By: Komaruddin Hidayat, Chairman of the Press Council
Two years is too short a period to pass judgment on a government that has not yet reached halfway through its term in office, but it is long enough to begin reading the character of a president. Within two years, a president will usually have revealed what his obsessions are, how he exercises power, whom he trusts, and how far the ideas he brought from the campaign trail can be translated into public policy.
Prabowo Subianto entered the presidential palace with considerable political capital. He was inaugurated on October 20, 2024, after winning the 2024 presidential election with a large electoral mandate. More than that, he is not a figure who suddenly emerged on the political stage. He has spent decades in the orbit of power: as a soldier, businessman, political party leader, presidential candidate, and finally president. Therefore, assessing the first two years of his leadership is interesting not merely in terms of the list of programs that have been implemented, but through a more fundamental question: has Prabowo demonstrated that he can build a strong state, or has he merely succeeded in building a strong government? The two are, of course, different.
THE CAPITAL OF A FIGHTER
One of Prabowo’s strengths is his fighting spirit. He has lost political battles, but he never left the arena. In politics, the ability to rise again after defeat is no small matter. It demonstrates both psychological resilience and confidence in his political goals. Prabowo also possesses a strong sense of nationalism. For him, the state, sovereignty, defense, food and energy are not merely policy sectors, but parts of a broader vision of a sovereign Indonesia.
His experience as a soldier has also shaped his worldview. He tends to see the world as an arena of competition and the state as an actor that must be strong so that it cannot easily be manipulated by other powers. This perspective has gained new relevance as the world has entered an era of geopolitical uncertainty: the Russia-Ukraine war, conflicts in the Middle East, rivalry between the United States and China, changes in supply chains, trade wars, and competition for strategic resources. In such a context, the idea of national self-reliance is not merely romanticism. But this is precisely where an important issue arises.
FROM PERSONAL CAPACITY TO INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
A state does not become strong simply because its president is powerful and decisive. A state becomes strong when the law functions, the bureaucracy is professional, education is of high quality, the economy is productive, technology advances, corruption is controlled, and society has confidence in state institutions.
Prabowo has several relatively clear obsessions: food self-sufficiency, energy security, downstream processing, industrialization, defense, and human development. Among all these programs, the Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis, or MBG) program has become the strongest symbol of his first two years in government. Philosophically, MBG has a very interesting foundation. The state is not only responsible for building roads, dams, or industrial zones. It also has an obligation to ensure that Indonesian children grow up healthy and have relatively equal opportunities to develop their potential. Prabowo has described MBG as an investment in future generations. In the 2026 draft state budget, the program was targeted to reach 82.9 million beneficiaries with a budget of Rp335 trillion.
But the larger a program becomes, the greater the demands on its governance. A program involving food for tens of millions of children cannot rely on good intentions alone. It requires nutritional standards, food safety, supply chains, professional personnel, oversight, and a strict accountability system. Food-poisoning incidents in various regions have served as a serious warning. Thousands of students and teachers were reportedly affected, prompting the government to tighten supervision of kitchens and food distribution. Here we can see a simple law of government:
“The greater the ambition of a policy, the higher the demand for professionalism.”
THE NEED FOR EMPIRICAL DATA
The Prabowo administration has also made food self-sufficiency one of its main priorities. The government says that rice production and reserves have increased significantly. By mid-2026, the government even stated that government rice reserves had reached more than 5.3 million tons. This is certainly an important development. However, food self-sufficiency should not stop at production and government reserve figures. More important questions are: Are farmers becoming more prosperous? Are consumers getting food at affordable prices? Is agricultural productivity increasing sustainably? Is dependence on imports truly declining without sacrificing price stability? The answers to all these questions must be supported by accurate and comprehensive data, not merely political statements.
Self-sufficiency is not simply the ability of the state to pile rice into warehouses. It is the ability of a nation to build a healthy food ecosystem from upstream to downstream. Farmers must make a profit. Consumers must be protected. Infrastructure must be adequate. Technology must advance. And the younger generation must be willing to become modern farmers. Otherwise, self-sufficiency will become merely a slogan that ultimately undermines public trust in the government.
BUILDING STRONG INSTITUTIONS
Prabowo appears to believe in a strong state. This view has deep historical roots in Indonesian political thought. After years in which the state was considered too weak to confront economic and political interests, the idea of a strong state certainly has appeal. But a strong state has two faces. The first is that a strong state means a government capable of enforcing the law, providing public services, building infrastructure, protecting the poor, and confronting excessively dominant economic interests. The second is that a strong state can turn into excessively dominant power if it is not balanced by institutional checks and controls. Therefore, Prabowo’s challenge is not simply to strengthen the state, but to strengthen state institutions without weakening society.
Democracy requires not only a strong government but also a strong civil society. It requires an effective president as well as a free press. It requires a disciplined bureaucracy as well as a parliament and legal institutions capable of exercising oversight.
