The controversy surrounding the remarks made by President Prabowo Subianto needs to be understood within its full political and social context rather than through isolated clips circulating online. His statement—interpreted by many as “if you are unhappy, just leave, go to somewhere like Yemen”—emerged during a moment when pessimistic narratives were gaining traction on social media, particularly through hashtags such as #KaburAjaDulu and #IndonesiaGelap. These expressions were not merely casual trends; they reflected a deeper sense of frustration among segments of the public regarding economic pressures, job opportunities, and broader concerns about the country’s direction.
From the perspective of Political Communication, such a response can be interpreted as a form of confrontational rhetoric. This is a communication style in which a leader deliberately adopts a sharp or provocative tone to challenge a narrative they perceive as harmful—in this case, what may be seen as defeatism or excessive pessimism. Rather than offering reassurance in a conventional, empathetic manner, the leader positions themselves in opposition to the sentiment itself, attempting to reframe it as unproductive or even unpatriotic. To supporters, this can come across as firmness and resolve; to critics, it may appear dismissive or lacking in empathy.
It is also important to consider whether this was a calculated political manoeuvre or a spontaneous reaction. Within Political Science, there is a recognised concept known as agenda-setting, whereby political actors attempt to shift public attention away from certain issues by introducing more emotionally charged or controversial statements. While it is certainly possible that remarks like these can have the effect of redirecting public discourse, it would be analytically premature to conclude that this was definitively the intention without clearer evidence of a consistent or strategic pattern. In many cases, statements that later appear politically advantageous may initially arise from unscripted or emotionally driven responses.
Another layer to this situation lies in the mismatch between public expectations and the tone of the response. Many citizens expect national leaders to project reassurance, empathy, and a sense of collective encouragement, particularly during times of uncertainty. When a leader instead employs language that sounds dismissive or sarcastic, even if intended as motivational or corrective, it can easily be perceived as belittling. This gap between intention and reception is often what transforms a statement into a controversy.
Furthermore, the personal style of a leader plays a significant role. Prabowo Subianto has long been associated with a direct and assertive manner of speaking, influenced in part by his background and political positioning. Such a style may resonate strongly with certain audiences who value decisiveness, yet it can simultaneously alienate others who prioritise empathy and careful phrasing in public leadership.
In assessing whether this incident constitutes a strategic success or a communicative misstep, it is most accurate to view it as potentially both. On the one hand, it may reinforce the leader’s image among supporters who favour bluntness and resilience against pessimism. On the other hand, it risks deepening scepticism among those who feel their concerns are being dismissed rather than addressed. Political communication often operates in this dual space, where the same message strengthens one constituency while weakening trust with another.
Ultimately, a careful evaluation requires separating the emotional impact of the wording from the broader substance of governance. Public reactions are often shaped by tone and symbolism, whereas long-term judgement of leadership tends to rest more heavily on policies and outcomes. Recognising this distinction allows for a more balanced and less reactionary understanding of such moments.
If we step back from the immediate controversy, the episode reveals something deeper than a dispute over tone. It exposes a growing tension between public sentiment and the state’s ability to project confidence about the future. When citizens begin to express doubt—whether through hashtags or everyday conversation—the real question is not simply how leaders respond, but what underlying conditions give rise to that doubt. In this sense, debates about rhetoric naturally lead us into more substantive territory: the material foundations of national resilience. A nation’s credibility, after all, is not sustained by words alone, but by its capacity to secure the essentials of life for its people.
This is precisely where the discussion turns towards sovereignty, self-reliance, and food security. In the language of Political Economy, these are not abstract ideals but practical measures of whether a country can stand on its own feet in times of uncertainty. Food, in particular, sits at the centre of this triad. When a nation depends heavily on external supply chains, public anxiety can intensify during moments of global disruption. Conversely, when it demonstrates the ability to feed its population through stable and resilient systems, confidence—both domestically and internationally—tends to follow. Thus, the conversation shifts quite naturally: from how a leader speaks about resilience, to whether the nation itself is structurally resilient.
Imagine two farmers living side by side in a remote village in Central Java. Pak Marto, an elderly farmer who has cultivated rice for five decades, keeps his ancestral paddy seeds in a clay jar. He has never purchased seeds from outside — he selects them himself from the best harvest of each season. He decides on his own when to plant, how much to sell, and how much to store for his family. For Pak Marto, his paddy field is not merely a source of livelihood; it is his identity, his dignity, and his freedom.
