The Debate Over Suharto’s National Hero Nomination

On the eve of National Heroes’ Day, a nation finds itself at a crossroads of memory and meaning. The proposal to proclaim Indonesia’s second president, Suharto, as a National Hero has reignited fierce debates—between those who recall his towering role in development and those who remember the shadows of repression and human rights abuses. This is not merely a question of history; it challenges the soul of a democracy still grappling with its past.

The proposal to designate Suharto, Indonesia's second president, as a National Hero has stirred a significant debate laden with both support and opposition. Advocates argue that Suharto fulfilled many of the criteria required for such an honour, pointing to his substantial contributions to Indonesia's independence struggle and his long tenure leading the nation, which technically aligns with the formal requirements for the title. Supporters also emphasise that no historical figure is without faults and stress the importance of recognising his achievements without allowing past controversies, particularly those linked with the events of 1965, to completely overshadow his contributions.

On the other hand, there is profound opposition rooted in the darker chapters of Suharto’s regime. Critics highlight numerous human rights violations during his 32-year rule, arguing that conferring the title of National Hero would be akin to ignoring the suffering of victims and their families who continue to seek justice. Many contend that Suharto's leadership was marked by authoritarian practices, extensive corruption, militarisation, and systematic deception, which they believe disqualify him from being honoured in such a manner. This opposition is vocal not only within civil society but also among political groups and activist organisations, who view the nomination as a setback for Indonesia’s commitment to human rights and democratic values.

The debate is further complicated by historical context and legal criteria. Some historians suggest that while Suharto meets the technical requirements stipulated by regulations, such as making a significant contribution and never betraying the nation, it is essential to confront and not ignore the contentious historical facts surrounding his presidency. The final decision, expected around the national Heroes' Day, rests with the President of Indonesia, who must carefully weigh these conflicting narratives and public sentiments.

If Suharto were officially declared a National Hero, it could significantly affect the historical narrative and public perception of the Reformasi movement in Indonesia. The Reformasi era began as a popular movement that led to Suharto's resignation in 1998, driven largely by widespread demands for political reform, democracy, and justice after decades of authoritarian rule. Naming Suharto a National Hero risks being seen as a contradiction to the spirit and achievements of Reformasi. Critics argue it would symbolically undermine the movement by seeming to rehabilitate and legitimise the legacy of a leader whose regime was associated with extensive corruption, human rights abuses, and political repression.

This decision could fuel public disillusionment with the progress of Reformasi, as many Indonesians and activists view the movement as a rejection of Suharto’s authoritarian past. It may provoke renewed debates over historical memory, justice, and whether Indonesia is truly committed to confronting and learning from its past. The perception could emerge that awarding Suharto an official heroic status is equivalent to whitewashing history, weakening efforts to hold his regime accountable, and potentially reversing some reforms achieved since 1998.

However, some scholars and supporters see Suharto’s recognition as reflecting Indonesia’s complex history, where achievements and failures coexist. They argue that acknowledging his role in Indonesia’s development and stability need not negate the significant strides made by Reformasi. Ultimately, the impact on the historical narrative of Reformasi will depend on how the government and society reconcile these competing views; however, the move is widely seen as highly contentious and potentially damaging to Reformasi’s legacy.

The Reformasi movement's reaction to the proposal of awarding Suharto the title of National Hero has been overwhelmingly negative and strongly critical. Many activists and civil society groups perceive it as a profound betrayal of the Reformasi struggle that began in 1998, which successfully brought an end to Suharto’s authoritarian regime. They argue that Suharto’s regime was responsible for grave human rights abuses, corruption, and repression, and therefore honouring him would distort history and undermine the values and achievements of Reformasi.

Prominent voices from the movement, including 1998 activists, have expressed that bestowing this title on Suharto contradicts the spirit of Reformasi. Some have gone as far as to call it a dismissal of the sacrifices made during the pro-democracy movement that led to Suharto’s resignation. Amnesty International Indonesia and the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have also strongly opposed the proposal, emphasising that Suharto's legacy includes severe violations that cannot be overlooked. Protesters argue that awarding Suharto a heroic status effectively whitewashes the past and threatens to halt or even reverse the progress of democratic reforms.

The public demonstrations and widespread calls to reject this proposal highlight the deep tensions it causes in Indonesian society, where many see it as an attempt at historical revisionism that would dishonour victims and the spirit of Reformasi itself.

The current timing for awarding Suharto the title of National Hero is widely considered highly inappropriate by many observers and activists. The proposal has sparked fresh controversy and strong opposition, with critics arguing that now is not the right moment to bestow such an honour on a figure deeply associated with authoritarianism, corruption, and human rights abuses. Several rights groups and civil society actors publicly denounce the move as a betrayal of Indonesia’s democratic and reformist values, especially given the ongoing efforts to honestly reckon with the legacy of Suharto's regime.

Many see the timing as particularly sensitive because Indonesia continues to grapple with the social and political consequences of the New Order era, with significant segments of society still seeking justice and recognition for victims of past abuses. Critics argue that awarding the title at this juncture risks whitewashing history and undermining the spirit of Reformasi, which rejects Suharto's legacy and champions democracy, transparency, and human rights. There are also concerns about politicisation since President Prabowo Subianto, who has supported the proposal, is Suharto’s son-in-law, raising questions about impartiality and motives.

