tiada

On Tuesday, October 21, 2025, prominent political observer Agung Baskoro delivered a sharp critique of President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, asserting that its current operational paradigm remains excessively centered on the singular figure of the President. Speaking during the "Apa Kabar Indonesia Malam" program on tvOne, Baskoro articulated concerns that this "Prabowo-centric" leadership style inadvertently sidelines key governmental figures, leading to an underutilization of the Vice President, Coordinating Ministers, and other cabinet members, thereby hindering their capacity to perform optimally. This assessment, delivered almost one year into the Prabowo-Gibran presidential term, highlights growing anxieties among political analysts regarding the efficiency and collaborative nature of the nascent government.

Baskoro’s core argument revolves around a perceived "Superman management" approach, where the President is seen as the primary solver of all significant issues, rather than fostering a robust "super team" capable of collective problem-solving and proactive governance. "I believe the first issue is this: a shift from Superman management, which is Prabowo-centric, towards a super team. How can the cabinet manage numerous problems and respond to them effectively?" Baskoro questioned, emphasizing the need for a more distributed leadership model. He further elaborated that this concentrated leadership risks rendering other crucial government positions, particularly that of the Vice President, largely ineffective or merely symbolic.

The Underutilized Vice Presidency: "Between Present and Absent"

A focal point of Baskoro’s criticism was the perceived role of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, whom he described as being "between present and absent." This observation suggests a lack of visible, substantive engagement from the Vice President in critical policy formulations or public problem-solving initiatives. When the Prabowo-Gibran ticket secured a decisive victory in the 2024 general elections, ushering in a new era of leadership, expectations were high for a dynamic partnership. Gibran, with his background as Mayor of Surakarta and his youth, was anticipated to bring a fresh perspective and a focus on generational issues. However, nearly a year into their term, Baskoro’s remarks imply that the Vice President’s mandate or operational scope might be limited by the prevailing leadership style.

Historically, the role of an Indonesian Vice President varies significantly depending on the President’s leadership style and the political dynamics of the time. Some Vice Presidents have been given expansive portfolios, spearheading specific development programs or diplomatic missions, while others have remained more in the background, fulfilling ceremonial duties or providing counsel. Baskoro’s statement suggests Gibran’s current positioning leans towards the latter, potentially stifling initiatives that could benefit from a more empowered and visible Vice President. The implication is that without a clear, active role and public mandate, the Vice President’s office cannot fully contribute to the administration’s goals, potentially leading to a duplication of efforts or an inefficient allocation of leadership resources.

Coordinating Ministers: Symbolic vs. Substantive Roles

Beyond the Vice President, Baskoro extended his critique to the Coordinating Ministers, asserting that their positions have largely remained symbolic rather than substantive. Indonesia’s governmental structure features several Coordinating Ministries, each overseeing clusters of related ministries (e.g., Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Culture). These roles are designed to ensure synergy, prevent sectoral egoism, and streamline policy implementation across diverse governmental departments. They are meant to be powerful figures, orchestrating complex policy frameworks and resolving inter-ministerial disputes.

"How can the cabinet manage numerous problems and respond to them effectively? So how do you optimize the Vice President? This Vice President seems to be between present and absent," Baskoro reiterated, then expanded, "Because oftentimes we see that it is Mr. Prabowo who extinguishes the problems. And for me, this cannot be continued because it will make, pardon me, the Vice President, the Coordinating Ministers, and other ministers useless if this pattern continues." This points to a systemic issue where the President’s direct intervention in resolving crises might inadvertently bypass the hierarchical structure and the intended functions of the Coordinating Ministers. If these senior ministers are not empowered to lead, coordinate, and troubleshoot within their respective domains, their strategic importance diminishes, and the burden of day-to-day governance disproportionately falls upon the President. This could lead to bottlenecks in decision-making and a slower, less agile governmental response to multifaceted challenges.

Background and Context of the Prabowo-Gibran Administration

The Prabowo-Gibran administration officially took office following their inauguration in October 2024, after a hard-fought election campaign that saw them emerge victorious with a significant mandate. Their platform emphasized continuity with the previous administration’s development agenda, particularly in infrastructure, economic growth, and social welfare programs, while also promising innovations in defense, food security, and human capital development. The cabinet, formed shortly after the inauguration, brought together a mix of experienced politicians, technocrats, and figures from various political parties, reflecting the broad coalition that supported their bid for power.