Next to him, Pak Wardi — an ambitious young farmer — has switched to high-yielding hybrid rice varieties purchased from a multinational seed company. His productivity is indeed twice as high. Yet each season, he must buy fresh seeds because his crop cannot be replanted. He depends on government-subsidised chemical fertilisers and on grain prices set by middlemen. When a prolonged dry season strikes, when subsidies are withdrawn, or when fertiliser prices spike, Pak Wardi is on the verge of financial ruin.
The story of these two farmers is not merely a local tale. It encapsulates a global debate that has been unfolding for more than half a century: is it sufficient for a nation's food policy to ensure that its people do not go hungry (food security), or must it go further to ensure the nation is sovereign over its food sources and agricultural systems (food sovereignty), whilst simultaneously being capable of producing food domestically without excessive dependence on imports (food self-sufficiency)?
In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the world witnessed how fragile the global food system truly is. Ukraine and Russia together supplied more than 30 per cent of the world's wheat. Wheat prices surged by 60 per cent within just a few weeks (FAO, 2022). Nations that depended on wheat imports — including Egypt, Tunisia, and Lebanon—faced sudden food crises. Meanwhile, countries that had built strategic food reserves and diversified domestic production were able to weather the storm far better. The story of Pak Marto and Pak Wardi, it turns out, is the story of every nation confronting geopolitical and global climate upheaval.
DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTIONS
Food Security
The concept of food security was first formally articulated at the 1974 World Food Conference. The most influential definition was put forward by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at the 1996 World Food Summit: food security exists 'when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life' (FAO, 1996).
This definition rests upon four principal pillars. First, availability—the presence of food in adequate quantities through domestic production, imports, or food aid. Second, access—the ability of individuals and households to obtain sufficient food through purchasing power, entitlements, or social networks. Third, utilisation—the optimal use of food through sound dietary practices, clean water, sanitation, and healthcare. Fourth, stability—the ability to sustain the first three pillars consistently, even during crises, conflict, or climate disruptions (FAO, 2008).
It is important to note that food security is source-neutral. A country may be considered food-secure even if all its food is imported, provided access and availability are maintained. This is what fundamentally distinguishes it from the other two concepts.
Food Sovereignty
Food sovereignty transcends food security by placing the dimensions of rights, control, and justice at the centre of analysis. The concept was popularised by La Via Campesina — an international peasant movement network — at the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome, as a critical response to the agricultural liberalisation championed by the WTO through its 1994 Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) (Wittman et al., 2010).
The Nyeleni Declaration of 2007 — the outcome of the International Forum for Food Sovereignty held in Mali, attended by 500 delegates from 80 countries — defines food sovereignty as 'the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems' (Nyeleni, 2007). This definition underscores that food is not merely a commodity, but a fundamental human right and a cultural heritage.
La Via Campesina articulates seven principles of food sovereignty: (1) food for people, not for profit; (2) valuing and supporting food providers; (3) localising food systems; (4) putting control locally; (5) building knowledge and skills; (6) working with nature; and (7) recognising the central role of women in agriculture (La Via Campesina, 2003).
Food Self-Sufficiency
Food self-sufficiency sits conceptually between food security and food sovereignty. It refers to a country's capacity to meet its food needs from domestic production, minimising dependence on imports. The degree of food self-sufficiency is typically measured through the Self-Sufficiency Ratio (SSR) — the proportion of domestic production relative to total national consumption (FAO, 2004).
Food self-sufficiency does not, however, require complete autarky. A country may still import food for certain commodities that cannot be produced competitively at home, so long as the domestic production of staple food commodities is adequately met. In the Indonesian context, food self-sufficiency is frequently associated with the attainment of self-sufficiency in rice, maize, and soya — three strategic commodities forming the nutritional foundation of the population (Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, 2020).
Comparing the Three Concepts
These three concepts are interrelated yet differ fundamentally in their orientation and scope. Food security focuses on outcomes: can everyone access sufficient, nutritious food? It does not question the origins of that food or who controls the system. Food self-sufficiency focuses on the source of production: can the country produce its own food? Food sovereignty, meanwhile, focuses on power and rights: who holds control over the food system, from seeds to policy?
It must be emphasised that these three concepts are not binary alternatives that mutually exclude one another. A country can be food-secure without being food self-sufficient (dependent on imports), food self-sufficient without being food-sovereign (dominated by multinational seed corporations), or may strive to achieve all three simultaneously. Indonesia, for instance, enshrines all three as complementary objectives of national food policy under Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food.
