As tourism begins to emerge and areas are framed as new destinations, this seemingly simple issue actually contains far more complex political dimensions. Declaring a place as a tourism object is not merely an economic choice, but a political decision with significant implications. This invites critical questions: who has the authority to decide that a place is worthy of becoming a destination, and who ultimately benefits from that decision?
Tourism development is often presented through the narrative of community welfare. However, in practice, ecological pressure increases, infrastructure demands grow, and local residents are encouraged to adapt to an entirely new economic system that may not align with their aspirations. This shows that tourism is not simply a matter of recreation. It functions as a policy instrument that directs how the living space of local communities should transform.
Behind research initiatives and community empowerment programmes lies a broader political logic. Research is often used as a tool of legitimisation rather than as a sincere attempt to seek solutions. The root of this issue relates to how capitalism is governed centrally by elites and state authorities. Villages and local communities are positioned as recipients of intervention rather than key decision makers. Their marginalisation does not happen because they lack knowledge, but because power structures have already been deeply institutionalised.
In many development agendas, communities are required to follow protocols and frameworks imposed from higher authorities. They are placed within large development interests, often without opportunities for negotiation. This leads to a sensitive political question: who truly represents the interests of local people? When a policy is drafted, whose voice is acknowledged and whose voice is overlooked?
The idea of the tourist gaze introduces another layer of political nuance. Destinations are treated as objects that must be shaped to meet tourist expectations which are shaped by markets and global industries. Spatial interventions in rural areas therefore focus on what is consumable rather than what sustains community life. Even the mistaken assumption that regions like Yogyakarta are poor or unproductive is frequently used to justify intervention, despite evidence that local communities possess resilient and well-developed forms of economic independence.
Government regulations are also not politically neutral. Many policies are created to privilege investors and large-scale economic agendas rather than to prioritise community protection. Corporate Social Responsibility, which in principle should support welfare, often becomes a shallow formality. This raises an important critique: who is tourism truly being built for? Is it genuinely for the community, or for economic actors who operate behind the scenes?
Power in tourism is also shaped by various forms of capital. It is not limited to financial resources but includes social capital, elite networks, and symbolic capital such as cultural prestige. All these forms of capital compete in the political field of tourism. As a result, destinations are not merely geographic spaces but contested arenas of negotiation and power. This raises pressing questions of justice: where do local residents especially the people of Yogyakarta stand amid this powerful current of investment and political influence?
In the end, tourism should be understood as a political field. It is not a neutral practice. It is shaped by economic interests, state regulations, and competing power relations among actors. Ideally, tourism should function as a tool to promote fairness, protect public interest, and ensure an inclusive pathway for development rather than serve as a mechanism for one sided gain.
For this reason, it is important to maintain a critical awareness toward tourism projects. Travel is not only about physical movement, but also a way to observe how power circulates, how decisions materialise, and how communities negotiate their position within those processes. By understanding tourism as a political arena, we are able to see more clearly who controls it, who is marginalised, and how the future of tourism should be shaped with fairness and justice.