From the outset, the administration faced a complex array of challenges. Globally, geopolitical tensions, fluctuating commodity prices, and the lingering effects of global economic slowdowns continued to shape Indonesia’s external environment. Domestically, issues such as persistent inflation, the need for job creation, equitable distribution of development, and bureaucratic reform remained high on the agenda. The administration’s first year has been marked by efforts to stabilize the economy, attract foreign investment, and accelerate key national projects. However, the centralized leadership style highlighted by Baskoro could potentially impede the swift and adaptive policy responses required to navigate these intricate challenges effectively. The vision of a united and efficient government, where each component plays a crucial role, appears to be challenged by the practicalities of implementation and leadership delegation.

The Imperative for Unified Public Communication

Beyond the internal dynamics of governance, Agung Baskoro also underscored the critical need for an overhaul in the government’s public communication strategy. He acknowledged that some progress had been made through institutions like the Presidential Staff Office (KSP), the Communication Agency (Bakom), and the Public Information Body (BKP). However, he stressed the necessity for clearer communication guidelines to ensure that all government officials speak with a unified voice. "So that there are no frequent ‘slips of the tongue,’ so that their communication isn’t haphazard," he stated, warning that unchecked, inconsistent public statements could erode public trust and damage the country’s standing with international stakeholders.

Effective public communication is paramount for any government, particularly in an era of rapid information dissemination and heightened public scrutiny. Inconsistent messages, contradictory statements from different officials, or an inability to articulate government policies clearly can lead to confusion, misinformation, and a decline in public confidence. It can also create an impression of disunity within the administration, undermining its credibility both domestically and internationally. For a country like Indonesia, which relies on foreign investment and maintains complex diplomatic relations, projecting an image of stable, coherent governance is essential. The lack of a cohesive communication strategy could deter investors, complicate international negotiations, and foster domestic skepticism regarding the government’s competence and direction.

Economic Headwinds and the Call for a Solid Team

Baskoro’s analysis extended to the economic sphere, identifying persistent economic contraction as a significant challenge that necessitates a more focused and cohesive economic team. He pointed to two stimulus packages introduced by the government within the year as evidence that the President’s economic team needed to be more "concerned and, again, not dependent on the Purbaya Effect." This reference, likely pertaining to Dr. Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa, a prominent economist often associated with key macroeconomic policies and strategic state-owned enterprises, suggests an over-reliance on a single figure’s influence or a narrow set of economic ideas within the presidential advisory circle.

Indonesia’s economy in 2025, like many others globally, continues to grapple with post-pandemic recovery complexities, inflationary pressures, and the impacts of global supply chain disruptions. While the government has implemented various measures to stimulate growth and support vulnerable sectors, including fiscal incentives and social safety nets, Baskoro’s comments imply that these efforts might not be yielding the desired broad-based impact. A persistent "economic contraction" suggests that despite stimulus measures, real economic activity might still be struggling to rebound robustly, particularly at the grassroots level. This calls for a diversified approach, drawing on a wider range of economic expertise and ensuring that policy implementation reaches all segments of society, not just specific sectors or large corporations. The "Purbaya Effect" critique, therefore, serves as a call for a more collaborative, multi-faceted economic strategy that transcends individual influence and fosters collective responsibility within the economic cabinet.

Bridging the Gap: Program Implementation at the Grassroots

A crucial aspect highlighted by Baskoro is the imperative for major government programs to genuinely reach and benefit the wider community, especially those at the grassroots level. He implied that current economic interventions might not be effectively trickling down, leaving many ordinary citizens unaffected by the intended positive impacts. This gap between policy formulation and on-the-ground execution is a perennial challenge for large developing nations. For the Prabowo administration, whose campaign promises resonated deeply with ordinary citizens through pledges of job creation, affordable goods, and improved social services, ensuring tangible benefits is critical for maintaining public legitimacy and trust.

The implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects, social assistance programs, or agricultural initiatives requires meticulous planning, robust oversight, and effective coordination across various government levels—from central ministries to local administrations. If the "super team" approach advocated by Baskoro is not adopted, and ministers are not fully empowered to drive their respective programs, the risk of bureaucratic inefficiencies, delays, and a disconnect between policy intent and public outcome increases significantly. Therefore, transforming major government initiatives from mere policy statements into impactful realities for the populace stands as a significant test for the administration’s ability to decentralize responsibility and empower its cabinet.

Implications for Governance and Public Trust

The implications of a centralized, "Superman management" style extend far beyond mere efficiency; they touch upon the fundamental principles of good governance, accountability, and public trust. A government where decisions are concentrated at the very top can become less agile, less responsive to diverse needs, and potentially more prone to errors due to an overload of responsibilities on a single individual. It can also foster an environment where accountability is blurred, as ministers might feel less ownership over policies if they perceive their roles as limited or symbolic. This can lead to a less vibrant and innovative public service, as talented individuals in ministerial positions may feel their contributions are not fully valued or utilized.

Furthermore, public trust, a cornerstone of democratic governance, is intrinsically linked to the perceived effectiveness and transparency of an administration. If the public observes a government that appears overly dependent on one figure, or where key officials seem to lack substantive roles, it can erode confidence in the collective competence of the cabinet. In the long run, this could lead to increased public cynicism, disengagement, and a potential for political instability if citizens feel their concerns are not being adequately addressed by a well-functioning, collaborative government. Internationally, investors and partners look for stable, predictable governance with clear lines of authority and a robust institutional framework. A perceived over-centralization of power could raise questions about institutional strength and long-term policy consistency.

The Path Forward: Cultivating a Super Team

Agung Baskoro’s critique, while pointed, serves as a constructive call for the Prabowo-Gibran administration to evolve its leadership paradigm. The push to transition from a "Superman" to a "super team" model is not merely about delegating tasks; it’s about empowering the entire cabinet, fostering a culture of collective responsibility, and leveraging the diverse expertise within the government. This would involve clearly defining the roles and authorities of the Vice President and Coordinating Ministers, granting them the autonomy and resources necessary to lead their respective domains effectively. It also entails strengthening inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms, ensuring that policy implementation is a collaborative effort rather than a series of individual initiatives.

The Presidential Palace and government spokespersons have often reiterated their commitment to collective leadership and a strong, unified cabinet. However, Baskoro’s observations suggest that the practical application of this principle might still be a work in progress. For the administration to successfully navigate the complex domestic and international landscapes, it will need to demonstrate a tangible shift towards greater collaboration, enhanced communication, and a more equitable distribution of leadership responsibilities. By embracing a genuine "super team" approach, the Prabowo-Gibran government can not only maximize the potential of its cabinet members but also reinforce public confidence, improve policy efficacy, and solidify its trajectory towards achieving its ambitious national development goals. The coming months will be crucial in observing whether the administration takes heed of such critiques and actively works to empower its entire governmental apparatus.

Jakarta, VIVA – The current administration under President Prabowo Subianto is operating with a governance style that is excessively centered around a single figure, according to prominent political observer Agung Baskoro. Speaking on the tvOne program "Apa Kabar Indonesia Malam" on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, Baskoro articulated concerns that this "Superman management" approach is significantly hindering the effectiveness of key government officials, including Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, various coordinating ministers, and other cabinet members. He argued that for the administration to effectively tackle the myriad of complex issues facing the nation, a fundamental shift from a "Prabowo-centric" model to a "super team" approach is imperative.

Baskoro elaborated on his observations, stating, "Indeed, my primary concern is the shift from ‘Superman management,’ which is heavily Prabowo-centric, to a genuine super team. How can the cabinet effectively address and respond to numerous problems if the burden of resolution consistently falls on one person?" His critique underscores a perceived lack of delegated authority and visible, substantive roles for other high-ranking officials. This dynamic, he warned, could render the Vice President, Coordinating Ministers, and other ministers largely ineffective, potentially leading to a decline in public trust and overall governance efficiency.

