Prabowo Is Not Building a Programme, but a System?

Many people remain busy debating the government’s programmes one by one. They debate the Free Nutritious Meal programme (MBG) as merely a lunch scheme. They see the Red and White Village Cooperatives as nothing more than a cooperative project. They regard the Garuda schools as just new schools. They question the establishment of the University of the Republic of Indonesia (URI) as simply another educational institution. Even budget efficiency is narrowly framed as mere spending cuts.

Such a reading is too narrow.

In development economics, a state does not change because of a single programme. A state changes when various policies begin to support one another and form an ecosystem. That is why an economist does not only ask, “What is the aim of this programme?” but also, “How does this programme relate to the others?”

Try viewing it as one chain.

Budget efficiency creates fiscal space. Fiscal space allows the government to shift resources towards new priorities. MBG creates demand on a national scale. The Red and White Village Cooperatives can become nodes of distribution and local economic strengthening. The Garuda schools are an investment in human capital. URI is projected to build leadership capacity. If all of these genuinely work in mutual support, then what is being built is not merely a collection of programmes, but a development ecosystem.

Is this reading definitely correct? Not necessarily. But ignoring the possibility of interconnection between policies is also an analytical mistake.

History shows that states which have achieved development leaps rarely rely on a single policy. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and China linked industrial, educational, institutional, and human resource development policies within long-term strategies. Indonesia certainly has a different context, but the main lesson remains the same: development requires institutions that reinforce one another.

That is why public debate should rise to a higher level. Do not merely ask whether one programme is liked or disliked. Ask also whether these programmes have designs that are interconnected. Is a genuine chain truly being created from villages, production, distribution, education, through to leadership? Or does each run on its own without coordination?

These questions are far more important than simply arguing on social media.

However, there is one thing that must not be forgotten. A good ecosystem on paper does not necessarily succeed in reality. Without transparent governance, merit-based selection, strong oversight, and evidence-based evaluation, an ecosystem can turn into nothing more than a collection of projects that drain the budget.

That is why society must not be merely supporters or opponents. Society must become supervisors. If a system is indeed being built, then that system must deliver productivity, welfare, and stronger institutions — not merely a grand narrative.

Perhaps this is what many have yet to realise. We are too busy looking at the individual pieces of the puzzle, forgetting to ask whether those pieces are being assembled into a complete picture.

If that is indeed the case, then history will not remember MBG, the Red and White Village Cooperatives, the Garuda schools, or URI as stand-alone programmes. History will judge them by one far bigger question: did they all succeed in becoming a system that strengthens Indonesia, or were they merely a collection of policies that never truly connected?