State power without checks can become a form of power that moves toward authoritarian government, which ultimately will not endure.
POLITICAL ACCOMMODATION
Prabowo has demonstrated an interesting ability to manage politics. He has been able to embrace many forces that were previously outside his circle. The governing coalition has become very large. In practical terms, this is advantageous. The government is relatively less burdened by a strong parliamentary opposition. But from the perspective of democracy, there is a paradox. The larger the governing coalition, the smaller the space for formal opposition.
Yet democracy is not merely about who wins and who loses. Democracy also requires those who lose to retain space to monitor those who win. A healthy opposition is not the government’s enemy. On the contrary, it can serve as a mirror.
Therefore, Prabowo needs to ensure that political stability is not purchased at the cost of losing mechanisms for criticism.
IDEAS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH; EXECUTION MATTERS
Prabowo certainly does not lack ideas. Quite the opposite: his government has too many major agendas—food, energy, MBG, downstream processing, industrialization, defense, cooperatives, village development, education, health, and so on. The question is whether the bureaucratic machinery is capable of handling all of them simultaneously. Here, the role of ministers, whose ranks have been described as bloated, becomes particularly important.
A minister is not merely an executor of the president’s instructions. A minister is a filter, translator, and tester of the president’s ideas. A minister should be capable of telling the president:
“This can be done.” — “This is too expensive.” — “This is risky.” — “This should be postponed.” — “This would be better done in a different way.” If all ministers merely say, “Yes, Sir,” the president actually loses one of his most important sources of information. A healthy cabinet is not a cabinet that is always united in the sense of always agreeing.
A healthy cabinet is one that is willing to disagree in the meeting room but united once a decision has been made. Therefore, the quality of Prabowo’s cabinet should not be measured by the number of famous figures in it or by the size of the political coalition supporting it. The true measure is output. How many problems have been solved? How many policies actually work? How much of the budget produces tangible benefits? How much has the bureaucracy been simplified? And most importantly: has people’s lives improved?
NOTES AND HOPES FOR THE FUTURE
After nearly two years, I see at least five things that Prabowo needs to pay attention to. First, he should not become too dependent on the president’s personal power. A strong president is indeed necessary, but Indonesia needs strong institutions more than a strong individual. A president’s term will end, while institutions must endure. Second, strengthen meritocracy. Political loyalty should not be allowed to matter more than professional ability. The state is too large to be managed according to the principle of personal proximity.
Third, maintain fiscal discipline. Populist programs may be popular with the public, but the state cannot ignore budgetary mathematics. Every rupiah spent by the government should have a clear social return. Fourth, improve public communication. The president and his ministers need to be more open to criticism. Criticism is not sabotage. Criticism is a mechanism for correction. Fifth, do not equate a strong state with a government that cannot be criticized.
A government that is truly confident is precisely one that is not afraid of criticism.
So, how should we assess Prabowo’s first two years? Many of his major agendas deserve support, but there are also many notes of caution and criticisms that need to be taken seriously. Several achievements are worth noting, particularly the courage to establish an agenda of food security, strengthen nutrition programs, and pursue economic self-reliance. The government itself has recorded increases in food production and rice reserves as important achievements. However, it is too early to declare success. Most of Prabowo’s major agendas have so far demonstrated direction and laid foundations. What the people are waiting for is the result. Not speeches, not the number of programs, not the number of projects, nor the size of the coalition.
Meanwhile, with social media at their disposal, citizens have greater opportunities to monitor and assess Prabowo’s performance and its results. People will always ask: Are poor children receiving better nutrition? Are farmers becoming more prosperous? Does the middle class feel more secure? Are jobs increasing? Is the quality of education improving? Is the law gaining greater public trust? Are the opportunities for corruption becoming narrower? Is the bureaucracy becoming more professional? And do people feel that they own the state, rather than merely being objects of the state? The complaints and hopes of citizens are filling the public sphere, and through social media they can be heard more easily than ever.
FROM POWER TO CIVILIZATION
Prabowo is a president with a grand vision for Indonesia. He wants Indonesia to be sovereign, self-reliant, strong, and respected. Such an ambition is necessary. A great nation needs a leader who dares to think big. But there is a much more difficult stage: transforming ambition into institutions, institutions into policies, and policies into social habits.
This is where the coming years will be decisive. Will the victory achieved through the election be followed by success in fulfilling his campaign promises? So far, he has consolidated power. Now his challenge is to win the trust of history. Ultimately, a president is not remembered for how much power he managed to accumulate. He will be remembered for what he did with that power. And the simplest measure of all is the question asked by an ordinary citizen: “Has my life become better?”
The drums of competition for the 2029 presidential election have already begun to sound faintly. It is time for Prabowo to evaluate the performance of his ministers and other key aides. As in a football match, players who are ineffective and lack the skills to move the ball forward must be replaced by more professional players. Professionalism and the principle of meritocracy are more important than loyalty that merely seeks to please and praise the boss. (*)