Scope of Food Security
The scope of food security encompasses the entire food chain from production to consumption. This includes agronomy (land productivity and farming), logistics (distribution, storage, and transportation of food), macroeconomics (prices, inflation, and purchasing power), public nutrition and health, and disaster and food crisis management. Geographically, food security operates at the global, regional, national, subnational, household, and individual levels (Maxwell & Slater, 2003).
Scope of Food Sovereignty
Food sovereignty encompasses a broader and more explicitly political scope. It touches upon international trade policy (tariffs, quotas, and WTO provisions), intellectual property rights over seeds and plant varieties, land tenure and agrarian reform, the rights of indigenous peoples over traditional agricultural knowledge, the role of women in food systems, and the environmental and ecological sustainability dimensions. At its core, food sovereignty is a human rights movement that happens to play out in the arena of agriculture (Patel, 2009).
Scope of Food Self-Sufficiency
Food self-sufficiency centres on the dimensions of production and food trade balances. Its scope includes agricultural investment policy, research and development of local varieties, irrigation and agricultural infrastructure, production incentives for domestic farmers, and import management. Food self-sufficiency is also closely tied to national security and geopolitics, given that food dependency can serve as a tool of political leverage wielded by food-exporting nations (Clapp, 2012).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
The History of Food Security Thought
Thinking about food security has roots deep in the history of human civilisation. In the modern context, however, global attention towards food began in earnest after the Second World War, when mass famine in Europe and Asia drove the establishment of the FAO in 1945. The 1974 World Food Conference — convened amid a global food crisis triggered by soaring commodity prices — became the first milestone in formally conceptualising food security (Shaw, 2007).
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, architected by Norman Borlaug and supported by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, represented the first technocratic response to the threat of global famine. Through high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat, intensive use of chemical fertilisers, and modern irrigation systems, global food production rose dramatically. South Asia and South-East Asia emerged from the shadow of mass starvation (Pinstrup-Andersen & Hazell, 1985).
Yet the Green Revolution also left a critical legacy: farmer dependence on external inputs, erosion of agricultural biodiversity, land and water degradation, and the marginalisation of smallholder farmers unable to access new technologies. It is precisely this critique of the Green Revolution that would later give birth to the concept of food sovereignty (Shiva, 1991).
The Emergence of Food Sovereignty
Food sovereignty emerged from the confluence of two streams of thought: the international peasant movement and a critique of agricultural trade liberalisation. The signing of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in 1994 — which obliged developing countries to open their agricultural markets — was seen by La Via Campesina as an existential threat to smallholder farmers across the globe. Heavily subsidised agricultural produce from wealthy nations flooded the markets of developing countries, displacing local farmers who could not compete (McMichael, 2009).
La Via Campesina, founded in 1993 and now comprising 182 organisations in 81 countries representing approximately 200 million peasants, farmworkers, rural women, and indigenous peoples, proclaimed food sovereignty as an 'alternative to neoliberal policies' (Desmarais, 2007). The concept is not merely economic — it is a political manifesto about who has the right to determine the future of the global food system.
Theoretical Foundations
Theoretically, food security is rooted in neoclassical economics and utilitarianism: its aim is to maximise welfare through the efficient allocation of food resources. Amartya Sen, in his seminal work Poverty and Famines (1981), made a crucial theoretical contribution by demonstrating that famine is not simply a product of food shortage, but of the failure of 'entitlements' — the rights and capacities of individuals to access food. The 1943 Bengal Famine, for instance, occurred not because of an actual shortage of food, but because the poor lacked the means to purchase food that was available (Sen, 1981).
Food sovereignty, by contrast, is grounded in critical theory, political ecology, and radical agrarian thought. The thinking of Antonio Gramsci on hegemony, Karl Polanyi's writings on the 'embeddedness' of the economy in society, and the dependency theory of Andre Gunder Frank and Raul Prebisch all inform its analytical framework. Food sovereignty is, at its heart, a resistance to the 'decorporatisation of agriculture' — the process by which multinational corporations wrest control over food systems from the hands of communities and states (McMichael, 2014).
Food self-sufficiency, from a theoretical perspective, is closely associated with Ricardo's concept of comparative advantage, whilst simultaneously challenging it. Proponents of food self-sufficiency argue that for strategic commodities, considerations of national security and social stability must outweigh comparative efficiency. This accords with Hamilton and List's infant industry protection arguments, as well as the food regime theory developed by Friedmann and McMichael (Friedmann & McMichael, 1989).
