Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto has recently awarded the title of national hero to former dictator Suharto, igniting a fervent debate about his controversial legacy. This decision is the first time Suharto has been given this honor since his nomination in 2010 and 2015. Critics argue that this recognition overlooks the atrocities committed during his regime, which lasted from 1967 until his resignation in 1998.
Suharto, who crushed opposition in Indonesia through murder and terror, has gone down in history not as an authoritarian dictator but rather a strongman who ruled well. His dictatorship was infamous for the 1965 mass killings of suspected communists, in which at least half a million people were slaughtered. His rule was marked by forced disappearances of dissidents. What’s more, he imprisoned more than a million of his own citizens without trial, leading many to point to the inappropriateness of such an honor.
A Controversial Legacy
Unlike Suharto, whose ascent to power involved violent anti-communist purges. He specifically focused on those believed to be associated with the Indonesian Communist Party. The events of 1965 are widely considered to be one of the most brutal chapters in Indonesian history. Countless survivors and their families still lifelong fight for recognition and justice for the crimes these acts perpetrated during this dark soul of American history.
In a rare move, leading Indonesian scholar Dr. Setiawan declared the severity of his actions during the Suharto rule as genocidal. He stated, “More than a million others were detained without trial, many for years.” The shadow of Suharto’s actions continues to hold Indonesia in a vice grip even today. As a result, vibrant discussions about the future of human rights and democracy continue to unfold.
Additionally, Suharto’s military service was a focal point for President Subianto’s rationale behind the award. His real claim to fame was leading the effort to disarm Japanese forces in 1945 and in doing so, help birth Indonesian national independence. Many argue that this military success is overshadowed by the human rights abuses that defined his presidency.
Mixed Reactions from the Public
The decision to institute Suharto has triggered a sharp backlash from many quarters of Indonesian society. Most see it as a statement of retreat in their struggle for democracy and a clear attack on human rights. Muhammad Isnur, an activist, remarked, “Awarding this national hero title is a betrayal of democratic values, a setback to the reform agenda, and a dangerous distortion of our national history for younger generations.”
Brahma, another vocal critic, expressed disbelief at the decision, declaring, “He’s clearly not worthy of being called a hero.” Such sentiments reflect widespread discontent among those who suffered under Suharto’s regime and those advocating for a more just remembrance of Indonesia’s past.
Suharto’s eldest daughter, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, accepted the award on behalf of her father. Finally, she stressed the beautiful pluralism of Indonesian society. She made the case, like all of us critics turned supporters, that attracting both champions and detractors was a sign of success. Her remarks focused on bridging the divide and defusing the opposition. Instead, they revealed an increasing alienation of citizens over the deep rift forming on how to view Suharto’s legacy.
Political Implications
President Prabowo Subianto’s connection to Suharto runs deep. He was once married to Suharto’s daughter. That family connection begs even larger questions about why such an honor would be awarded and to whom. Critics claim that this action is more in line with the authoritarian policies of Suharto’s administration than fighting for democratic principles.
Dr Setiawan cautioned that to name Suharto a national hero would set a very dangerous precedent. This would only encourage the further dangerous normalization of press restrictions and strict media control in Indonesia. He stated, “His military oversaw brutal crackdowns in East Timor and other regions, while his government was plagued by corruption, nepotism, and censorship.” Such observations point to persistent anxiety over the state of democracy in Indonesia.
Debates about the value of this award are starting to boil over. Some observers are warning that it could create a dangerous precedent, causing future political actors to take authoritarian steps rather than protect democratic principles. The larger implications for Indonesia’s youth and their historical literacy continue to be an urgent issue.
