Suharto: National Hero or Tyrant?

A Nation Divided: Indonesia Grapples with a Dictator's Ghost

The Indonesian government has officially recognized Suharto, the nation's former leader, with the title of a national hero. His legacy is as celebrated for economic development as it is condemned for brutal authoritarianism. This governmental decision has ignited a firestorm of protest across the archipelago, exposing the deep and painful divisions that still haunt the nation.

The move, overseen by Prabowo Subianto, the current president who was once Suharto's son-in-law, is seen by many as a calculated attempt to rewrite a bloody chapter of Indonesian history. For victims of his regime and human rights advocates, the honour is a profound insult, a whitewashing of decades of violence, corruption, and repression that claimed countless thousands of lives. The controversy throws a harsh spotlight on the soul of modern Indonesia, forcing its people to confront a difficult question: can a figure responsible for immense suffering also be celebrated as a builder of the nation?

The Architect of the ‘New Order’

Suharto’s ascent to power emerged from one of Indonesia's most chaotic and violent periods. In 1965, following a failed coup attempt blamed on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), then-General Suharto led a brutal anti-communist purge. This campaign resulted in a wave of mass murder considered among the worst of the 20th century. Estimates suggest that between 500,000 and one million people, including suspected communists, sympathisers, ethnic Chinese, and unionists, were systematically slaughtered by the army and allied militias. This bloodbath effectively annihilated the PKI, which had been a massive communist party, among the largest outside of China and the Soviet Union. By 1967, Suharto had consolidated his power, sidelining the nation's founding president, Sukarno, and establishing his "New Order" government, which would rule the country with an iron fist for the next 32 years, promising stability and order after years of political turbulence.

Development at a Devastating Cost

The "New Order" prioritised economic development above all else, and in this respect, Suharto's supporters argue he was remarkably successful. He courted Western investment, embraced market-oriented policies, and oversaw a period of sustained and rapid economic expansion. The nation's economy experienced an impressive expansion, averaging 7% annual growth throughout his thirty-year rule. This growth transformed the nation from its status as among the world's poorest into a rising economic force in Southeast Asia. Infrastructure projects, from roads and bridges to schools and health clinics, proliferated across the vast archipelago. Suharto took immense pride in the title "Bapak Pembangunan," which translates to Father of Development, a moniker that highlighted his administration's focus on material progress and raising living standards for millions of Indonesians who were lifted out of absolute poverty.

A Regime Built on Fear and Repression

The economic progress achieved during the "New Order" period was built upon a foundation of absolute political control and the ruthless suppression of dissent. Civil liberties were severely curtailed, political opposition was systematically dismantled, and the media was heavily censored. Suharto's regime employed a pervasive security apparatus to maintain its grip on power. Disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial killings were commonplace tactics used against anyone perceived as a threat to the state, including students, activists, and political critics. The military played a central role in both politics and business, ensuring loyalty to the regime throughout the country. Any form of opposition was swiftly and brutally crushed, creating a climate of fear that silenced critical voices and ensured the longevity of Suharto's authoritarian rule for over thirty years.

The Brutal Invasion of East Timor

The 1975 invasion and later occupation of East Timor stands as one of the darkest stains on Suharto's legacy. Fearing the emergence of a communist-leaning state on its border after Portugal withdrew from its former colony, the Indonesian military launched a full-scale assault. What followed was a 24-year period of brutal occupation marked by widespread human rights abuses. The Timorese population suffered immensely from famine, forced displacement, and systematic violence at the hands of the Indonesian military. It is estimated that up to 200,000 people, roughly a third of the territory's pre-invasion population, perished as a direct result of the occupation. This brutal chapter, which constituted an exceptionally savage military campaign from the Cold War period, remains a potent emblem of the regime's capacity for extreme violence.

A Legacy of Endemic Corruption

While Suharto's administration was credited with fostering economic growth, it was also notorious for systemic corruption that permeated every level of government and business. The president, his family, and a close circle of cronies, often referred to as a "kleptocracy," amassed enormous personal fortunes by exploiting their political power. They controlled vast business empires, securing lucrative monopolies, government contracts, and preferential treatment. Transparency International, a global anti-corruption organisation, has named Suharto as the most corrupt leader in modern history, estimating that he and his family embezzled between $15 billion and $35 billion from state coffers. This rampant corruption not only enriched a select elite but also distorted economic development and ultimately contributed to the regime's downfall when the Asian financial crisis struck in 1997.