POLICY: SUBSIDIES, ACTORS, AND OBJECTIVES
Global Food Security Policy
At the global level, food security policy is coordinated through the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which operates under the FAO. The World Food Programme (WFP) provides emergency food assistance to 160 million people across 120 countries each year (WFP, 2023). The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) finances smallholder agricultural programmes in developing countries.
Food subsidies are the most contentious policy instrument. OECD countries spend an average of 708 billion US dollars per year on agricultural subsidies, encompassing direct payments to farmers, input subsidies, and price protection (OECD, 2022). Whilst benefiting farmers in wealthy nations, these subsidies are frequently accused of distorting global trade and disadvantaging farmers in developing countries who must compete against heavily subsidised foreign food products.
Food Sovereignty Policy
Policies grounded in the principles of food sovereignty include: protection of local varieties and farmers' seed rights through sui generis systems (as alternatives to TRIPS-WTO provisions); agrarian reform to distribute land to landless farmers; the prohibition or restriction of food imports that threaten local production; and the development of local markets and short food supply chains. Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have at various points incorporated food sovereignty into their constitutions, recognising it as a constitutional right (Giunta, 2014).
Food Self-Sufficiency Policy
Food self-sufficiency policies typically encompass domestic production targets, protective import tariffs, agricultural input subsidies (seeds, fertilisers, pesticides), investment in irrigation infrastructure, research and development (R&D) of superior local varieties, and the maintenance of strategic food reserves. Japan, South Korea, and India are examples of countries that have consistently implemented food self-sufficiency policies despite facing pressure to liberalise trade from the WTO and their trading partners (Ramesh, 2011).
Food Subsidies: Arguments For and Against
Food subsidies exist in a variety of forms: producer subsidies (for farmers), consumer subsidies (for low-income populations), and input subsidies (for seeds, fertilisers, and water). From the perspective of social justice, consumer subsidies — such as food voucher programmes, subsidised rice schemes, or food stamps in the United States — are vital instruments for ensuring the food security of poor households. However, from the perspective of economic efficiency and fiscal sustainability, poorly targeted subsidies frequently create market distortions, waste, and dependency (World Bank, 2008).
The debate over food subsidies grows increasingly complex when linked to climate change. Subsidies that encourage excessive use of chemical fertilisers contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and soil degradation. Meanwhile, subsidies for sustainable and agroecological farming remain woefully small compared with those for conventional agriculture (HLPE, 2019).
Key Actors
The global food system involves a complex and often competing web of actors. At the international level, the FAO, WFP, IFAD, and WHO represent the multilateral agenda. The WTO sets the global food trade rules that are binding on member states. The World Bank and IMF influence agricultural policy through loan conditionalities. Multinational corporations such as Cargill, ADM, Bunge, and Louis Dreyfus — collectively known as the 'ABCD' of global grain trading — control a large share of global commodity food trade. Monsanto (now Bayer), Syngenta, Corteva, and BASF dominate the global seed and agrochemical markets (Howard, 2016).
At the national level, ministries of agriculture, national food logistics agencies, and agricultural research institutions are key actors. At the local level, farmers, agricultural cooperatives, and farmers' associations are the frontline of food production. Civil society movements such as La Via Campesina, Friends of the Earth, and Oxfam play a vital role in policy advocacy and oversight.
CHALLENGES AND CONTEMPORARY CONSTRAINTS
Climate Change
Climate change is the gravest threat to global food security and self-sufficiency in the twenty-first century. IPCC projections indicate that by 2050, climate change could reduce the productivity of food crops by up to 25 per cent across many tropical and subtropical regions — precisely where the largest concentrations of the poor and food-insecure populations are found (IPCC, 2022). The increasing frequency and intensity of droughts, floods, heatwaves, and storms threaten agricultural infrastructure and food reserves.
Inequity in the Global Trading System
Whilst the WTO claims to create a 'level playing field', structural inequalities in global food trade persist. The massive agricultural subsidies of OECD countries allow their food products to be sold below the production costs of farmers in developing countries — a practice known as 'dumping' (Oxfam, 2002). While developing countries face pressure to open their agricultural markets, wealthy nations maintain various, more subtle yet equally effective protectionist instruments.
