[Part 5]Critics have consistently raised concerns about the issue of unemployment in Indonesia, describing it not merely as an economic problem, but as a social time bomb waiting to explode. While official statistics often report a decline in unemployment rates, many experts argue that these figures mask a more troubling reality—namely, the rise of precarious and informal work that offers little to no security, stability, or career progression.Observers from labour unions, think tanks, and academic circles have noted that young graduates in particular are facing an increasingly hostile job market, where connections and privilege often outweigh competence and merit. This, they argue, not only stifles productivity but also fuels resentment and disillusionment among the youth. Moreover, the automation of industries, slow job creation in the formal sector, and policy inconsistency have all been cited as culprits behind the persistent unemployment problem.Government initiatives, although well-intentioned, are often perceived as reactive rather than strategic—short-term training programmes and micro-financing schemes may look good on paper, but they fail to address structural issues such as outdated curricula, weak industrial links, and lack of long-term investment in human capital. In essence, critics warn that unless Indonesia treats unemployment as a systemic challenge rather than a seasonal statistic, the nation risks wasting its demographic dividend and fuelling further inequality.The root causes of unemployment in Indonesia are complex and deeply intertwined with the nation's structural, educational, political, and economic dynamics. At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental mismatch between the skills produced by the education system and the needs of the labour market. Universities and vocational schools often operate on outdated curricula, churning out graduates who struggle to meet the rapidly evolving demands of industry.Furthermore, Indonesia’s economic growth has long been driven by sectors that are capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive, meaning that GDP can rise without creating substantial new jobs. In rural areas, the lack of infrastructure and access to markets hinders entrepreneurial growth, while in urban centres, job competition is fierce and often skewed by nepotism and social inequality.Corruption and weak governance also play a role, as policies meant to stimulate employment are frequently hijacked for political gains, leading to inefficient allocation of resources. The informal sector, though large, tends to trap workers in low-income, insecure positions with minimal labour rights, further exacerbating underemployment rather than truly solving joblessness.Finally, Indonesia’s rapid population growth and urban migration have outpaced job creation. Each year, millions enter the workforce, but the economy is simply not growing fast enough in the right sectors to absorb them. Unless these structural and institutional weaknesses are addressed with genuine long-term reforms, unemployment in Indonesia will remain not just a statistic—but a symptom of deeper dysfunction.In “Strategi Transformasi Bangsa: Towards a Golden Indonesia 2045” written by Prabowo Subianto and published in 2022 by PT Media Kita, a continuation of his previous works, particularly Paradoks Indonesia, it presents a structured, urgent call for a long-term national strategy as the country approaches its centenary of independence.In this book, Prabowo outlines a transformational vision for Indonesia, aimed at overcoming poverty, inequality, and economic dependency. He stresses the importance of returning to the foundational values of the Indonesian constitution—especially justice, sovereignty, and people-centred development. The author argues that Indonesia’s vast resources and youthful population are its greatest assets, but they must be harnessed with integrity, sound governance, and visionary leadership.Through twelve fundamental pillars and four national objectives, the book lays out practical steps for achieving what he calls “Indonesia Emas”—a prosperous, sovereign, just, and proud nation by the year 2045. Prabowo repeatedly emphasises the need for unity, discipline, and moral revival as essential ingredients in the country’s transformation.The background of Strategi Transformasi Bangsa lies in Prabowo Subianto’s concern over the persistent gap between Indonesia’s immense potential and the daily reality experienced by many of its people. As the nation approaches its 100th year of independence in 2045, he believes Indonesia must take bold, long-term strategic steps to avoid being left behind in the global arena. His reflections on economic disparity, political dysfunction, and national disunity led him to compose this book—not as a mere critique, but as a blueprint for transformative action.Prabowo presents this work as a continuation of his previous analysis in Paradoks Indonesia, but with a stronger focus on concrete solutions. He seeks to offer a national roadmap that can unite the elite and the grassroots under a common vision of justice, prosperity, and sovereignty. It is, at its core, a call for responsibility—urging Indonesians not to squander the sacrifices of their ancestors, and to ensure that the next generation inherits a stronger, more dignified republic.In envisioning the ideal of Indonesia Emas 2045, Prabowo paints a bold and ambitious picture of the republic’s future—one where justice, prosperity, and sovereignty are not just dreams but daily realities. He believes that the centenary of Indonesian independence must not merely be commemorated with parades and slogans, but with measurable progress in uplifting the welfare of the people. For Prabowo, Indonesia Emas represents a society that is self-reliant, strategically independent, and governed with integrity.He stresses that achieving this vision requires more than slogans—it demands discipline, strategic planning, political will, and unity. The goal is not only economic growth, but also equality, food and energy security, technological advancement, and a dignified global standing. This vision, he argues, can