Jakarta: In a move that has ignited national debate and stirred long-buried emotions, the Indonesian government has decided to grant the title of “National Hero” to its late former president, Suharto, a figure both celebrated for economic progress and condemned for authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. The announcement, made official on Monday, marks a watershed moment in Indonesia’s evolving relationship with its own turbulent past.
President Prabowo Subianto, who presided over the ceremony in Jakarta, declared that Suharto would be included among ten prominent individuals honored as national heroes this year. The event was attended by Suharto’s children, who accepted the honor on his behalf. Indonesia’s Ministry of Political, Legal, and Security Affairs justified the decision by citing Suharto’s military contributions during the independence struggle and his role in stabilizing and modernizing the nation during his three-decade rule.
Culture Minister Fadli Zon defended the decision, stating that a government-appointed panel found Suharto met all the formal requirements for the title. The move, he said, was “a recognition of his role in shaping Indonesia’s history and economic transformation.”
Suharto ruled Indonesia from 1967 until 1998, a period often referred to as the “New Order.” Under his leadership, the country achieved significant economic growth, widespread infrastructure development, and relative stability. However, his presidency was also marred by allegations of massive corruption, political repression, and widespread human rights violations.
His forced resignation in 1998 followed mass student protests, economic collapse, and accusations that his family and associates had amassed billions through graft. Despite these charges, Suharto remained a powerful symbol for those who viewed his era as one of national strength and prosperity.
The decision to honor Suharto has provoked fierce backlash from pro-democracy groups, historians, and victims of his regime. Demonstrators gathered in Jakarta, accusing the government of attempting to “whitewash history” and undermine Indonesia’s democratic progress.
Human rights activist Tadius Priyo Utomo voiced public outrage, saying, “Our struggle against dictatorship is being forgotten. We who fought for freedom are now branded as traitors, while those who suppressed us are hailed as heroes.”
Critics highlight Suharto’s role in the 1965–66 anti-communist purges, during which an estimated 500,000 people were killed. His regime also oversaw the 1975 invasion of East Timor, which led to decades of occupation and violence. Many of these events remain unaddressed in Indonesia’s official history, with victims still seeking justice and acknowledgment.
The political backdrop of this decision adds another layer of complexity. President Prabowo Subianto is Suharto’s former son-in-law and once served as a commander in the elite military unit Kopassus under Suharto’s rule. Analysts view the move as part of a broader effort to restore and normalize aspects of Suharto’s legacy in modern Indonesian politics.
Suharto’s former political party, Golkar, remains a dominant force in Indonesia’s parliament and continues to align closely with the current administration. Political observers suggest that honoring Suharto may serve to consolidate support among older generations who associate his rule with national order and progress.
Human rights organizations have called the move a step backward. Former attorney-general Marzuki Darusman, who led investigations into the 1998 riots, warned that the government’s action could “symbolically shield the perpetrators of past abuses and discourage future accountability.”
Groups such as KontraS (the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence) have urged the government to first address the long-standing human rights violations before glorifying controversial figures.
The decision reflects Indonesia’s continuing struggle to reconcile its democratic aspirations with its authoritarian past. While Suharto is viewed by some as a stabilizer who unified a fragmented nation, many others remember him as the architect of a regime that silenced dissent, controlled the press, and committed grave injustices.
Analysts note that Indonesia’s younger generation, born after Suharto’s fall, is increasingly vocal about historical transparency and accountability. However, state-sanctioned honors such as this may risk reshaping collective memory in ways that obscure the darker chapters of the nation’s history.
Awarding Suharto the National Hero title is not merely symbolic it could redefine Indonesia’s political identity. It comes at a time when the military’s influence is expanding once again in administrative and civic roles. Observers warn that glorifying Suharto’s legacy could normalize the return of “strongman politics”, undermining the democratic reforms won after 1998.
Political analyst Kevin O’Rourke remarked that while Indonesia is unlikely to fully revert to authoritarianism, this recognition “signals a soft rehabilitation of autocratic leadership as part of Indonesia’s mainstream narrative.”
Indonesia’s decision to honor Suharto as a National Hero underscores the nation’s enduring ambivalence toward its past. It is an attempt to reconcile historical contributions with controversial realities an act that many see as rewriting history in favor of power.
For some, Suharto remains the father of Indonesia’s economic rise; for others, he is the face of repression and fear. The title of “National Hero” may officially close one chapter of Indonesia’s history but it has opened a new debate about truth, justice, and the kind of legacy the nation wishes to uphold.