Prabowo Subianto has frequently reiterated his opposition to colonialism. In a stirring speech at JIExpo Kemayoran, he highlighted a critical issue plaguing the nation, stating, “… ada segelintir pihak yang secara sadar apa nggak, mereka sudah jadi antek asing, mereka tidak suka Indonesia bangkit” (There are a handful of people who, whether they realize it or not, have become agents of foreign interests, and they do not want to see Indonesia rise) (detik.com, 22/08/2025).
His concern extends beyond mere historical grievances; during the Gerindra party’s anniversary celebration, he warned attendees of the dangers of foreign interference, declaring, “Kalau ada yang dihasut-hasut, atau mau ada yang menghasut, waspada. Ini ulah kekuatan asing yang selalu ingin memecah belah Indonesia” (If people are being provoked, or if there are those trying to provoke, be vigilant. This is the work of foreign forces that constantly seek to divide Indonesia) (antaranews.com, 15/02/2025).
The theme of anti-foreign colonialism has woven itself into the fabric of Prabowo’s narrative since he embarked on his presidential ambitions. His focus lies not in the traditional sense of colonialism but rather in a critique of current foreign hegemony dictating Indonesia’s policies. In this light, no national leader wishes to see their sovereignty compromised by external powers shaping domestic affairs.
Yet, Prabowo’s anti-foreign rhetoric exhibits a pragmatic inconsistency. This is evident in his acquiescence to a controversial tariff agreement with Donald Trump, where Indonesia faces a steep 19% tariff while US products enjoy unfettered access to Indonesian markets free from tariffs. Compounding this, Indonesia has to fulfill various obligations that ultimately serve US interests rather than its own.
A nuanced perspective on colonialism
Exploring the complexity of colonial legacies, one cannot overlook a highly influential study by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001). This research, employing instrumental-variable regression and mortality hypotheses, delves into the reasons why some formerly colonized nations have struggled with economic growth while others have flourished. The central premise suggests that colonizers established either extractive or beneficial institutions based on the settler mortality rates.
Their findings reveal a striking correlation: former colonies that experienced higher rates of settler mortality often found themselves burdened by extractive institutions intended purely for resource exploitation. In contrast, nations such as the United States, Australia, and New Zealand boasted significant economic success thanks to the robust institutions inherited from their colonizers, developed within contexts of low settler mortality where colonizers aimed to replicate the structures of their home countries and establish permanent settlements.
Despite criticisms directed at this foundational study, it continues to serve as a pivotal reference in countless scholarly discussions. Indonesia stands as one of the classic examples, identified in the study for its elevated mortality rates from malaria, which led to a legacy of extractive institutions. However, more recent work by Dell and Olken (2018) has brought to light that the Dutch created beneficial institutions along Java’s northern coast, including sugar factories and various infrastructures between the early 1830s and 1870s. These structures have played a crucial role in fostering the region’s modern socio-economic prosperity.
While this does not excuse the darker aspects of colonial history, it complicates the narrative by suggesting that some vestiges of colonialism may have inadvertently contributed positively to Indonesia’s development.
Post-Reformasi: dreaming of a developed Indonesia
Following Indonesia’s hard-won independence in 1945, a collective aspiration emerged among its founding fathers and the whole citizens to establish a nation that is independent, united, sovereign, just, and prosperous (The 1945 Constitution). Despite enduring hardships during the authoritarian regimes of Soekarno and Soeharto, the Reformasi movement in 1998 sparked a renewed hope for realizing these national dreams. Under Jokowi’s leadership, a vision has emerged whereby Indonesia aspires to be recognized as a developed country by 2045, positioning itself among the world’s top 15 nations in power and influence.
Now, as Prabowo seeks to carry the torch of this ambition through ASTA CITA, he expresses confidence in continuing Jokowi’s dream to elevate Indonesia’s standing on the global stage. Yet, a closer examination of Indonesia’s current state reveals a stark reality. The nation’s democracy is rated as only partially free according to Freedom House, while significant obstacles persist, including challenges in law enforcement, education, economic growth, and global influence. Clearly, there remains a considerable journey ahead.
The complex interplay of power has seen the elite and oligarchs co-opting Indonesia since the time of Soeharto (Winters, 2011; 2013). This exploitation has only intensified in the post-Reformasi landscape (Hadiz, 2004; 2011). Prabowo’s assertion that foreign entities usurp Indonesia’s natural resources starkly contrasts with the collusion of local elites and oligarchs, who appear to pilfer even more than the Dutch did during their colonial rule. His anti-foreign hegemony rhetoric is only a historic nostalgia filled with his past memories as an Indonesian special armed forces general rather than as a current real fight against the new colonialism by elites and oligarchs.
In light of this, one might argue that Indonesia’s current predicament could be viewed as less favorable than the colonial past, suggesting that the burdens of modern governance under elite-oligarch influence might surpass the challenges once faced under colonial administration. Thus, being colonized by the Dutch might be better than under Indonesian elite-oligarch systematic greedy collusion.
