Indonesia stands at a crossroads of ambition and hesitation. President Prabowo Subianto’s vision to transform the country into a regional great power is both compelling and understandable.
With a population exceeding 280 million, an economy among the largest in Asia and a geography bridging two oceans, Indonesia’s potential influence is undeniable. Yet potential does not translate to power. For decades, Jakarta has spoken the language of leadership without demonstrating the will or capacity to act like one.
Prabowo’s rhetoric of strength, military modernization, economic self-sufficiency and diplomatic assertiveness reflects a longstanding desire to see Indonesia recognized as a central actor in Southeast Asia.
But that ambition continues to clash with a bureaucratic culture that prizes stability over strategy and symbolism over substance. Indonesia’s regional posture, though loud in multilateral forums, remains timid in practice.
ASEAN once looked to Jakarta as its moral center of gravity, the voice of moderation and balance in a tumultuous neighborhood. Indonesia chaired discussions, mediated disputes and projected an image of unity.
Yet when crises demand more than words, Jakarta often dissembles into platitudes. The recent episodes in Southeast Asia demonstrate just how far reality has diverged from Indonesia’s imagined leadership role.
Regional leadership vacuum
The recent border flare-up between Cambodia and Thailand provided an unmistakable illustration. As both sides exchanged heated rhetoric and mobilized troops along contested frontier zones, Malaysia, not Indonesia, stepped up to mediate.
Kuala Lumpur hosted discreet back-channel talks, proposed cooling-off mechanisms and leveraged diplomatic networks to defuse tensions. Jakarta, meanwhile, offered only cautious statements calling for restraint. For a country that prides itself on being ASEAN’s informal leader, such passivity revealed its erosion of influence.
The South China Sea has delivered a similar verdict. When Chinese warships aggressively intercepted Philippine vessels near the Scarborough Shoal, the region witnessed another test of ASEAN’s unity – and Indonesia’s credibility.
Instead of rallying collective pressure or convening urgent dialogue, Jakarta and its ASEAN partners issued the usual formulaic response, a call for dialogue and peace. It was the diplomacy of inertia, not initiative.
These moments expose a broader reality. Indonesia’s leadership, once taken for granted, is now contested by smaller but more decisive states. Malaysia and Vietnam have filled the vacuum, asserting their influence with strategic clarity and consistency.
Even the Philippines, though militarily weaker, shows more resolve in defending its sovereignty. Indonesia, with its resources and history, has slipped into the comfort of rhetorical leadership – visible, respected yet ultimately inconsequential when it matters most.
Structural weakness everywhere
Indonesia’s inability to translate size into strength stems from deep institutional fragility.
The armed forces, though vast, remain outdated in technology and organization. Procurement is opaque, logistical readiness is inconsistent and defense modernization is more aspirational than operational.
Prabowo’s push to upgrade the military has produced some progress, but without institutional reform, capacity will continue to lag behind rhetoric. Singapore, with far fewer troops, maintains greater deterrence; Malaysia, with much less spending, wields more diplomatic agility.
Economically, Indonesia’s G20 membership flatters to deceive. Growth is steady but uneven, productivity remains low and corruption is entrenched. Infrastructure projects, hailed as symbols of national pride, are often marred by inefficiency and inflated costs. Bureaucratic inertia continues to suffocate innovation. Despite repeated reform pledges, the political economy still rewards proximity to power over performance.
Such governance deficits undermine Indonesia’s credibility abroad. A country that struggles to enforce its own laws cannot credibly demand adherence to international norms. Democratic backsliding, judicial inconsistency and the resilience of oligarchic networks erode moral authority – the same moral capital that once defined Indonesia’s diplomacy.
Indonesia’s soft power is also eroding. Indonesian culture is rich and diverse, yet its global resonance remains faint compared with Korea’s pop industry, Japan’s creative exports or India’s film ecosystem.
Domestic creative industries are dynamic but constrained by censorship and underinvestment. Meanwhile, younger generations, digitally savvy yet disillusioned, look outward for inspiration. The viral Kabur Saja Dulu (“Just Run Away”) trend, celebrating escapism and resignation, mirrors a broader national mood: globalized, restless but unanchored.
Other Southeast Asian nations have learned to transform consistency into influence. Singapore remains a model of disciplined governance and incorruptibility. Malaysia, despite political turbulence, continues to attract high-value investment and exercise quiet diplomatic leadership.
Vietnam’s pragmatic statecraft has made it a manufacturing and strategic powerhouse. Indonesia, despite its size, appears reactive, an actor more often responding than shaping events.
From symbolism to strategy
For Prabowo’s ambition to mean more than national pride, Indonesia must first rebuild its credibility from within. Institutional integrity is the foundation of genuine power. The bureaucracy must serve the public interest, not political patronage.
The judiciary must function free of interference. The military must become a professional defense institution rather than a political instrument. Corruption, which corrodes both legitimacy and capacity, must be treated not as an inconvenience but as an existential threat to national strength.
Equally vital is the transformation of human capital. Indonesia’s demographic advantage could become a liability if not paired with innovation, education and opportunity. The nation must nurture creativity, critical thinking and meritocracy.
Power in the modern era is as much intellectual as it is territorial. A well-educated, globally competent citizenry would amplify Indonesia’s ability to project influence through ideas, technology, and culture.
Diplomatically, Indonesia must rediscover the courage to lead. “ASEAN centrality” cannot remain a euphemism for paralysis. When regional order is threatened, neutrality is not virtue, it is abdication. Jakarta must articulate principles, coordinate responses, and accept the risks of leadership. Taking a stand does not mean inviting conflict; it means refusing irrelevance.
At the same time, Indonesia must practice strategic balance with the world’s major powers. The art of non-alignment is not in avoidance, but in agility, the ability to engage Washington and Beijing without succumbing to either. True independence demands credibility, consistency, and strategic depth. Without them, neutrality becomes another form of drift.
Prabowo’s presidency offers a narrow window for recalibration. His domestic mandate is strong, the economic base is stable and regional volatility provides both urgency and opportunity.
If Jakarta can seize this moment to align its ambitions with institutional strength, Indonesia could reclaim its voice in shaping Southeast Asia’s future. But if rhetoric once again substitutes for reform, the window will close, and Indonesia’s great-power narrative will remain an unfinished story.
Rhetoric and reality
Indonesia’s potential to shape the region’s destiny is immense but unrealized.
Its population, geography and resources give it the scale that others lack, yet its indecision and institutional weakness render it a spectator to events it should influence. The recent Cambodia–Thailand clash and the South China Sea have laid bare this contradiction. The region no longer looks to Jakarta for direction; it looks past it.
Prabowo stands before a historic test. He can either transform Indonesia’s ambition into a coherent strategy or preside over its gradual marginalization. To lead in Asia’s increasingly contested landscape, Indonesia must abandon the comfort of symbolism and embrace the discomfort of decisive action.
The illusion of power has sustained Indonesia’s ego for too long. True power will require something far harder: reform, courage and the will to act. If Prabowo dares to take that path, Indonesia may yet fulfill its destiny, not as a ceremonial giant, but as a nation that finally matches its ambition with authority.
Ronny P Sasmita is senior analyst at the Indonesia Strategic and Economics Action Institution, a think tank specializing in geopolitical and geoeconomic studies in Indonesia.
Countries that are run by religious people rarely or never achieve anything. Everything is suppressed by the zealots.
Indonesia will never become a great power for one reason: mentality. The Indic culture is so strong in South East Asia, and it has prevented those under its influence from developing properly.
We can see this in the case of the progress of Singapore, which in definitely Chinese.