JAKARTA — As the administration of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto approaches its operational midterm, political analysts and policy observers are intensifying calls for a rigorous evaluation of the executive branch. Following a two-year threshold that many experts consider an adequate grace period for political consolidation and initial policy implementation, fresh demands have emerged urging the head of state to decisively replace cabinet members whose performance metrics display consistent shortcomings.
The recommendation, which highlights structural tensions between political appointments and technocratic efficiency, was prominently raised by Selamat Ginting, a political science analyst from the National University (Unas) in Jakarta. Speaking on a public affairs broadcast, Ginting emphasized that the initial two-year window provides sufficient runway for cabinet officials to demonstrate competency, align with the administration’s strategic vision, and deliver tangible outcomes for the public. Failing these benchmarks, he argued, the continuation of underperforming officials poses a political and administrative liability to the broader government apparatus.
The discourse surrounding potential cabinet reshuffles reflects broader systemic challenges within Indonesia’s presidential system, where coalition politics often intersect with the imperative for professional governance. As the administration navigates complex macroeconomic conditions, global geopolitical shifts, and domestic policy execution, the pressure on President Prabowo to transition toward a performance-driven cabinet has become a central theme in national political commentary.
Background and Context of the Red-Marked Evaluation
The concept of evaluating ministerial performance midway through a presidential term is not unprecedented in Indonesian governance, but the stakes under the current administration are notably high. President Prabowo Subianto, alongside Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, assumed office with an ambitious legislative and executive agenda encapsulated by national strategic priorities, ranging from free nutritional programs and food security initiatives to downstream processing of natural resources and extensive infrastructure development.
To secure political stability and legislative backing in the People’s Representative Council (DPR), the administration initially formed a broad-based coalition. This resulted in the establishment of the Red and White Cabinet (Kabinet Merah Putih), a sprawling executive structure encompassing numerous ministries and state agencies. The sheer volume of portfolios—including a mix of political appointees nominated by coalition parties, figures retained from the previous Joko Widodo administration, and professional technocrats—created a complex internal ecosystem.
According to policy analysts, the first 24 months of any administration serve a dual purpose: consolidating political power and executing structural reforms. During the first two years, ministries are typically evaluated based on budget absorption rates, regulatory harmonization, crisis management, and the alignment of agency outputs with the President’s vision statements. Ministers receiving "red marks"—an informal indicator denoting systemic underperformance, delayed policy execution, or public controversy—have increasingly become the focal point of legislative oversight and public scrutiny.
Ginting’s Assessment and the Call for a Zaken Cabinet
In his recent public commentary, Ginting asserted that a two-year timeframe is more than adequate for a head of state to measure executive efficacy. He argued that the administration should no longer hesitate to remove officials whose performance evaluations fall below acceptable standards.
"Two years of governance is enough; it is time for the President not to hesitate to dismiss ministers whose performance is genuinely poor and whose reports carry red marks," Ginting stated during the program broadcast.
He further contended that retaining underperforming officials—estimated by various political observers to involve a significant double-digit segment of the broader ministerial and deputy ministerial lineup—risks transforming individual departmental shortcomings into a collective institutional burden. "Because if not, it will actually become a burden on the state, a burden on the government, and also a burden for President Prabowo Subianto himself," he emphasized.
A central tenet of Ginting’s argument is the transition from a politically balanced coalition government to a zaken cabinet—a term derived from Dutch administrative tradition denoting a cabinet composed of recognized experts and professionals rather than political party delegates. While coalition governments are essential for maintaining parliamentary stability in Indonesia’s multi-party democracy, the analyst suggested that the executive branch has reached a critical juncture where merit must supersede political quota systems.
"It is no longer merely about representing coalition party quotas. So it is time to stop that. The President should also not be afraid if those being discussed—since there are reportedly around 17 ministers ‘entrusted’ from the previous administration—are affected. The President must not be afraid," Ginting added, pointing to the delicate balancing act required when managing political legacies inherited from past administrations.
Chronology of Cabinet Formation and Evaluation Milestones
To understand the trajectory leading to these current demands for a reshuffle, it is instructive to examine the chronological evolution of the executive leadership under President Prabowo Subianto:
-
Electoral Mandate and Transition (February – October 2024): Following the decisive victory in the national elections, the transition team focused on policy synchronization, legislative mapping, and coalition building. The architecture of the upcoming government was deliberately designed to accommodate a wide spectrum of political forces to ensure robust legislative support.