The Fall of a Dictator

The 1997 Asian financial crisis proved to be the undoing of Suharto's long-standing regime. The economic turmoil caused the Indonesian rupiah to collapse, leading to hyperinflation, mass unemployment, and widespread social unrest. What began as economic hardship quickly morphed into a massive pro-democracy movement, with students at the forefront, demanding political reform and Suharto’s resignation. The protests grew in size and intensity, culminating in massive demonstrations in Jakarta and other major cities. After losing the support of the military and his political allies, and facing overwhelming public pressure, Suharto finally announced his resignation on 21 May 1998. His departure after 32 years in power ushered in a new era of political reform, known as "Reformasi," and a comparatively non-violent shift towards democracy.

The Controversial Role of Prabowo Subianto

Honouring Suharto becomes doubly contentious because of the man who conferred it: Prabowo Subianto, the current president. Prabowo, a former special forces general, was once married to Suharto's daughter, Siti Hediati Hariyadi, and was a key figure within the military establishment during the "New Order." His own military career is shrouded in serious allegations of human rights abuses, particularly in East Timor and West Papua. Most notoriously, he is accused of commanding a military unit responsible for the abduction and torture of pro-democracy activists in the final, chaotic days of his father-in-law's regime in 1998. While some of the activists were eventually released, the whereabouts of 13 are still unknown. Prabowo has consistently denied the allegations, but they have shadowed his political career and fueled concerns about a potential return to authoritarianism.

A Calculated Political Manoeuvre

Critics view the elevation of Suharto to the status of a national hero as a strategic move by President Prabowo to legitimise his own rule and reshape Indonesia's historical narrative. During his presidential campaign and since taking office, Prabowo has often spoken nostalgically about the stability and strength during Suharto's leadership, downplaying the regime's widespread atrocities. By honouring his former father-in-law, Prabowo not only shores up support among Suharto loyalists and those who remember the period favourably for its economic gains, but he also sends a powerful message. This act is seen as part of a broader trend of rewriting history, which includes attempts to introduce new history textbooks which detractors claim diminish the brutalities during that political period and sanitize the past for a younger generation.

The Voices of Fierce Opposition

The announcement of Suharto's new status was met with immediate and vocal condemnation from activist groups. Human rights organisations, student groups, and victims of the regime swiftly organised protests in the capital and other cities. Amnesty Indonesia released a statement describing the move as a clear effort to conceal the crimes of Suharto's autocratic government and to falsify the historical record. A digital appeal asking for the honour to be revoked quickly gathered thousands of signatures. For those who suffered directly or lost loved ones during that administration, the decision is not merely a political act but a personal affront, a deep betrayal that dismisses their pain and invalidates their long struggle for justice and accountability for past crimes.

Echoes of a Painful Past

For the survivors of Suharto's regime, the state's official recognition of him as a hero is a deeply traumatic event. It forces them to relive the horrors of a past that many feel the nation has never properly confronted. Families of the disappeared still search for answers about the fate of their loved ones. Victims of torture still bear the physical and psychological scars of their ordeal. This official honour is perceived as a state-sanctioned erasure of their suffering. It suggests that the economic development of the era outweighs the immense human cost, a narrative that activists and victims vehemently reject. They argue that true national reconciliation cannot be achieved by burying the past, but only by acknowledging the truth and ensuring justice for the countless victims of state-sponsored violence.

A Calculated Inclusion of Opponents

In what many observers see as a thinly veiled attempt to temper the public outcry, the administration also granted the honour of national hero to two prominent opponents of Suharto's government: Abdurrahman Wahid and Marsinah. Abdurrahman Wahid, commonly called Gus Dur, was a respected Islamic cleric who became the fourth president of Indonesia. He was a long-time champion of democratic principles, social tolerance, and human rights, and was known for his courage in publicly challenging Suharto's authoritarian rule while maintaining pragmatic lines of communication. His inclusion is likely intended to appease his many followers and present a facade of balance. However, critics argue that honouring him alongside the man whose regime he opposed creates a jarring and morally incoherent narrative about the nation's past.

