Alarm from London

Indonesia’s president is jeopardising the economy and democracy. The Economist’s article, written by editors Aaron Connelly and Ethan Wu, criticises a range of policies implemented by President Prabowo Subianto that are seen as centralising power and marginalising the opposition in Parliament. It also scrutinises public spending that exceeds budgetary capacity to fund populist programmes, and the return of the military to the public sector in Indonesia. The Economist’s piece is not merely a journalistic product. Framing the economic and political phenomena in Indonesia—an economy Western countries often still regard as developing—does not necessarily mean that they are taking a particular interest in Indonesia. The inclusion of Indonesia in their article is a subtle warning to global elites, markets, and the Indonesian leaders themselves about the dangers to Indonesia’s economy and democracy. The article may well prick the ears of Indonesian policymakers, especially those responsible for the government’s strategic programmes mentioned in the piece—MBG and KDMP. Nor should one rush to label the article as a foreign attack on national interests. What the government needs to do now is to treat external criticism as constructive feedback to guide future policy. There is no precedent for a magazine bringing down a regime in a country. The Economist’s critique functions more as a reminder, a signal, and a hard alarm that we live in a highly open global community. If one wants to think clearly and evaluate policy honestly, what outsiders are saying—as a term favoured by the government—is in step with criticisms from domestic observers. Unfortunately, criticisms from domestic ‘patriotic commentators’ are often taken harshly, dismissed as observer inflation, and need to be managed. If outsiders with prestigious credentials and international standing such as The Economist speak, the government cannot simply regulate them from above.