Digital Democracy and Gen Z Political Participation in Indonesia's 2024 Election: The Mediating Role of Political Literacy and the Moderating Role of Post-Truth Politics

Sažetak

Background Digital democracy has expanded the ways young citizens access political information and participate in public life, while post-truth politics may complicate how political knowledge is translated into participation. This study examines the relationships among Digital Democracy, Political Literacy, Post-Truth Politics, and Political Participation among Generation Z in the context of the 2024 Indonesian election. Methods A quantitative cross-sectional survey using non-probability purposive sampling included 500 Generation Z voters aged 18–28 years who were registered in the 2024 Permanent Voter List and resided across all 38 provinces of Indonesia. Data were collected in August–September 2025 using a four-point Likert-scale questionnaire; items referring to the 2024 election were therefore retrospective self-reports. Direct, mediating, and moderating relationships were tested using covariance-based Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Results Digital Democracy was positively associated with Political Literacy (β = 0.491, p < 0.001) and Political Participation (β = 0.296, p < 0.001), while Political Literacy was positively associated with Political Participation (β = 0.390, p < 0.001). Political Literacy partially mediated the Digital Democracy–Political Participation relationship (indirect effect = 0.192, 95% CI [0.144, 0.244]). Post-Truth Politics negatively moderated the Political Literacy–Political Participation relationship (β = −0.173, p < 0.001); simple slopes remained positive but decreased from 0.709 at low Post-Truth Politics to 0.362 at high Post-Truth Politics. Conclusions The findings identify Political Literacy as a partial explanatory mechanism linking Digital Democracy with Political Participation and Post-Truth Politics as a contextual boundary condition under which the Political Literacy–Political Participation association is weaker. Because the study is cross-sectional and retrospective, the findings should be interpreted as statistical associations rather than causal effects.