-
Inauguration and Cabinet Announcement (October 2024): President Prabowo officially unveiled the Red and White Cabinet. The structure was notable for its expansive size, incorporating numerous ministries, state-owned enterprise oversight bodies, and newly created agencies designed to target specific developmental goals.
-
First Year of Implementation (October 2024 – October 2025): The administration concentrated on rolling out flagship programs, establishing bureaucratic workflows, and managing fiscal adjustments. Ministries faced initial tests regarding budget execution, inter-agency coordination, and public communication. Early policy friction points emerged in sectors related to food distribution, regional administrative adjustments, and regulatory streamlining.
-
Midterm Review and Performance Audits (Late 2025 – Mid-2026): As the administration moved past its first full year, internal monitoring mechanisms and independent think tanks began releasing preliminary performance evaluations. Ministries tied to economic resilience, social welfare delivery, and bureaucratic reform underwent rigorous legislative hearings in the DPR, where lawmakers flagged lagging key performance indicators (KPIs).
-
Current Discourse on Executive Restructuring (Late 2026): Reaching the two-year mark, political commentators, academics, and civil society organizations have intensified public discourse regarding the necessity of a targeted cabinet reshuffle. The debate centers on replacing non-performing political appointees with technical specialists to secure the administration’s legacy projects ahead of the remaining term.
Supporting Data and Structural Challenges in Ministerial Governance
Evaluating a sprawling executive cabinet like Indonesia’s Red and White Cabinet involves analyzing multiple quantitative and qualitative metrics. While comprehensive internal government evaluations remain confidential, public policy institutes and economic think tanks regularly track indicators that reflect ministerial effectiveness:
- Budget Absorption Efficiency: One of the primary metrics utilized by the Ministry of Finance and national audit bodies is the rate and quality of state budget (APBN) absorption. Ministries that experience chronic delays in fund disbursement often stall regional economic stimulation and infrastructure rollouts.
- Legislative Delivery and Regulatory Output: The speed at which ministries draft implementing regulations (Government Regulations and Presidential Regulations) following the passage of primary laws is a critical indicator of bureaucratic agility.
- Public Service Delivery Indices: Independent ombudsman reports and public satisfaction surveys measure the responsiveness of service-oriented ministries, particularly those handling public health, education, licensing, and social assistance distribution.
- Crisis Response Management: The ability of specific portfolios to navigate sudden economic headwinds, supply chain disruptions, or environmental challenges serves as a stress test for departmental leadership.
Observers note that ministries burdened by overlapping authorities or leadership inertia often exhibit deficiencies across these four pillars. When such deficiencies persist beyond a standard evaluation cycle, they directly impact national economic growth targets and public trust in the executive branch.
Political Implications and Coalition Dynamics
The prospect of a cabinet reshuffle driven by performance metrics rather than political quotas carries profound implications for Indonesia’s political landscape. President Prabowo’s administration relies on a broad coalition encompassing parties from both the previous government coalition and former opposition blocs.
Introducing a zaken cabinet or removing high-profile figures—particularly those associated with coalition partners or inherited from the prior administration—requires delicate political negotiation. Political scientists point out that unilateral dismissals of party-backed ministers can strain legislative harmony, potentially complicating the passage of critical state budgets and legislative bills in the DPR.
Conversely, failing to address glaring performance deficits can erode public confidence and hinder the administration’s capacity to achieve its long-term socio-economic targets. The dilemma forces the executive branch to weigh the short-term stability afforded by coalition appeasement against the long-term governance efficacy required to address structural economic demands.
Institutional Responses and Anticipated Next Steps
While official statements from the State Palace regarding an imminent cabinet reshuffle remain measured, presidential spokespersons have consistently reiterated that executive performance is subject to continuous monitoring. Cabinet members are routinely evaluated during plenary cabinet sessions, where individual ministries must account for their program milestones and fiscal responsibility.
Industry groups, civil society organizations, and academic institutions continue to monitor developments closely. Many economic stakeholders have expressed support for a merit-based approach, arguing that predictability, regulatory certainty, and professional competence in key economic and developmental portfolios are paramount for attracting foreign direct investment and maintaining domestic market stability.
As the administration steps further into the second half of its mandate, the pressure from policy analysts such as Selamat Ginting highlights a growing national consensus: that governance outcomes must take precedence over political accommodation. Whether President Prabowo will utilize the two-year milestone to execute a comprehensive structural overhaul of the Red and White Cabinet remains one of the most closely watched developments in contemporary Indonesian politics.