only be realised through a strong state apparatus, morally grounded leadership, and a sense of national duty shared by all citizens.Prabowo’s conception of the eternal ideals of the Indonesian state centres on the foundational aspirations enshrined in the nation’s Constitution and the Pancasila. These ideals are not simply political goals—they are moral obligations to ensure that all citizens live with dignity, fairness, and freedom from want or fear. For him, the Indonesian state must always strive to protect its people, defend its sovereignty, and uphold social justice, regardless of changing governments or passing trends.He consistently advocates that the role of the state is not to serve the few, but to protect the many—especially the weak, the poor, and the marginalised. This enduring mission, he believes, requires courageous leadership, a deep sense of nationalism, and unwavering loyalty to the vision of the republic’s founding fathers. For Prabowo, these ideals are not up for negotiation—they are sacred goals that define what it means to be an independent nation.In reflecting upon Indonesia’s achievements thus far, Prabowo Subianto adopts a cautiously critical stance. He acknowledges that some progress has been made in infrastructure, education, and economic indicators, yet he insists that such gains are modest when measured against the vast natural wealth and demographic potential of the country. He argues that systemic issues—such as corruption, weak governance, and dependence on foreign capital—have significantly stunted Indonesia’s growth.Rather than celebrating prematurely, Prabowo urges the nation to confront the uncomfortable truth: that Indonesia remains far behind many of its regional peers in key areas like industrialisation, technological innovation, and income equality. For him, true achievement is not measured by statistics alone, but by the extent to which the common people feel the benefits of development in their daily lives.Before we continue further with Prabowo Subianto's book, let's take a quick look at the last ten months of Prabowo Subianto's administration.Critics have expressed mounting concern over President Prabowo Subianto’s first ten months in office, pointing to a pattern of ambitious initiatives undermined by mismanagement, authoritarian shifts, and policy inconsistency.His flagship Free Meals programme, intended to address childhood malnutrition, is budgeted at roughly US $28 billion per annum, but critics warn its long‑term financial sustainability is precarious and that sudden deep cuts to educational and public works budgets have provoked protest, particularly among students who coined the hashtag #DarkIndonesia.Observers also highlight growing unease about military involvement in civilian sectors. Prabowo has empowered the armed forces to manage multiple public programmes—ranging from agriculture to pharmaceuticals—while legislation now permits active officers to hold civil service or state enterprise roles, raising alarm over democratic backsliding reminiscent of past military dominance.Budget austerity, imposed via a sweeping 2025 decree to cut Rp 306.7 trillion, has resulted in operational standstills across ministries. Critics warn this has created paralysis in bureaucracies and triggered unrest over abruptly cancelled infrastructure and scholarship programmes.Prabowo’s political consolidation has also drawn scrutiny. With nearly all parliamentary parties joining his coalition, analysts argue Indonesia is heading towards a governing structure with little meaningful opposition, weakening checks and balances and increasing the risk of undemocratic drift.Environmentalists have similarly voiced frustration, noting that high‑impact initiatives like the Food Estate and mining in ecologically sensitive areas such as Raja Ampat have proceeded with limited transparency and community involvement, drawing sharp criticism over potential ecological damages.At the same time, civil society groups and opposition parties caution that the executive’s growing dominance, including suggestions to change regional electoral systems, could herald a slide toward neo‑authoritarianism.Approximately 80.9% approval for President Prabowo Subianto during his first 100 days in office was conducted by Litbang Kompas, the research arm of the Kompas newspaper group. The survey took place between 4–10 January 2025, involved 1,000 respondents, and was carried out through face-to-face interviews across 38 provinces, with a ±3.1% margin of error. Another reputable poll from Indikator Politik Indonesia around 16–21 January 2025 yielded a closely matched approval rating of 79.3%, reinforcing the credibility of the findings. Critics warn that popularity is fragile where institutions weaken and long‑term grievances accumulate.In June 2025, a public opinion survey conducted by Median found that 65.2% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the performance of the Prabowo–Gibran administration. The survey was carried out between 12–18 June via online questionnaires distributed to social media users, encompassing 907 respondents across 38 provinces, with 44.3% stating they were “satisfied” and 20.8% “very satisfied.” Approximately 31% reported dissatisfaction.Meanwhile, data shared in early July, from an internal government survey presented by Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs, indicated a significantly higher approval rating of 81.2%. This survey reflected public sentiment across five key dimensions: socio‑cultural life (95.1%), national security (83.1%), political stability (70.8%), law enforcement (67.8%), and macro‑economic performance (67.4%).While independent poll results in mid‑June showed public satisfaction in the mid‑60% range, internal surveys cited in early July painted a more optimistic picture—with approval exceeding eighty percent, understandably raised eyebrows. Critics and analysts point out that internal surveys by governments often reflect confirmation bias, selective sampling, or politically curated questions. Without methodological transparency and third-party oversight, such numbers risk becoming propaganda tools rather than reliable public