Kopdes Merah Putih: A Paradox Behind the Promise of Prosperity

Rather than becoming an engine of the village economy, the launch of the national programme for 80,000 Red and White Village/Neighbourhood Cooperatives (Kopdes/Kel) has been marked by various controversies since its inception. The programme, conceived to strengthen village economies through the provision of basic necessities, financing, and the management of community production, now raises the question: can it truly deliver welfare for the people?

Kompas.com (2/7/2026) reported that a number of cooperative buildings have been constructed far from residential areas, on the grounds of greater land availability. This policy is considered likely to reduce people’s access to cooperative services. BBC News Indonesia (1/7/2026) also reported continuing uncertainty over the cooperatives’ operational mechanisms and governance. Scrutiny intensified after five prospective cooperative managers died while attending basic military training. In response to these controversies, CNN Indonesia (3/7/2026) reported that the government will evaluate the programme’s implementation to make it more effective and better targeted.

These problems demonstrate that development that does not stem from the real needs of communities risks producing ineffective policy. When location, governance, and implementation mechanisms are not designed according to people’s circumstances, cooperatives are difficult to make full use of, and the goal of driving the village economy becomes hard to achieve.

This phenomenon reflects the development paradigm within the capitalist system, which is more oriented towards project delivery than addressing the root of the problem. Large budgets and complex governance open the door to waste, rent-seeking practices, and even corruption. As a result, public funds continue to be poured into financing new programmes, while fundamental problems such as employment, low purchasing power, limited access to capital, and uneven village development remain unresolved. Ultimately, public policy is more likely to benefit capital owners and those in power than to genuinely serve the people’s interests.

These controversies show that programme evaluation alone is insufficient if the underlying development paradigm remains unchanged. Islam offers a different paradigm. The objective of economic development in Islam is not pursuing projects or growth in economic figures, but ensuring that the basic needs of every individual are met. Accordingly, every policy is formulated on the basis of the welfare (maslahah) of the ummah, not economic or political interests.

In the Islamic system, the state acts as both rā’in (guardian) and junnah (protector), responsible for guaranteeing the people’s welfare through the sharia-compliant management of public wealth, job creation, a healthy business climate, and a just distribution of wealth so that it does not circulate only among a certain few. Islam also strengthens the people’s economy at its source. The state ensures every individual has the opportunity to work, access to economic resources, and a guarantee of basic necessities when unable to provide for themselves. On this foundation, economic activity grows naturally and sustainably, rather than depending on short-lived projects.

Welfare therefore does not arise from the sheer number of programmes launched, but from a system that makes meeting the people’s needs its primary objective. Islam offers a systemic solution through the comprehensive (kaffah) application of sharia, so that economic policy is genuinely oriented towards the people’s welfare and capable of delivering real, lasting prosperity. Wallāhu a’lam bi ash-shawāb.