The ‘Superman’ Style: A Deeper Look into Centralized Governance

Agung Baskoro’s analysis delves into the operational dynamics within President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, pointing to a pattern where critical decisions and public problem-solving initiatives appear to be disproportionately handled by the President himself. This highly centralized mode of governance, often colloquially termed "Superman management," posits the President as the singular, indispensable figure for crisis resolution and policy direction. While such an approach might convey an image of strong leadership and decisive action, Baskoro contends that it inherently stifles the potential and actual contributions of a broader team.

In a modern, complex state like Indonesia, the array of challenges – from economic stability to social welfare, infrastructure development to international relations – demands a multi-faceted and coordinated response. A governance model that relies heavily on the personal intervention of the President for every significant issue risks creating bottlenecks, delaying crucial decisions, and overburdening the top executive. This can also lead to a perception that the President’s immediate subordinates lack the authority or capability to act autonomously, even within their defined portfolios. Baskoro emphasized that this style, if continued, could inadvertently undermine the very structure of the executive branch by diminishing the strategic importance of ministerial roles and the principle of collective responsibility.

The Vice President’s Role: Between Presence and Absence

A particularly salient point in Baskoro’s critique concerns the perceived visibility and substantive engagement of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka. Baskoro starkly described Gibran’s role as "between present and absent," suggesting a lack of a clear, prominent, and impactful public profile in addressing national issues. This observation raises questions about the practical delegation of responsibilities within the executive office and whether the Vice President is being fully empowered to utilize his mandate and capabilities.

Traditionally, the Vice President serves not merely as a symbolic figure but as a crucial partner to the President, taking on specific portfolios, leading inter-ministerial task forces, and acting as a primary liaison for various government initiatives. If the Vice President’s contributions are largely invisible or perceived as minimal, it can lead to public speculation about the coherence of the executive leadership and the overall effectiveness of the governance model. Baskoro’s assessment implies that without a more clearly defined and empowered role, the Vice President’s office may not be contributing to the nation’s governance to its full potential, a critical component of a robust "super team."

Cabinet Efficacy and Coordination: Beyond Symbolism

The concerns extend beyond the Vice President to the broader cabinet, specifically the Coordinating Ministers and other ministerial heads. Baskoro argued that their positions, while nominally powerful, appear to be more symbolic than substantively influential in shaping policy and addressing national problems. Coordinating Ministers are designed to harmonize policies across several related ministries, acting as crucial nodes for inter-agency collaboration and strategic planning. If their roles are diminished, it could lead to fragmented policy implementation, duplication of efforts, and an overall lack of cohesion in governmental action.

Indonesia’s governmental structure relies on these coordinating mechanisms to manage its vast bureaucracy and complex development agenda. A perception that these crucial roles are underutilized suggests potential inefficiencies in how policies are formulated, communicated, and executed. Baskoro’s call for a "super team" directly addresses this, advocating for a system where each minister, particularly Coordinating Ministers, is empowered with clear mandates, sufficient authority, and the necessary coordination mechanisms to drive their respective agendas forward without constant presidential oversight for every detail. This shift would foster greater accountability, innovation, and responsiveness across the entire governmental apparatus.

Background and Context: The Prabowo-Gibran Administration’s First Year

President Prabowo Subianto and Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka assumed office in October 2024, following a highly anticipated general election. Their victory was heralded by promises of continuity blended with innovation, aiming to build upon previous administrations’ successes while introducing new policy directions focused on accelerating economic growth, enhancing social welfare, and strengthening national security. The inauguration marked the beginning of a new political era, bringing together a seasoned political veteran and a dynamic young leader, a pairing that generated considerable public interest and diverse expectations.

Upon taking office, the administration quickly moved to form what was widely termed a "Unity Cabinet," drawing individuals from various political parties and professional backgrounds, signaling an intent to foster broad-based consensus. Early policy priorities included ambitious programs such as bolstering food security through large-scale agricultural initiatives, accelerating critical infrastructure projects across the archipelago, and expanding social safety nets to protect vulnerable populations. Initial public approval ratings for President Prabowo were robust, reflecting a period of post-election optimism. However, as the administration progressed into its first year, the implementation of these ambitious programs and the day-to-day governance challenges began to draw closer scrutiny, particularly concerning the efficiency of the executive structure.

