The Courage to Build Indonesia Emas 2045

The Courage to Build Indonesia Emas 2045

By Sachin V. Gopalan, CEO Indonesia Economic Forum

History has a curious habit of rewriting first impressions.

The national programs we now celebrate as milestones of development were rarely greeted with universal enthusiasm when they began. More often than not, they arrived amid skepticism, political opposition and relentless scrutiny. Newspapers highlighted early failures. Bureaucracies struggled to adapt. Budgets exceeded expectations. Citizens questioned whether the promises justified the disruption. To those living through the moment, success often appeared distant and uncertain.

Turning Points

Only with the benefit of hindsight do these same initiatives come to be seen as turning points.

Singapore’s public housing program transformed a nation where overcrowded settlements once dominated the urban landscape. Today, its Housing and Development Board is regarded as one of the world’s most successful public housing institutions. Yet in its early years, compulsory land acquisition, rapid urban redevelopment and the enormous financial commitment drew criticism from those who questioned both the pace and scale of the government’s ambitions.

India offers another compelling example. Programs such as Aadhaar, the Unified Payments Interface, the Goods and Services Tax, Jan Dhan financial inclusion and the Mid-Day Meal Scheme all faced concerns ranging from administrative complexity and implementation failures to questions about cost and governance. Today, Aadhaar has become the world’s largest digital identity platform, UPI is a global reference point in instant payments, and India’s broader Digital Public Infrastructure is increasingly studied as a model for inclusive digital development. None of these initiatives succeeded because they were flawless at launch. They succeeded because governments kept improving them while remaining committed to the larger objective.

Indonesia’s own experience tells a similar story. BPJS Kesehatan faced operational difficulties and funding concerns in its formative years. QRIS required banks, merchants and consumers to adapt to a new payment ecosystem. Major toll road developments attracted questions about costs and priorities. Even decentralization after Reformasi was once viewed as an ambitious and uncertain experiment. Few would now argue that these initiatives should never have been attempted. They became part of Indonesia’s institutional landscape because they were refined through years of implementation, investment and learning.

Flagship Programs

It is against this historical backdrop that President Prabowo Subianto’s flagship programs deserve to be evaluated. The Free Nutritious Meals program, Makan Bergizi Gratis or MBG, Koperasi Merah Putih, Danantara and a wider range of national initiatives represent an unusually ambitious effort to reshape Indonesia’s development trajectory. Nutrition, food security, village-based economic empowerment, strategic investment, industrialization and infrastructure are not short-term political projects. They are generational investments intended to strengthen the foundations of Indonesia Emas 2045.

The scale of this problem-solving agenda is easy to overlook amid the daily political debate. The recently published book Problem Solver, written by Dirgayuza Setiawan, Muhammad Qodari and Agung Gumilar Saputra, identifies 108 national challenges that its authors say were addressed during President Prabowo’s first 18 months in office, spanning food, energy, health, education, infrastructure, poverty reduction, industrialization, governance, digitalization, defense and diplomacy.

Individual policies can—and should—be debated. Not every intervention will work exactly as intended, and some will undoubtedly require substantial correction. But taken together, they reveal an administration attempting structural intervention across an unusually broad range of national challenges. That ambition naturally attracts intense public attention.

When programs operate at national scale, even relatively small implementation failures become highly visible. A logistics breakdown affecting one region, delays in procurement, inconsistencies in local execution or governance concerns can quickly dominate headlines and shape public perception. In today’s digital media environment, early setbacks often receive far greater attention than the millions of meals, transactions or services delivered successfully each day.

Large Reforms Expose Complexity

This should not surprise us. Large reforms inevitably expose the complexity of governing a nation of more than 280 million people spread across thousands of islands. No pilot project can fully simulate nationwide implementation. The true test of leadership therefore lies not in avoiding every operational challenge, but in responding to those challenges quickly, transparently and with a willingness to improve.

That distinction is important. Criticism plays an essential role in a healthy democracy. Public scrutiny strengthens institutions, identifies weaknesses and holds governments accountable. Constructive criticism should therefore be welcomed rather than dismissed. But criticism serves the nation best when it distinguishes between flaws in implementation and flaws in vision. Improving delivery is very different from abandoning the objective altogether.

Consider MBG. Few would dispute the importance of improving child nutrition, reducing stunting and investing in healthier future generations. Nutrition during childhood affects educational outcomes, workforce productivity and long-term economic potential. Countries that invested early in child nutrition did not merely improve public health; they strengthened their future human capital.

Indonesia is attempting something similar on an extraordinary scale. The challenge is therefore not whether the objective is worthwhile, but whether implementation can continue improving as the program expands. Better logistics, strong