Corporate Concentration
The concentration of ownership in the seed, agrochemical, and food trading industries has reached alarming levels. Following the wave of mergers and acquisitions between 2015 and 2018, the four largest seed-agrochemical companies (Bayer-Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngenta, Dow-DuPont/Corteva, and BASF) control more than 60 per cent of the global commercial seed market and 70 per cent of the global agrochemical market (ETC Group, 2018). This concentration reduces farmers' choices, increases production costs, and undermines food sovereignty.
Urbanisation and Shifting Consumption Patterns
Rapid urbanisation in developing countries is fundamentally transforming food consumption patterns. The nutrition transition — from diets based on local grains towards diets high in meat, processed products, and fast food — increases pressure on food systems, raises food import dependence, and exacerbates the double burden of malnutrition, where undernutrition and obesity/non-communicable diseases coexist within the same society (Popkin et al., 2012).
MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
A Philosophical Perspective
Philosophically, the three concepts reflect a tension between two great traditions of moral and political philosophy. Liberalism — in the tradition of Locke, Smith, and Mill — emphasises individual freedom, property rights, and free markets. From this perspective, food security can be achieved most efficiently through global market mechanisms, comparative specialisation, and free trade. State intervention and protectionism are viewed as creating inefficiency and harming consumers.
Communitarianism — in the tradition of Aristotle, Rousseau, Gramsci, and contemporary thinkers such as Michael Walzer and Charles Taylor — emphasises the importance of community, shared identity, and collective values in the determination of policy. From this perspective, food sovereignty is a legitimate expression of the community's right to define its relationship with its land, seeds, and food culture (Wittman, 2011).
Within the tradition of food ethics, thinkers such as Paul Thompson stress the importance of considering the moral dimensions of food policy: not merely whether food is available, but how it is produced, by whom, and with what consequences for the environment and society. The concept of 'food justice' — which has grown rapidly in prominence over the past decade — unites analyses of race, class, gender, and environment within a single, comprehensive ethical framework (Alkon & Agyeman, 2011).
An Ideological Perspective
The debate over food security, sovereignty, and self-sufficiency cannot be separated from the context of ideology. The neoliberal perspective — dominant within the Bretton Woods institutions and WTO policy — regards the liberalisation of agricultural trade as the optimal prescription for global food security. Market forces are considered capable of allocating food resources efficiently, driving technological innovation, and lowering food prices for consumers.
The nationalist-developmentalist perspective — once dominant in East Asia (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan) and now resurging across many developing nations — emphasises the state's role in building food self-sufficiency as part of a broader national development project. From this perspective, agriculture is not merely an economic sector, but the foundation of social and political stability and national identity.
The eco-socialist and agroecological perspective — increasingly influential in global discourse — critiques both industrial capitalism and bureaucratic statism in food governance. Its proponents advocate a transition towards community-based food systems, agroecology, and solidarity economies that transcend the market-versus-state dichotomy (Altieri & Toledo, 2011).
Food is politics. History is replete with examples of food control being used as an instrument of power — from food blockade strategies in warfare, to Stalin's agricultural collectivisation policies that caused the Holodomor (artificial famine) in Ukraine in 1932-33, claiming millions of lives, to the United States grain embargo against the Soviet Union in 1980 in response to the invasion of Afghanistan (Patel, 2007).
In the contemporary geopolitical context, the 'weaponisation of food' is an increasingly real threat. Nations that depend on food imports from other countries become vulnerable to diplomatic and economic pressure. Conversely, major food-exporting nations — the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Ukraine, and Russia—wield significant 'food power' in international negotiations (Brown, 2012).
An Economic Perspective
From an economic perspective, food is a commodity with unique characteristics that distinguish it from others. Demand for food is inelastic — people must eat regardless of price — and thus food price volatility disproportionately affects the poor, who may spend 50-80 per cent of their income on food. The food price crises of 2007-2008 and 2010-2011, driven by a combination of harvest failures, financial speculation, and soaring energy costs, triggered food riots in more than 40 countries (von Braun, 2008).
Food subsidies create complex economic trade-offs. On the one hand, consumer subsidies (such as food assistance programmes) are important for protecting the food security of poor households and stimulating domestic demand. On the other hand, poorly targeted subsidies may create price distortions, reduce production incentives for farmers, and burden state finances. Indonesia, for example, spends trillions of rupiah annually on fertiliser subsidies, yet their effectiveness in improving the welfare of smallholder farmers remains a subject of ongoing debate (World Bank, 2019).