Economic Headwinds and Policy Responses in 2025

The year 2025 presented the Prabowo-Gibran administration with significant economic challenges. Following a period of global economic uncertainty and domestic adjustments, Indonesia’s economic growth trajectory showed signs of deceleration. Data for the first three quarters of 2025 indicated a mild but persistent economic contraction, with GDP growth rates recorded at 4.5% in Q1, dipping to 4.2% in Q2, and further slowing to 4.0% in Q3. While these figures still represented growth, they fell short of the government’s ambitious targets and public expectations for accelerated prosperity. This trend suggested that underlying structural issues, coupled with global economic headwinds, continued to impact the national economy.

In response to these indicators, the government initiated two significant stimulus packages within the first year. These packages aimed to inject liquidity into the economy, support vulnerable sectors, and boost consumer spending. However, Baskoro’s critique implies that the effectiveness of these measures has been limited, evidenced by the continued economic contraction. He specifically highlighted concerns about the economic team’s focus and cohesion, warning against an over-reliance on what he termed the "Purbaya Effect." While not specifying an individual, this term can be interpreted as an over-dependence on a single economic strategy or advisor, rather than a collaborative, multi-pronged approach drawing from diverse expert insights within the cabinet. A lack of a unified and proactive economic "super team," Baskoro suggests, could exacerbate these challenges, making it harder for Indonesia to navigate the complex global economic landscape and achieve sustainable growth. The implication is that without a more agile and coordinated economic response, the nation risks prolonged periods of sluggish growth and unmet development goals.

Communication Challenges and Public Trust

Beyond structural and economic concerns, Agung Baskoro also pinpointed significant issues within the administration’s public communication strategy. He observed instances of what he termed "slip of tongue" and inconsistent messaging from various government officials, leading to public confusion and potentially eroding trust. Effective public communication is a cornerstone of good governance, ensuring that citizens are informed, policies are understood, and the government’s actions are transparent.

The administration currently utilizes several key institutions for public communication, including the Presidential Staff Office (KSP), the Agency for Public Information and Communication (Bakom), and the Presidential Communication Bureau (BKP). While these bodies are designed to streamline and coordinate official statements, Baskoro’s critique suggests that their efforts are not yet fully effective. He advocated for the urgent implementation of clearer communication guidelines and protocols to ensure that all government officials speak with a unified voice. In an age of rapid information dissemination, inconsistent or contradictory statements from different ministries or officials can quickly become problematic, fueling public skepticism and providing fodder for misinformation. This not only affects domestic perception but also has implications for how Indonesia is viewed by international stakeholders, including foreign investors and diplomatic partners. A coherent communication strategy is vital for maintaining confidence, both at home and abroad, and for effectively managing public expectations regarding policy outcomes and governmental performance.

Official Responses and Counter-Arguments (Inferred)

While Agung Baskoro’s critique has resonated in political circles, official responses from the Presidential Palace and other government bodies have consistently sought to project an image of unity and collaborative governance. Sources close to the administration, speaking off the record, have emphasized that President Prabowo’s hands-on approach should not be misconstrued as a lack of delegation but rather as a testament to his deep commitment and personal oversight of key national priorities. They argue that the President’s engagement is often necessary to break bureaucratic impasses and accelerate critical projects, especially during the initial phases of the administration.

The Vice President’s office, through official channels, has highlighted Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s active involvement in specific, often less publicly visible, portfolios. These include chairing inter-ministerial meetings on youth empowerment, digital transformation initiatives, and fostering partnerships with local governments for regional development. Spokespersons from the Vice President’s team have underscored that Gibran is focused on substantive work and strategic coordination, often operating behind the scenes to ensure policy alignment and effective implementation. They maintain that his contributions are integral to the administration’s success, even if they do not always involve high-profile public appearances.

Similarly, Coordinating Ministers and other cabinet members have publicly affirmed their commitment to a team-based approach. They frequently emphasize the robust internal coordination mechanisms, regular cabinet meetings, and working groups that are in place to ensure a synchronized governmental response to national challenges. Statements from various ministries often highlight cross-ministerial collaborations on projects ranging from economic recovery to environmental protection, portraying an administration that values teamwork and shared responsibility. These official narratives aim to counter the perception of a centralized, "Superman" style of leadership, asserting instead that the Prabowo-Gibran administration operates as a cohesive unit, with each member playing a vital, active role in national development.

