By Denny JA
At a small coffee shop on the sidelines of CERAWeek 2026 in Houston in March 2026, I sat with a global energy analyst.
Outside the glass windows, oil executives, bankers, diplomats, and policymakers hurried past carrying the agenda for the world’s future.
He slowly sipped his coffee and asked, “Does Indonesia still dare to dream big?”
I paused for a moment.
At that time, The Economist had not yet published its criticism of Prabowo Subianto. But the world’s anxiety about Indonesia’s direction could already be felt in the air.
They asked about fiscal policy, democracy, Danantara, downstream industrialization, and the future of the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation.
I answered softly, “Indonesia is indeed taking risks. But a nation that never dares to take risks never becomes great.”
At that small table, I suddenly realized: Indonesia is now being viewed by the world not merely as a footnote in Southeast Asia, but as a historical experiment.
Can a democratic, Muslim-majority, resource-rich, and populous nation grow into a strong power without losing its freedoms?
That question followed me home.
Then came the articles from The Economist.
Throughout May 2026, the magazine published three major editorials regarding Indonesia under the administration of Prabowo Subianto.
The three pieces reflected growing international concern about Indonesia as:
- the world’s largest Muslim-majority country,
- the world’s third-largest democracy,
- Southeast Asia’s largest economy,
- and a strategic player in the rivalry between the United States and China.
The three editorials were:
- “Indonesia, the biggest Muslim-majority country, is on a risky path”
Subheadline: “Prabowo Subianto is eroding its finances—and its democracy”
Published: May 14, 2026 - “Indonesia’s president is jeopardising the economy and democracy”
Subheadline: “Prabowo Subianto is too spendthrift and too authoritarian”
Published: May 14, 2026 - “Prabowo Subianto’s economic policy is weakening Indonesia”
Subheadline: “And it comes at a time where America is slapping tariffs on the world”
Published: May 15, 2026
Overall, the three editorials conveyed one major message: Indonesia is entering a historical crossroads.
On one side, it could grow into a major power that remains democratic and stable.
On the other, it risks becoming a strong state that gradually loses both economic discipline and democratic balance.
To reflect systematically on these criticisms, I divide the essays into two major themes: criticism of economic populism and criticism of democratic decline. I then respond to both with cautious optimism regarding Prabowo.
The economic criticism from The Economist centers on one key concern: Indonesia is perceived as shifting from fiscal discipline toward risky economic populism.
The magazine views Prabowo’s administration as excessively aggressive in spending state funds on large-scale projects that are costly and not entirely fiscally realistic.
The programs receiving the most attention include:
- the free nutritious meal program,
- the construction of 80,000 village cooperatives,
- large energy subsidies,
- and the creation of Danantara as a new sovereign wealth fund.
According to the magazine, just two of these flagship projects could consume around 10% of state revenue. In a fragile global economy, this is considered dangerous because Indonesia’s tax base remains relatively low compared to many other countries.
They remind readers that for two decades after Reformasi, Indonesia was praised internationally for:
- fiscal discipline,
- deficit control,
- and macroeconomic prudence.
The fiscal deficit cap of 3% of GDP since 2003 was seen as a key symbol of Indonesia’s stability following the 1997–1998 crisis.
As Prabowo’s administration began implementing large populist projects, investors became uneasy.
The Economist noted:
- a weakening rupiah,
- stock market volatility,
- foreign capital outflows,
- and concerns among credit-rating agencies about possible downgrades.
The magazine also criticized the government’s funding methods:
- major cuts to infrastructure spending,
- pressure on state-owned enterprises,
- and the use of state banks to support government projects.
The formation of Danantara was viewed as increasing governance uncertainty because massive state assets are now concentrated closer to the presidential circle of power.
The magazine also saw signs of excessive state dominance in the economy.
It feared Indonesia was moving toward:
- economic nationalism,
- protectionism,
- and excessive state intervention.
According to them, downstream industrialization and industrial protection may support short-term industrialization, but if taken too far, they risk:
- reducing efficiency,
- undermining investor confidence,
- and creating new forms of cronyism.
These concerns intensified amid:
- trade wars,
- new tariffs from Donald Trump,
- and global energy-price uncertainty.
In such circumstances, the magazine argued Indonesia needs:
- caution,
- flexibility,
- and stronger fiscal discipline.
However, the editorials did not entirely reject Prabowo’s direction.
They acknowledged:
- Indonesia indeed needs to move up the value chain,
- downstream industrialization has strategic logic,
- and dependence on raw commodity exports must be reduced.
But they questioned whether Indonesia possesses sufficient fiscal and institutional capacity to pursue all these ambitions simultaneously.
The core of their economic criticism is simple: great ambition without economic discipline can become a great crisis.
If the economic criticism was harsh, the political criticism was even sharper.
The Economist argued that Prabowo is:
- centralizing power,
- weakening opposition,
- and gradually eroding the quality of Indonesian democracy.
They did not say Indonesia had already become authoritarian. Instead, they used terms such as:
- “eroding democracy”
- and “democratic backsliding.”
Meaning democracy is not destroyed dramatically, but slowly worn away until society gradually accepts shrinking freedoms as normal.
Among the issues highlighted:
First, Prabowo’s political coalition is considered overwhelmingly dominant. Nearly all major parties are inside the government, leaving parliament with almost no meaningful opposition.
The magazine worries that without strong opposition, democracy loses its balancing mechanism.
Second, the growing role of the military in civilian affairs. They highlighted:
- revisions to the TNI Law,
- placement of military officers in civilian positions,
- and militaristic symbolism in governance.
This was seen as reviving memories of the “dual function” doctrine during the Suharto era.
Third, pressure on civil society and shrinking space for criticism.
The editorial argued that:
- media organizations are becoming fearful,
- criticism is increasingly constrained,
- and political culture is becoming too centered on a strongman figure.
They even criticized Prabowo’s remarks describing opposition as a “Western culture.” For the magazine, democracy requires:
- debate,
- opposition,
- and competition of ideas.
Without these, the state risks becoming overly dependent on the intuition of a single leader.
Fourth, Prabowo’s past continues to generate concern.
The magazine reminded readers that:
- Prabowo was linked to the disappearance of activists in 1998,
- came from the New Order inner circle,
- and long held skeptical views toward multiparty democracy.
Therefore, every step toward power centralization is viewed with historical sensitivity.
Yet interestingly, The Economist also acknowledged that Prabowo is not simply another Suharto.
They noted that:
- he has adapted to democracy,
- did not impose martial law during unrest,
- and some of his military reforms have not gone as far as activists feared.
They also recognized that Indonesia today is vastly different from the New Order era:
- civil society is stronger,
- media are freer,
- and democracy has deeper roots.
But precisely because Indonesia has advanced so far since Reformasi, they fear the current direction may slowly erode those achievements.
The essence of their political criticism is this:
A country as large and complex as Indonesia cannot be governed like a military unit.
Indonesia needs leaders who:
- listen to many voices,
- accept criticism,
- and maintain balance between a strong state and democratic freedoms.
And according to the magazine, that is exactly what is at stake for Indonesia’s future.