Historians and activists stress the importance of timing when honouring historical figures, suggesting that recognition should come after a comprehensive public consensus and reconciliation with historical facts, which many feel has yet to be achieved in Suharto’s case. The current moment, marked by active public protests and societal debates, is seen by many as the wrong time for such a contentious decision.

The symbolic impact of awarding Suharto the title of National Hero on victims of human rights abuses during the New Order era is profoundly negative and deeply distressing to those affected. Many victims and their families see such a move as a form of symbolic violence that disregards their suffering and obstructs justice. It is perceived as a betrayal of the ideals of human rights and accountability, especially since many of these victims have endured decades without adequate recognition or reparations.

The legacy of gross human rights violations under Suharto’s regime, including massacres, enforced disappearances, and state violence, remains a painful and unresolved chapter for many. Victims' groups and human rights organisations, such as the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (KontraS), have strongly opposed the proposal, emphasising that elevating Suharto to hero status would erase or whitewash these dark aspects. They argue that it would not only undermine the victims’ struggle for truth and justice but also weaken Indonesia’s democratic values and efforts to confront the past honestly.

For many victims, the decision to name Suharto a National Hero feels like dismissing their pain and sacrifices. It reinforces frustrations that the state has not adequately addressed or even acknowledged the systemic abuses committed during his rule. The symbolic message sent by the award could deepen divisions within society and prolong the suffering of those still seeking justice and reconciliation.

Should President Prabowo grant the request to officially name Suharto a National Hero, public opinion in Indonesia and internationally is expected to be sharply divided, with likely significant criticism and controversy. Domestically, many Indonesians, especially activists, human rights groups, and the Reformasi movement, would probably view the decision as deeply problematic and a betrayal of democratic values. Given Prabowo's familial connection to Suharto as his son-in-law, critics might perceive the approval as politicised, favouring dynastic interests over impartial governance and historical truth. This could damage Prabowo's political standing among reformist and civil society groups, potentially stirring protests and public unrest

On the international stage, the decision may attract condemnation from human rights organisations and foreign governments concerned about Indonesia's commitment to human rights, justice, and democratic reforms. It could raise questions about Indonesia's willingness to reconcile with the authoritarian past and respect for the victims of the New Order regime. The global image of Prabowo as a leader might be tarnished by accusations of endorsing a divisive and controversial figure.

However, some nationalist and conservative segments within Indonesia might support Prabowo's decision, seeing it as restoring honour to a leader who contributed to national development and stability. This faction might frame the move as reclaiming historical recognition that balances achievements against controversies.

Overall, the approval is likely to heighten societal divisions and draw intense scrutiny both at home and abroad, with major implications for Prabowo's political capital and Indonesia's democratic narrative.

President Prabowo should approach the proposal to designate Suharto as a National Hero with great caution and sensitivity, considering the deeply divisive nature of this issue within Indonesian society. He needs to prioritise national unity, justice, and the truth about Indonesia’s history. He should engage in broad, transparent consultations with historians, human rights experts, victims’ groups, civil society organisations, and the wider public before making any decision. This inclusive approach would help ensure that the decision is well-informed and reflective of Indonesia’s democratic values.

Given the significant opposition from the Reformasi movement and human rights advocates, Prabowo might consider postponing or even withdrawing the proposal to avoid exacerbating societal tensions and undermining Indonesia’s democratic progress. If the decision proceeds, it should be accompanied by clear efforts to acknowledge and address the human rights abuses and injustices that occurred during Suharto's regime, including support for victims’ reparations and truth-seeking initiatives.

Ultimately, President Prabowo is advised to carefully weigh the long-term implications of this decision for Indonesia’s social cohesion, democratic integrity, and international reputation. Being mindful of the symbolic weight of the National Hero title and its impact on victims and society will be critical to maintaining public trust and advancing Indonesia’s democratic agenda.

In closing, it is clear that the proposal to bestow the title of National Hero upon Suharto taps into the complex fabric of Indonesia’s recent history. It is a symbolically charged issue that stirs memories of both development and dictatorship, progress and repression. The debate itself underscores the ongoing struggle within Indonesia to come to terms with its past while forging a democratic future.

The deeply polarised responses to this proposal reflect broader societal tensions between the desire to honour national achievements and the imperative to uphold human rights and justice. For victims of the New Order regime, the proposal risks erasing their suffering and delaying the overdue reckoning with historical abuses. For supporters, it represents recognition of Suharto’s role in shaping modern Indonesia, highlighting the challenge of balancing conflicting legacies.

President Prabowo, as the arbiter of this decision, stands at a delicate crossroads. His choice will resonate far beyond formal titles, impacting national unity, democratic values, and Indonesia’s image in the international community. It is an opportunity for careful reflection, inclusive dialogue, and a commitment to transparency and justice.

Whichever path is chosen, it must acknowledge Indonesia’s multifaceted history honestly and respectfully. The enduring wounds of the past cannot be ignored if the nation is to build a future founded on truth, accountability, and reconciliation. This decision is not merely about honouring a historical figure but about defining the collective identity and moral compass of the Indonesian people.

Ultimately, the debate over Suharto’s National Hero status serves as a mirror reflecting Indonesia’s ongoing journey toward democratic maturity. It calls on all stakeholders—government, civil society, victims, and citizens alike—to engage in a process that honours both history’s complexity and the hopes for a just and inclusive nation.

Bahasa