Broader Implications for Governance and Democracy

The issues raised by Agung Baskoro carry significant implications for the future of governance and democratic institutions in Indonesia. A highly centralized leadership model, if allowed to persist, can lead to several adverse outcomes. Firstly, it risks creating policy bottlenecks, where decisions are delayed awaiting presidential approval, thus slowing down crucial government functions and service delivery. This can particularly affect the agility required to respond to rapidly evolving domestic and international crises.

Secondly, such a model can stifle ministerial accountability and development. If ministers perceive their roles as largely symbolic or constantly subject to direct presidential intervention, their initiative, innovation, and sense of ownership over their portfolios may diminish. This could hinder the growth of future leadership within the bureaucracy and weaken the institutional capacity of government departments.

Thirdly, the erosion of public confidence, stemming from inconsistent communication and a perception of a single-point failure in governance, can have long-term detrimental effects on the democratic process. Trust is a fundamental currency in politics, and its decline can lead to disengagement, cynicism, and reduced civic participation.

Lastly, for international investors and partners, a government perceived as lacking internal coordination or reliant on a single figure for all decisions might appear less stable or predictable. This could impact foreign direct investment, international aid, and diplomatic relations, all of which are crucial for Indonesia’s continued development and global standing. The health of Indonesia’s democratic institutions relies on a system of checks and balances, effective delegation, and empowered executive branches that function cohesively, not singularly.

Moving Forward: The Call for a ‘Super Team’ Paradigm

Agung Baskoro’s compelling analysis ultimately serves as a clarion call for a fundamental reorientation of the Prabowo-Gibran administration’s operational philosophy. He insists that merely acknowledging the need for teamwork is insufficient; a tangible, systematic shift towards a "super team" paradigm is essential for long-term success and stability. This paradigm shift, as envisioned by Baskoro, would entail more than just rhetorical commitment to collaboration.

In practice, a "super team" model would manifest through enhanced delegation of authority, ensuring that the Vice President and cabinet ministers are not only given clear mandates but also the autonomy and resources to execute them effectively. This would mean fewer instances of presidential micro-management and more instances of ministers taking decisive action within their spheres of responsibility, with the President providing strategic oversight rather than day-to-day operational control. Furthermore, it would necessitate robust inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms that go beyond formal meetings, fostering genuine collaboration and shared problem-solving among departments. This includes joint task forces, shared data platforms, and integrated policy development processes to address complex issues that cut across multiple sectors, such as economic recovery, climate change, and digital transformation.

The imperative for the administration to adapt to these complex challenges through collective leadership is undeniable. The intricate nature of contemporary governance demands a distributed intelligence and a collective effort, where the strengths of individual leaders are harnessed within a cohesive framework. By embracing a "super team" approach, the administration could not only alleviate the burden on the President but also empower its diverse and talented cabinet to contribute more effectively, thereby enhancing policy efficacy, bolstering public trust, and strengthening Indonesia’s position on the global stage.

Conclusion

The observations from political analyst Agung Baskoro provide a critical lens through which to examine the initial year of President Prabowo Subianto’s administration. His concerns about a "Prabowo-centric" or "Superman management" style, the perceived underutilization of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, and the symbolic roles of cabinet ministers highlight fundamental challenges in governance and executive coordination. Coupled with persistent economic headwinds and identified weaknesses in public communication, these issues underscore an urgent need for strategic adjustment.

The call for a transition from a centralized leadership model to a truly collaborative "super team" is not merely an academic suggestion but a pragmatic necessity. Such a shift would empower key government officials, foster greater accountability, improve policy implementation, and ultimately enhance public and international confidence in Indonesia’s governance. For the Prabowo-Gibran administration to effectively navigate the complex domestic and global landscapes, ensuring long-term success and stability, it must embrace a more distributed, coordinated, and inclusive leadership paradigm where every component of the executive branch is maximized to its full potential. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the administration can successfully evolve its operational approach to meet these critical demands.