I have lived in Indonesia since 1993. I witnessed the final years of the New Order. I experienced Reformasi from the inside. I have sat with people who were part of Indonesia’s most defining political transitions — from generals of an earlier era to activists who pushed the country toward democracy.
And like many who have spent decades here, I have come to appreciate one simple truth: Indonesia does not move in straight lines. It moves in cycles — adjusting, correcting, and recalibrating its balance between freedom, stability, and development.
Today, under President Prabowo Subianto, I believe we are entering another such recalibration. Not a reversal of democracy. But a rebalancing of the system.
And in that context, I find myself agreeing — perhaps surprisingly to some — with what I see as five emerging governing pillars.
1. State-Driven Growth — Because Markets Alone Are Not Enough
Indonesia is not Norway. It is not Singapore. It is a vast, complex archipelago with uneven infrastructure, unequal access to capital, and deep regional differences. Left entirely to market forces, development does not spread evenly here.
What I see in the current administration is a recognition that the state must play a stronger coordinating role — in food security, energy, downstream industries, and strategic investment. This is not ideology. It is pragmatism. If Indonesia is to lift millions further into the middle class, the state cannot stand on the sidelines.
2. Rethinking Elections — Because Democracy Must Also Function
This is perhaps the most sensitive pillar. Indonesia has built one of the most impressive democratic systems in the developing world. But it has also become expensive, fragmented, and at times inefficient.
The discussion around revisiting direct regional elections is controversial — and rightly so. But we should at least be honest enough to ask the question: Is the system delivering the best outcomes for governance?
Democracy is not only about participation. It is also about results. Finding that balance is not a step backward — it may be a necessary step forward.
3. Keeping Money at Home — Because Indonesia Has Given Away Too Much
For decades, Indonesia has exported raw materials and imported finished value. That model enriches others more than it enriches Indonesia.
What I see now is a clear push toward economic sovereignty — keeping more value inside the country, building domestic industries, and ensuring that Indonesia benefits from its own natural wealth. This is not protectionism in the old sense. It is self-respect in economic policy.
4. Central Control — Because Coordination Matters in a Nation This Large
Decentralization after Reformasi was necessary. It corrected an imbalance of power and gave regions a stronger voice. But over time, it has also created fragmentation, inconsistencies, and regulatory overlap.
In sectors like real estate, tourism, and infrastructure — where I work closely — this is very visible. What we are now seeing is not a dismantling of decentralization, but a reassertion of national coordination. And frankly, for a country of this scale, some level of central alignment is not only helpful — it is essential.
5. Authority — Because Without Execution, Nothing Works
This may be the most misunderstood pillar. “Power” is often seen as something negative. But what I believe is emerging is not power for its own sake — it is authority as state capacity.
The ability to decide.
The ability to implement.
The ability to follow through.
Indonesia has no shortage of good ideas. What it has sometimes lacked is consistent execution. Without authority, even the best policies remain on paper.
This Should Not Come as a Surprise
What is perhaps most interesting is that none of this is new. For those who have followed Prabowo Subianto over time, these themes have been remarkably consistent. Across multiple election campaigns — in 2014, 2019, and again in 2024 — he has repeatedly emphasized:
- Strong state involvement in the economy
- National self-reliance and resource control
- The need for decisive leadership
- Concerns about inefficiency in democratic processes
- The importance of unity and central coordination
In that sense, what we are seeing today is not a shift. It is continuity. And this is why it should not come as a surprise that Prabowo does not simply continue the path of Joko Widodo.
Jokowi’s presidency was defined by infrastructure expansion, decentralization in practice, and a technocratic, consensus-driven style. Prabowo’s approach is different.
More strategic. More centralized. More explicitly nationalistic in economic direction. Not necessarily a break with the past — but clearly a different governing philosophy.
Not Soeharto — A Deeper Intellectual Lineage
It is easy — and perhaps too easy — to interpret these developments through the lens of the New Order and Suharto. But I believe that misses something important.
If you look closer, the roots of this thinking may lie elsewhere — in the intellectual and national vision of Prabowo’s father, Sumitro Djojohadikusumo. Sumitro was one of Indonesia’s most influential economists in the early years of independence. He believed strongly in:
- State-guided development
- National control over strategic resources
- Building domestic industrial capacity
- Economic independence as a foundation for sovereignty
These ideas were not authoritarian. They were nation-building principles. Even earlier, Indonesia’s founding generation — including figures around Sukarno — carried a similar conviction:
That political independence means little without economic independence. Seen in this light, what we are witnessing today may not be a return to the New Order.
It may instead be a continuation of an older Indonesian idea — that the state has a central role in shaping national destiny.
A Necessary Rebalancing
Indonesia today is not the Indonesia of 1998. It is stronger, more confident, more globally connected.
But it also faces new pressures — economic competition, geopolitical shifts, environmental challenges, and internal structural inefficiencies. In that context, a recalibration toward:
- Stronger state coordination
- More strategic economic control
- Improved execution capacity may not be a threat to the system. It may be what the system needs to mature.
Final Reflection
After more than three decades in Indonesia, I have learned not to view its evolution through simple binaries — democracy vs. control, state vs. market, central vs. regional.
Indonesia is always balancing. Always adjusting. And perhaps that is its greatest strength. These five pillars, as I see them, are not about turning back the clock. They are about finding a new equilibrium — one that reflects where Indonesia is today, and where it wants to go.