When Ideological Narrative Lacks Governance: The Risk of Corruption Behind Populist Programmes
In modern political dynamics, ideological narratives often become the most potent instrument for those in power to mobilise public support. The administration of President Prabowo Subianto, for instance, has aggressively articulated a narrative of populist political economy and national self-reliance. Various monumental programmes have been launched with claims of siding with the common people, such as the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme and the establishment of the Merah Putih Village Cooperatives (KDMP).
Rhetorically, this populist narrative is highly captivating. However, when a fervent narrative is not matched by mature governance capacity or state management, public policy risks becoming trapped as merely an expensive political stage. The reality on the ground shows that the absorption of massive budgets, driven by ideological zeal, is instead vulnerable to mismanagement, inefficiency, and even triggering widespread corruption.
Governance Deficit
The MBG and KDMP programmes were designed with a truly fantastic budget scale. The main characteristic of ideologically driven programmes is the urge to execute policies quickly in order to demonstrate political commitment. Unfortunately, this speed of execution often neglects a crucial stage in the policy cycle, namely the design of oversight mechanisms, allocation transparency, and the readiness of bureaucratic infrastructure at the grassroots level.
When jumbo budgets are channelled into a system that is not yet fully prepared, what occurs is known in political economy theory as the principal-agent problem and an institutional deficit. Budgetary discretion without strict checks and balances opens wide gaps for moral hazard. As a result, programmes intended for the people’s welfare miss their targets, are prone to hijacking by political elites, and transform into a feeding ground for corruption.
This phenomenon confirms that good intentions wrapped in populist ideology are never sufficient to guarantee policy success. Without a technocratic framework and transparent governance, ideological narratives will only become a tool of legitimation to channel public funds without clear accountability.
Fukuyama’s State Building
To understand the root of this problem, Francis Fukuyama’s thoughts on state-building remain highly relevant. In his work, State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century (2004), Fukuyama sharply distinguishes between two dimensions of state power: the scope of state function and the strength of state capacity.
Scope refers to how many responsibilities and agendas the government wishes to take on—in this case, encompassing ambitious populist-oriented programmes. Meanwhile, strength refers to the ability of state institutions to plan, execute, and oversee policies professionally, transparently, and free from corruption.
The main problem currently facing the government is the deep imbalance between scope and strength. The government is hastily expanding its scope through various ideologically driven, mega-budget programmes, while neglecting the strengthening of strength in the form of bureaucratic institutional capacity. If this expansion of state functions is not supported by strong institutional capacity, it is a primary recipe for policy failure and a decline in governance, which, if not addressed promptly, could slide towards the formation of a failed state.
In today’s hyper-connected era of global interaction, a nation’s credibility is no longer measured by how loud its populist narratives are echoed domestically. Global standards demand good governance—such as legal certainty, digital transparency, and public accountability—as the main indicators of government effectiveness. When internal governance is weak and corruption is rampant in strategic programmes, both international and domestic public trust in state institutions will plummet sharply.
Ideology as a Compass
Strengthening government governance must now be made the commander in every national policy formulation. Ideological narratives should function as a moral compass and strategic direction for the nation, not as a substitute for the basic principles of public accountability.
To escape the trap of ‘ideological narrative, minus governance’, several urgent corrective steps must be taken: First, the government needs to conduct an evaluative pause and an independent audit of the governance of the MBG and KDMP programmes. Budget expansion must not proceed until the oversight system and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are truly solid.
Second, strengthen state capacity as advocated by Fukuyama. This includes professionalising the bureaucracy managing the programmes, digitising the budget distribution system to close leakage loopholes, and involving independent oversight bodies and civil society at every stage of supervision.
Third, transform the policy-making approach from ideology-driven to evidence-based policy making. Every programme worth trillions of rupiah must be based on tested feasibility studies, risk simulations, and measurable governance, not merely political imagination.
Ultimately, the success of a government will not be measured by how many populist terms are uttered in political speeches, but by how clean, effective, and accountable the programmes are in delivering benefits to the people. Without strengthening governance, the populist narrative will only end up as costly rhetoric for the nation’s future.