The controversy surrounding Soeharto’s designation as a national hero quickly dissipated within days. Public resistance faded almost immediately, suggesting several broader political dynamics. First, the executive branch appears increasingly dominant and largely unchallenged—an inheritance of Jokowi’s illiberal style of governance and a continuation of what scholars describe as executive aggrandisement (Runciman, 2018).
Second, the public may be exhausted by the state’s sophisticated use of democratic institutions to advance its autocratic interests. Such practices constitute a form of innovative or “upgraded” authoritarianism that is far subtler than classic autocracy and therefore less visible to the general public (Morgenbesser, 2020).
Third, the Prabowo administration’s strong media apparatus enables it to reshape public narratives rapidly. In the digital era, those who control information infrastructures wield considerable agenda-setting power, a phenomenon increasingly identified as digital authoritarianism (Roberts & Oosterom, 2024).
This article challenges the state’s digital and discursive dominance by bringing the central issue—developmentalism—back into public debate. As Laclau and Mouffe (1985) remind us, discourse constructs political reality. To defend truth and justice, critical issues must remain alive within public reasoning and collective deliberation.
Soeharto’s developmentalism
Soeharto’s elevation to the status of national hero is justified by his supporters based on his substantial contributions to Indonesia’s economic growth. He is widely known as theBapak Pembangunan (Father of Development). Although his developmental policies produced measurable economic improvements, they were accompanied by severe violations of democratic norms, including the suppression of free expression, the criminalisation of political opponents, mass killings of communist party members and sympathisers, and the kidnapping of activists (Setiawan, 2025).
Such actions were rationalised as necessary costs of development—an argument grounded in developmentalist ideology. Developmentalism assumes that democracy can flourish only when society is economically stable, and that economic progress cannot emerge from democratic contestation. Order, rather than political pluralism, is believed to be the essential foundation for national progress.
This worldview did not end with Soeharto. Jokowi revived and normalised developmentalist reasoning (Mietzner, 2023), and most Indonesians continue to embrace it (Aspinall & Warburton, 2019). Prabowo’s electoral success was similarly secured by framing his campaign as a promise to continue Jokowi’s developmentalist agenda (Pepinsky, 2024).
Developmentalism across regimes
Indonesia’s developmentalism has demonstrated remarkable continuity across political eras. Soeharto adopted and refined many of Soekarno’s earlier development policies (Aspinall & Fealy, 2010), and post-1998 democratic governments have maintained significant elements of Soeharto’s authoritarian developmental model (Mietzner, 2023). Although Soekarno and Soeharto relied on centralised and dictatorial methods, later regimes continued to deploy patronage, technocratic control, and selective illiberalism—forms of soft or innovative authoritarian developmentalism (Tomsa, 2018).
Indonesian developmentalism mirrors broader developmental state trajectories in Asia and Africa, which are typically driven by a committed elite, a relatively autonomous state apparatus, a capable bureaucracy, and a constrained civil society (Leftwich, 1995). It has several common features: the pursuit of economic growth, stability through a robust authoritarian approach and patronage, continuity in power transfer, a technocratic or state-led market, and non-ideology pragmatism.
Across regimes, economic growth has been the overriding priority, often used to justify expansionism, repression, and limits on democratic participation (Quan, 2012; Slater, 2023). Stability is treated as essential to growth, leading to a persistent preference for authoritarian controls and patronage networks (Bodenheimer, 1971).
A technocratic, state-led market model has also remained central. Soekarno nationalised Dutch enterprises and nurtured a technocratic class. Soeharto, though initially influenced by neoliberal ideas, ultimately depended heavily on state-owned enterprises and technocrats (Warburton, 2019). This reliance reflects a governing philosophy that privileges expertise and rational planning over ideology or democratic deliberation (Dirlik, 2014). Subsequent administrations expanded industrial policy and strengthened SOEs, sustaining Indonesia’s state-centric developmental model (Iksan, 2022).
Regime stability has similarly been instrumental. Soekarno consolidated power to maintain unity and attract investment (Cribb & Brown, 1995). Soeharto then institutionalised competitive authoritarianism, maintaining high growth rates and public approval despite entrenched corruption (Levitsky & Way, 2002, 2010).
Finally, Indonesian developmentalism has consistently been pragmatic and non-ideological. While Soekarno authored and promoted Pancasila (Latif, 2020), he also adopted neoliberal measures aligned with the Washington Consensus (Fakih, 2020). Soeharto used Pancasila strategically to suppress political rivals (Yusuf Salim, 2000). Post-1998 governments continue this pragmatic orientation, prioritising growth, infrastructure, and state intervention over ideological coherence (Syukri, 2023).
Why is developmentalism problematic?
The previous elaboration showcases that developmentalism is at odds with democracy. Progress tends to produce victims. Despite its popularity, developmentalism poses significant risks for democratic governance. By framing economic growth as the supreme national goal, it legitimises authoritarian interventions, sidelines democratic participation, and normalises political repression.
Developmentalism constructs a false dichotomy between democracy and development, allowing leaders to justify illiberal practices as necessary for progress. Over time, this erodes civil liberties, weakens accountability, empowers technocratic and military elites, and entrenches inequalities produced by state patronage. As Indonesia’s experience demonstrates, developmentalism often delivers growth while simultaneously undermining democratic consolidation.