A Social and Cultural Perspective
Food is the language of culture. Every society possesses a food system laden with social meaning, religious ritual, ethnic identity, and collective memory. Rice is not merely carbohydrate for the Javanese — it is a symbol of prosperity, an agrarian identity, and a spiritual connection to nature. Sago is not merely food for the peoples of Papua and Maluku — it is an entire social, cultural, and ecological ecosystem that has shaped their civilisations for thousands of years.
Food liberalisation and the homogenisation of the global diet threaten the rich diversity of local foods, which constitute an inestimable cultural heritage. The FAO notes that of the 250,000 plant food species once known to humankind, only around 150 species are now commercially cultivated, and a mere 12 species account for 80 per cent of human caloric intake (FAO, 2019). This erosion of food diversity is not only a threat to ecological resilience, but to the cultural diversity of humanity itself.
The gender dimension of food systems is also profoundly important yet frequently overlooked. Women contribute 60-80 per cent of food production in developing countries, yet control only 10-20 per cent of land ownership. Gender inequality in access to agricultural resources is both a structural cause of food insecurity and one of the greatest obstacles to achieving food sovereignty (FAO, 2011).
FOOD SOVEREIGNTY, SECURITY, AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN INDONESIA
Indonesia's Historical Context
Indonesia is a country of striking food paradoxes. As an agrarian nation with 190 million hectares of land, 17,000 islands, and the world's third-largest agricultural biodiversity, Indonesia ought to be a food-surplus country. Yet in reality, Indonesia is one of the world's largest food importers — importing rice, soya, sugar, salt, maize, meat, and various other food commodities in massive quantities each year (Statistics Indonesia/BPS, 2023).
The history of Indonesia's food policy reflects an ongoing struggle between these three concepts. During the Old Order era, Sukarno proclaimed the concept of 'Berdikari' (standing on one's own feet), which aligned with the spirit of food self-sufficiency. His marhaenism agricultural programme emphasised the importance of smallholder farmers as the backbone of national agriculture. However, economic chaos, hyperinflation, and political instability prevented meaningful implementation (Ricklefs, 2008).
The New Order era under Soeharto marked a major transformation in Indonesian food policy. The BIMAS (Mass Guidance) and INMAS (Mass Intensification) programmes adopted the Green Revolution approach on a massive scale: distributing high-yielding IR-36 and IR-64 paddy varieties, subsidising urea fertilisers, pesticides, and irrigation, and establishing the National Logistics Agency (Bulog) in 1967 to manage national rice stocks and distribution. The results were spectacular: Indonesia, which in 1966 had been the world's largest rice importer, achieved rice self-sufficiency by 1984 — an achievement recognised by the FAO (Timmer, 2004).
However, the 1984 rice self-sufficiency did not endure. Pressure from the IMF and World Bank following the 1997-1998 financial crisis forced Indonesia to reduce agricultural subsidies, open its rice import market, and weaken Bulog's role. Rice imports surged again. Dependence on imported agricultural inputs (fertilisers, pesticides, hybrid seeds) deepened. The conversion of productive paddy fields for industrial and residential use continued unabated — Indonesia loses approximately 100,000 hectares of paddy fields per year (Irawan, 2005).
Legal Framework
Indonesia has developed a reasonably comprehensive legal framework for all three food concepts. Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food defines all three concepts explicitly and establishes them as objectives of national food policy. The law clearly stipulates that food sovereignty, food self-sufficiency, and food security are three mutually reinforcing pillars. Law No. 19 of 2013 on the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers provides the legal foundation for protecting farmers from harmful import practices and promoting their economic empowerment. Presidential Regulation No. 66 of 2021 established the National Food Agency (Bapanas) as a new body replacing the food coordination functions previously dispersed across various ministries.
Contemporary Indonesian Food Policy
Contemporary Indonesian food policy encompasses a range of instruments. The fertiliser subsidy programme allocates approximately IDR 25-40 trillion per year to subsidise urea, SP-36, ZA, and NPK fertilisers for rice, maize, and soya farmers. The Non-Cash Food Assistance Programme (BPNT)/Sembako Programme distributes IDR 200,000 per month to 18-20 million recipient households to purchase rice, animal protein, and plant protein through designated outlets known as e-warung (Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, 2023).
