Accusations of Autocracy: The Price of Viralism
An article by Tomsa, published in the East Asia Forum, advances a controversial thesis: Indonesia’s democratic decline under President Prabowo Subianto has deepened and is beginning to produce serious consequences for environmental protection. The author links the centralization of power, the personalization of leadership, and the growing involvement of the military to deforestation, food and energy projects, and the weakening of protections for local communities.
This line of argument raises an issue that deserves closer examination: can environmental problems be explained through a single overarching conclusion that they are a by-product of alleged autocratization? Or are disparate issues being connected primarily to portray the government as autocratic? In my view, we need to exercise caution before applying sweeping terminology to problems shaped by a wide range of factors. The British have an expression for this: “a storm in a teacup.” Environmental problems are complex and often reflect policy legacies accumulated over several decades. Yet these longstanding problems are now being used to label the current administration, which is particularly vulnerable to such accusations because of its association with a military background. I believe it would be wiser to distinguish facts, context, causal relationships, and interpretation. My assessment is as follows.
First, policy centralization is not automatically synonymous with autocratization.
Governments confronting cross-sectoral problems sometimes require centralized coordination. Forest monitoring, the enforcement of regulations against illegal plantations, fire control, and ecosystem restoration involve multiple institutions that have historically operated under different authorities. Establishing an interministerial task force can therefore serve as an instrument for addressing bureaucratic fragmentation and accelerating policy implementation.
The establishment of the Task Force for Forest Area Enforcement, for example, aims to reclaim forest areas that have been unlawfully occupied or exploited. The government reported that, by October 2026, more than 6.2 million hectares of forest area had been brought back under state control. This figure demonstrates the scale of the enforcement operation undertaken by the state.
Of course, this achievement should not be equated with successful forest restoration. The decision to transfer most of the reclaimed land to Agrinas Palma Nusantara raises new questions about land use, transparency, and consistency with conservation objectives. Forest enforcement must be followed by assurances that reclaimed land will not become an avenue for further plantation expansion.
Nevertheless, this issue is more appropriately understood as a challenge of governance and accountability in the management of state assets. Concluding that it constitutes the personalization of power or an autocratic practice requires evidence about how decisions are made, who benefits, whether conflicts of interest exist, and whether oversight institutions can perform their functions independently.
In other words, administrative centralization must be distinguished from the concentration of power that eliminates oversight mechanisms. The two do not necessarily produce the same consequences.
Second, development policies and military involvement must be assessed according to their legal mandates and actual impacts, not merely through political labels.
The food and energy project in Merauke provides an important example. The program has a history that predates the Prabowo administration. The idea of large-scale food development in the region emerged in 2010, was revived and expanded under President Joko Widodo in 2023, and was subsequently accelerated by the Prabowo administration after October 2024.
This chronology matters because it prevents the policy issue from being oversimplified as the product of a single administration. Nevertheless, the Prabowo government remains responsible for the decisions it makes and the implementation of the project during its tenure.
The objective of national food security is a legitimate policy interest. Indonesia faces challenges involving food demand, distribution, import dependence, and unequal production capacity across regions. However, this objective cannot justify forest clearance that disregards ecosystems, Indigenous communities’ rights, and environmental sustainability.
Similarly, the involvement of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) in development activities must be subject to clear limits. Logistical and technical support does not automatically constitute the militarization of government. However, when armed personnel participate in securing projects that face opposition from local communities, the state must ensure that intimidation, violence, and restrictions on freedom of expression do not occur.
The debate should therefore focus on more concrete questions: Does the assignment have a legal basis? Do military functions remain within their authorized mandates? Have local communities been meaningfully consulted? Can violations of community rights be investigated independently?
This approach is more productive than simply associating every instance of military involvement with a return to authoritarianism. Any assessment must be grounded in actions, legal authority, and accountability mechanisms that can be independently examined
