, Gn. Kelua, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Abstract
Public legitimacy in contemporary Indonesia has increasingly been negotiated in digital arenas where cultural symbols and political grievances intersect. The One-Piece ^Jolly Roger^ flag protest, amplified through mainstream news coverage, became a focal point for online discourse, showing how pop-cultural references can anchor dissent while minimizing partisan risk. To examine this dynamic, a qualitative content analysis with descriptive quantification was conducted on 500 YouTube comments sampled from five of Indonesia^s most-subscribed news channels. A structured codebook operationalized four dimensions -government orientation, protest stance, emotional tone, and solidarity expression- applied independently by three trained coders. Intercoder reliability exceeded the substantial agreement threshold, and coder reflections were incorporated into interpretation. Findings revealed a strongly negative orientation toward government (79.4%), high support for the symbolic protest (81.2%), a predominantly neutral yet ironic emotional tone (79.4%), and solidarity cues in 41.4% of comments. These results demonstrate how publics engage in ambient (de)legitimation: sustained, culturally legible critiques that erode legitimacy incrementally rather than through overt confrontation. The study highlights how moderated affect, connective symbolism, and collective framing allow publics to normalize skepticism and broaden participation. Theoretically, the analysis extends legitimacy research by specifying discursive mechanisms through which publics withdraw legitimacy ^from below^. Practically, it suggests that governments cannot rely on symbolic reassurance alone- credibility depends on substantive responsiveness to perceptions of fairness and inclusion. Future research should explore whether these discursive practices persist across different platforms, symbolic controversies, and over time.