The Government Rice Reserve (CBP), managed by Bulog, serves as an instrument for price stabilisation and disaster relief. The Indonesian government also promotes food diversification through the B2SA programme (Diverse, Nutritionally Balanced, and Safe), which promotes non-rice local foods such as sago, cassava, sweet potato, maize, and sorghum as alternative sources of carbohydrate (Bapanas, 2022). The food estate programme — the development of large-scale agricultural areas in Central Kalimantan, North Sumatra, and Papua — was an ambitious initiative of the Jokowi administration to boost national food production, though it has attracted controversy regarding environmental impacts and indigenous peoples' rights (Mongabay, 2021).
Indonesia's Challenges
Indonesia faces some structural challenges in realising food security, self-sufficiency, and sovereignty. First, agricultural land fragmentation: the average land ownership of an Indonesian farmer is only 0.3 hectares — far too small to achieve efficient economies of scale. Second, an ageing farming population: the average age of an Indonesian farmer is 45-50 years, whilst younger generations are reluctant to enter an agricultural sector perceived as unprofitable and of low social standing. Third, conversion of paddy fields: the pressure of infrastructure development, industrial estates, and housing continues to erode productive agricultural land. Fourth, weak agricultural value chains: farmers receive only approximately 20-30 per cent of the retail price of their agricultural produce, with the majority of added value captured by traders, processors, and retailers (Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, 2021).
Geographical inequality in Indonesia's food system is also striking. Java — covering just 7 per cent of Indonesia's land area — produces more than 55 per cent of national rice output, yet also faces the greatest pressure from land use change and urbanisation. The eastern regions of Indonesia — Papua, Maluku, East Nusa Tenggara—suffer chronic food insecurity despite their vast land potential. Price disparities for the same food commodities between Java and Papua can reach three to five times, reflecting the weakness of the national food logistics infrastructure (Bapanas, 2022).
Food Sovereignty and Indigenous Communities in Indonesia
A dimension frequently overlooked in discussions of Indonesian food policy is the role and rights of indigenous communities within the food system. Indonesia's indigenous peoples—numbering approximately 70 million people spread across the archipelago—have developed agricultural systems, ecological knowledge, and agricultural biodiversity over thousands of years. The sasi system in Maluku, the subak in Bali, and various other customary forest and land management systems are vivid examples of community-based food sovereignty that have proven to be sustainable.
Yet the rights of indigenous communities over their land and agricultural resources are continuously threatened by the expansion of oil palm plantations, mining, and infrastructure projects. Without recognition and protection of these rights, food sovereignty for Indonesia's indigenous communities will remain mere rhetoric (AMAN, 2020).
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND PROSPECTS
In concluding this essay, it is worth returning briefly to Pak Marto and Pak Wardi. The two are not antagonists — they represent two different pathways available to our food systems. Pak Marto embodies local wisdom, seed sovereignty, and adaptive resilience that has been tested by time. Pak Wardi embodies high productivity, market integration, and a deepening systemic dependency that is becoming increasingly worrying.
The greatest challenge for twenty-first century food policy is to find a creative synthesis between the two: a food system that is productive enough to feed 10 billion people by 2050, equitable enough to ensure no one goes hungry, sovereign enough to protect the rights of farmers and communities, self-sufficient enough to withstand geopolitical and climatic shocks, and sustainable enough not to destroy the ecosystems upon which all life depends.
Agroecology — the science that integrates ecology, agronomy, and the social sciences in the management of agricultural systems — offers a promising framework. Meta-analytical studies by Seufert et al. (2012) and Badgley et al. (2007) indicate that organic and agroecological farming can deliver productivity that is competitive with conventional agriculture in developing countries, whilst enhancing biodiversity, improving soil health, and increasing farmer incomes. The IPES-Food report (2016) concludes that a transition to diversified agroecological food systems is not only technically feasible, but also more resilient and equitable than the current industrial food system.
For Indonesia, the path forward must be built upon three foundations: first, strengthening domestic agricultural production through investment in agricultural research, irrigation infrastructure, and the empowerment of farmers — particularly young farmers and women. Second, building an efficient and equitable food distribution and logistics system that ensures no yawning price disparities exist between Java and Papua, between the city and the countryside. Third, recognising and protecting the food sovereignty of communities—both rural smallholder farmers and indigenous peoples — as a non-negotiable right, not merely an object of government programmes.
Ultimately, food security, self-sufficiency, and sovereignty are not merely technical policy concepts. They are a reflection of the most fundamental questions about who we are as a nation, how we wish to live, and what future we wish to bequeath to generations to come. The debate about food is a debate about values, power, identity, and justice — and that is precisely why it can never be resolved by economic formulae or technology alone.