feedback.Independent polling by Median in June 2025 did in fact register a noticeable decline in public satisfaction, with approval ratings falling to 65.1%, down from earlier results in the high seventies or low eighties reported by other agencies in January. According to Rico Marbun, Executive Director at Median, the survey revealed that respondents most frequently cited successful anti-corruption measures as the key basis for their satisfaction—12.6% mentioned corruption crackdowns explicitly. Other drivers included visible government action (7.7%), delivery on campaign promises (7.2%), leadership perceived as swift and trustworthy (5.1%), and effective implementation of the Free Meals Programme (5%).Median interpreted the 65.1% figure as a cautious sign of softening public optimism. While still a majority, the drop suggested growing concerns about budget cuts, governance clarity, and consistency in delivering results. From their perspective, the figure signals that public trust remains fragile—requiring more than headline programs, but sustained institutional integrity and responsiveness to everyday people's needs.By June 2025, the decline in public satisfaction with President Prabowo Subianto’s administration — down from around 80% in January to approximately 65% in independent surveys — can be attributed to several mounting concerns.Firstly, budgetary austerity has caused widespread discontent. Following the issuance of Presidential Instruction No. 1/2025, which slashed spending by over Rp 306 trillion, many public programmes were abruptly halted. Education, infrastructure, and scholarships faced serious cuts, sparking protests especially among students and regional leaders. The perceived mismanagement and confusion over priorities dented trust.Secondly, military expansion into civilian affairs caused unease. Prabowo’s reliance on TNI officers to run civilian programmes — from agriculture to pharmaceuticals — was interpreted by critics as a revival of Orde Baru-style governance. This shift stirred fears of democratic regression.Thirdly, despite massive investment in the Free Meals Programme, questions arose about its cost-effectiveness and sustainability. Critics argued it diverted resources from more pressing developmental needs.Critics have been openly scathing about the performance of ministers in President Prabowo Subianto’s cabinet. Many allege that a significant number of appointments lack merit, resulting in frequent policy blunders. Surveys by the Centre of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) revealed that five ministers—including Human Rights Minister, Cooperative Minister, and Investment Minister—were judged to have performed poorly, with Human Rights Minister receiving a staggering –113 points. Not one minister earned a “very good” rating in these assessments, as written by journalists familiar with government affairs.Beyond performance issues, analysts have expressed concern that the cabinet is unmanageably large—with 48 ministers and 56 deputy ministers—leading to inefficiency, overlapping responsibilities, and bloated state expenditure. It is a case of “translational politics,” where ministerial posts were allocated more for coalition appeasement than competency.There is also discomfort about the carry-over of ministers from Joko Widodo’s era. While retaining figures may reassure investors, critics argue their loyalty remains more toward the previous administration, raising questions about consistency and trust within the cabinet.In short, the prevailing criticism is that the Prabowo cabinet suffers from weak qualification, frequent blunders, a tendency to blame the people, and political appointments over professionalism, underscored by concerns that numerous ministers are remnants of Jokowi’s administration whose allegiance may not fully align with the current leadership.Critics responded with strong disapproval when the Speaker of the House dismissed the Constitutional Court’s view that deputy ministers should not simultaneously hold roles as commissioners in state-owned enterprises. Experts from legal communities and civil society organisations argued that such a stance undermines the rule of law and institutional integrity. They emphasised that the Court’s statement—though framed as a “consideration” rather than a binding ruling—should nonetheless carry weight in governance and legislative ethics.Legal scholars reminded the public that the Constitutional Court repeatedly clarified that deputies are on equal footing with ministers under the constitution, and therefore subject to the same restrictions on dual roles. Ignoring these standards, critics warned, risks condoning patronage politics and perpetuating elite entrenchment.The Speaker’s suggestion that the Court’s considerations could be overlooked was widely interpreted as dismissive of constitutional norms—feeding concerns that the political elite prioritise convenience and political expediency over legal coherence and ethical consistency.When confronted with the viral protests under the slogans #IndonesiaGelap ("Dark Indonesia") and #KaburAjaDulu ("Just flee first"), critics argue that President Prabowo Subianto responded with insufficient empathy. His public posture—questioning the motives of demonstrators and dismissing the slogans as manufactured pessimism funded by corrupt actors—was widely perceived as dismissive of genuine public frustration.Many observers believe this reaction reinforced the narrative that he is out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. By labelling dissenters as unpatriotic or paid provocateurs, Prabowo appeared to undermine the legitimacy of civic complaints, rather than addressing the underlying anxiety over education cuts, military expansion, and shrinking opportunities.Although his message resonated with segments of supporters, critics warn that such rhetoric risks alienating citizens who expected constructive engagement. Ultimately, the response was widely seen as confirming suspicions that the administration prefers to silence dissent rather than dialogue, strengthening the perception that Prabowo is not fully on the side of the "rakyat". Is it?
[Part 3]
