Prabowo has announced that ten individuals will receive Indonesia’s prestigious title of ‘National Hero’ (Kantapos, November 10, 2025). What has drawn nationwide attention is Prabowo’s inclusion of Soeharto on that list. According to Tempo’s in-depth report, “Upaya Menjadikan Soeharto Pahlawan Nasional,” Fadli Zon is the principal figure behind the effort to designate Soeharto as a national hero (Tempodotco, November 09, 2029).
This award was granted to Soeharto for several reasons. As Prasetyo Hadi, the spokesperson for the president and the minister of state secretary, stated, “This is part of how we show respect to our predecessors—especially our leaders—who, despite any controversies, have undoubtedly made significant contributions to the nation” (“Itu kan bagian dari bagaimana kita menghormati para pendahulu. Terutama para pemimpin kita yang apapun sudah pasti memiliki jasa yang luar biasa terhadap bangsa dan negara,” cnnindonesia.com, November 09, 2025).
Fadli Zon argues that Soeharto deserves this honor due to his accomplishments in various conflicts against colonialism and his role in the country’s development. One major justification for this designation is that he helped to stop the rebellion associated with the September 30th Movement (G30S/PKI) (“Dan juga pada waktu itu menghentikan pemberontakan yang dilakukan melalui gerakan 30 September PKI,” cnnindonesia.com, November 10, 2025).
While these reasons may seem valid, they pale in comparison to the serious crimes committed by Soeharto during his rule. Alternative perspectives and historical facts must be considered to challenge these claims.
Debatable historical facts
Fadli Zon’s assertion that Soeharto dismantled the Indonesian Communist Party’s rebellion is highly contested. Although various historical accounts label Soeharto a hero, this narrative has been shaped by censorship; Soeharto and his associates suppressed historical texts taught in schools. The phrase “history is written by the winners” often rings true in this context.
Investigations by foreign journalists and scholars suggest that Soeharto may have been a key mastermind behind the G30S/PKI (Cribb & Brown, 1995). Two critical questions can help us unpack the logic of this study. First, Soeharto was a senior general at the time of the uprising; why was he not kidnapped or murdered like the other generals?
Second, Lieutenant Colonel Untung Syamsuri, who led the kidnapping of the generals, was closely associated with Soeharto. Soeharto was the one who proposed Colonel Untung to lead the Batalyon I Resimen Cakrabirawa, the group responsible for the generals’ kidnapping, following the Trikora Operation in 1962. It is likely that Colonel Untung informed Soeharto of the plan and gained his consent before carrying it out. If this is accurate, it sheds light on why Soeharto escaped the same fate as the other generals.
Afterward, Soeharto seized military control to capture Untung and his team, subsequently blaming the PKI for the incident and declaring war against its members and sympathizers. He portrayed himself as a unifying figure capable of bringing together various political factions in the country and maintaining order. However, just a few years later, he positioned himself as an unchallengeable president and went on to rule the country for more than thirty years.
Familial-political ties over public interest
The plan to award Soeharto the title of national hero has been discussed for a long time, even during Jokowi’s presidency. However, it gained traction during Prabowo’s administration. This shift reflects greater political interest rather than an academic evaluation, as Prabowo is Soeharto’s son-in-law. Fadli Zon, who led the small group that selected and proposed ten national heroes, has been a friend of Prabowo’s since before Reformasi. He also has close ties to the Soeharto family.
This situation illustrates how familial and political interests influenced the awarding of Soeharto’s title more than historical facts or public interest. Prabowo appears to treat the country as an extended family, a concept referred to as integralism in political theory.
In the country’s early years, scholars rejected integralism due to its authoritarian characteristics. Within this framework, the state acts as a paternal figure, dictating and establishing everything for its “children” (the public), claiming to know better than they do and doing so for their own good. This authoritarian aspect is known as paternalism. Democratic activists oppose paternalism because it infringes on people’s political and civil rights.
Developmentalism over democracy
Another argument for supporting Soeharto as a national hero is that he led the country to economic success during his administration. Various data and statistical analyses support this claim, indicating that Indonesia’s economic growth under Soeharto even surpassed that of China (according to the QoG dataset).
However, developmentalism without a commitment to human rights can lead to significant harm. Anthropologist John H. Bodley’s study (1975) demonstrates that progress often comes at a cost. Soeharto’s approach to developmentalism was excessively costly; he violated numerous democratic norms and ruled as a personal autocrat for many years. He not only suppressed political rivals during elections but also marginalized even his own allies within the military. Freedom of expression was severely restricted during his regime. Additionally, he was a key figure in the mass killings of PKI cadres and sympathizers and the kidnapping of activists prior to Reformasi.
The assertion that developmentalism is superior to democracy in driving economic growth is an unverified authoritarian claim. Numerous studies examining the relationship between democracy and economic growth indicate that democracy is more effective in promoting economic development due to its establishment of the rule of law, particularly in securing property rights that encourage long-term investment and limiting state intervention in the market. This, in turn, fosters economic growth (Oslon, 1993; Przeworski, 2005; Halperin et al., 2005).
The success of Western democratic nations, as well as Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea—countries that, according to Lee Kuan Yeu, share Confucian values (Park & Shin, 2006, p. 343)—demonstrates that liberal democracy can effectively promote economic growth.
With all this in mind, if Soeharto is to be honored as a national hero, then who could possibly be deemed a villain? Who, after all, has committed more crimes in this nation’s history than Soeharto?
