Analyst Responds to Shadow Cabinet: If There's No Light, It Doesn't Move

Political observer Hendri Satrio (Hensa) has offered critical input regarding the initiative by a number of academics and civil society activists who recently formed a ‘Shadow Cabinet’. Rather than praising the move, Hensa highlighted a fundamental weakness in the group’s choice of identity.

According to Hensa, conceptually the term ‘Shadow Cabinet’ diminishes the potential of the civil society group itself. The name is seen as indirectly revealing limitations, given the inherent nature of a shadow, which can only passively follow its original object.

‘A Shadow Cabinet? A shadow needs light; without light, there is no shadow. And if its master doesn’t move, how can the shadow move? Just a bit of input, that’s allowed, isn’t it? #Hensa,’ Hensa wrote, quoted from his personal X account, @satriohendri, Thursday (30/7/2026).

The founder of the survey institute KedaiKOPI did not deny that in several democratic countries, the existence of a shadow cabinet is commonplace for monitoring and scrutinising government policy. However, he assessed that the adoption of the name by civil society in Indonesia at present could backfire.

‘In principle, I see this Shadow Cabinet as indirectly admitting that they have no agenda of their own. They position themselves as merely reacting to the policies of those in power,’ said Hensa.

‘If the government stays silent, then the shadow stays silent too. That’s a problem if their intention is to become a pressure group or offer alternative policies to the public,’ he added emphatically.

Hensa suggested that if the group genuinely intends to present fresh and bold policy alternatives, they should be more confident in formulating the name of their movement.

‘If they want to form a rival cabinet, it should simply be named Kabinet Tandingan (Counter Cabinet). The word tandingan has the power to break through. There are ideas being pitted against others, and the courage to stand as an equal while offering solutions,’ said Hensa.

Conversely, he judged that the name Shadow Cabinet merely confirms that the group’s existence is reactive and lacks independent initiative.

‘With a Shadow Cabinet, it’s crystal clear there’s a master. How can a shadow take the initiative to move without light?’ he criticised.

Going further, Hensa reminded that political or civil groups that are too reactive risk losing credibility. Society, he argued, needs figures or groups that consistently produce ideas, not merely critics who depend on the policy momentum of those in power.

‘A shadow is not eternal. Once the light shifts or dims, the shadow disappears. So if you want a big name and public trust, don’t just be a shadow — be the source of light itself,’ Hensa concluded.