REFERENCES
Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press.
Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 587-612.
Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN). (2020). Annual report: The struggle for indigenous peoples' rights over territory and natural resources. AMAN.
Badgley, C., et al. (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2), 86-108.
National Food Agency (Bapanas). (2022). National food security roadmap 2022-2024. National Food Agency of the Republic of Indonesia.
Statistics Indonesia (BPS). (2023). Agricultural and food commodity trade statistics 2023. Statistics Indonesia.
Brown, L. R. (2012). Full planet, empty plates: The new geopolitics of food scarcity. W. W. Norton & Company.
Clapp, J. (2012). Food. Polity Press.
Desmarais, A. A. (2007). La Via Campesina: Globalisation and the power of peasants. Pluto Press.
ETC Group. (2018). Blocking the chain: Industrial food chain concentration, Big Data platforms and food sovereignty solutions. ETC Group.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2004). Methodology for the measurement of food deprivation. FAO Statistics Division.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2008). An introduction to the basic concepts of food security. FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2011). The state of food and agriculture 2010-11: Women in agriculture. FAO.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2019). The state of the world's biodiversity for food and agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). (2022). The importance of Ukraine and the Russian Federation for global agricultural markets and the risks associated with the current conflict. FAO Information Note.
Friedmann, H., & McMichael, P. (1989). Agriculture and the state system: The rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis, 29(2), 93-117.
Giunta, I. (2014). Food sovereignty in Ecuador: Peasant struggles and the challenge of institutionalisation. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1201-1224.
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. FAO HLPE Report 14.
Howard, P. H. (2016). Concentration and power in the food system: Who controls what we eat? Bloomsbury Academic.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group II.
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). (2016). From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. IPES-Food.
Irawan, B. (2005). Paddy field conversion: Potential impacts, utilisation patterns, and determinant factors. Forum Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 23(1), 1-18.
La Via Campesina. (2003). Food sovereignty. La Via Campesina Position Paper.
Maxwell, S., & Slater, R. (Eds.). (2003). Food policy old and new. Blackwell Publishing.
McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139-169.
McMichael, P. (2014). Historicising food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 933-957.
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Strategic plan of the Ministry of Agriculture 2020-2024. Ministry of Agriculture RI.
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Study on agricultural commodity value chains in Indonesia. Centre for Domestic Trade Policy, Ministry of Agriculture RI.
Ministry of Social Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. (2023). Performance report of the Sembako Programme 2023. Ministry of Social Affairs RI.
Mongabay. (2021). Indonesia's food estate programme: Clearing forests for failing farms. Mongabay.
Nyeleni. (2007). Declaration of Nyeleni. Forum for Food Sovereignty, Selingue, Mali, 27 February 2007.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2022). Agricultural policy monitoring and evaluation 2022. OECD Publishing.
Oxfam. (2002). Rigged rules and double standards: Trade, globalisation, and the fight against poverty. Oxfam.
Patel, R. (2007). Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world food system. Melville House.
Patel, R. (2009). Food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3), 663-706.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Hazell, P. B. R. (1985). The impact of the green revolution and prospects for the future. Food Reviews International, 1(1), 1-25.
Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2012). Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1), 3-21.
Ramesh, M. (2011). Food security in India and China: The political economy of food policy. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 4(2), 124-137.
Ricklefs, M. C. (2008). A history of modern Indonesia since c. 1200 (4th ed.). Stanford University Press.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485, 229-232.
Shaw, D. J. (2007). World food security: A history since 1945. Palgrave Macmillan.
Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology, and politics. Zed Books.
Timmer, C. P. (2004). The road to pro-poor growth: The Indonesian experience in regional perspective. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 40(2), 177-207.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 18 of 2012 on Food.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 19 of 2013 on the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers.
von Braun, J. (2008). Food and financial crises: Implications for agriculture and the poor. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Wittman, H. (2011). Food sovereignty: A new rights framework for food and nature? Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 2(1), 87-105.
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A., & Wiebe, N. (Eds.). (2010). Food sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature and community. Fernwood Publishing.
World Bank. (2008). World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. World Bank.
World Bank. (2019). Indonesia's agriculture sector: Enhancing productivity and sustainability. World Bank Group.
World Food Programme (WFP). (2023). WFP annual report 2023. WFP.