The Symbolism of Marsinah's Honour

The inclusion of Marsinah, a workers' rights organizer, on the list of national heroes is particularly poignant and paradoxical. Marsinah was a young factory worker who was brutally abducted, tortured, and murdered in 1993 after helping to organise a strike for better wages. Her death became a powerful emblem of the working-class struggle and the brutal repression faced by those who dared to defy the ruling administration. For years, activists have campaigned for justice in her case, which remains officially unsolved but is widely believed to have involved elements of the military. Honouring Marsinah on the same day as the dictator under whose rule she was killed is seen by many as a deeply cynical gesture, seeking to co-opt her legacy of resistance to soften the blow of Suharto's rehabilitation.

Generational Divides in Historical Memory

The controversy surrounding Suharto highlights a significant generational divide in how Indonesians view their own history. Many older Indonesians who experienced the economic stability and development during that period firsthand tend to remember the era more favourably. They often contrast the perceived order and predictability during Suharto's rule with the political noise and economic uncertainty that have sometimes characterised the subsequent democratic era. In contrast, many younger Indonesians, born after Suharto's fall, have learned about the regime's brutality through school, social media, and activist accounts. They are often more critical of his legacy and more passionate about the principles of democracy and human rights, viewing the veneration of a dictator as a dangerous step backward for the country.

The Fading Memory of Atrocities

A key challenge for advocates of human rights in Indonesia is the fading public memory of the "New Order's" worst crimes. With the passage of time, and in the absence of a formal truth and reconciliation process, the visceral reality of the mass killings of 1965-66, the disappearances of activists, and the brutality in East Timor has diminished for many. The government's efforts at historical revisionism further cloud the public's understanding. This collective amnesia makes it easier for political figures like Prabowo to reframe the narrative, emphasising the economic successes during his leadership while minimising or ignoring the state-sanctioned violence that underpinned it. This creates a fertile ground for the rehabilitation of authoritarian figures and poses a significant threat to the country's democratic foundations.

The International Perspective on a Troubled Legacy

Internationally, Suharto's legacy is viewed with far less ambiguity. While he was a key anti-communist ally for the West, particularly the United States, throughout the Cold War, his human rights record drew widespread condemnation. Specifically, the military offensive in East Timor drew international outrage and led to a UN-sponsored referendum in 1999 in which the Timorese people overwhelmingly voted for independence. Global human rights organisations have extensively documented the crimes of his regime. This choice to designate him a national hero is unlikely to be well-received by the international community, especially among Indonesia's democratic partners. It risks damaging the country's reputation as a democratic success story in Southeast Asia and may complicate its foreign relations with nations that prioritise human rights.

A Nation at a Crossroads

Indonesia stands at a critical juncture. The official rehabilitation of Suharto is more than just a symbolic act; it represents a contest over the nation's identity and its future trajectory. It pits a narrative of order and development against one of democracy and human rights. For many, the decision signals a worrying nostalgia for authoritarianism and a disregard for the principles of justice and accountability that are essential for a healthy democracy. The public backlash demonstrates that while the regime may be gone, the spirit of "Reformasi" and the demand for a full reckoning with the past are still very much alive. The ongoing protests are a testament to the resilience of those who refuse to let the victims from that authoritarian period be forgotten.

The Unfinished Struggle for Justice

The fight for justice for the crimes during Suharto's time in power has been a long and arduous one. Despite the transition to democracy, there has been little meaningful accountability. No high-ranking officials have ever been successfully prosecuted for the mass killings of 1965-66 or the atrocities committed in East Timor and elsewhere. Attempts to establish truth and reconciliation commissions have stalled, and legal efforts have been consistently stymied by political resistance. The hero status granted to Suharto is seen by activists as another major setback in this struggle. It sends a chilling message that impunity for past abuses will not only be tolerated but will be rewarded with the state's highest honours, making the path to justice and reconciliation even more difficult to navigate.

The Power of Symbolic Politics

In Indonesia, symbolic gestures and titles carry immense political weight. The designation as a "national hero" is a powerful tool used by the state to shape national identity and legitimise certain historical narratives. By bestowing this title on Suharto, the Prabowo administration is attempting to cement a particular version of the past—one that prioritises stability and economic growth over civil liberties and human life. This act of symbolic politics is a deliberate effort to influence public memory and to create a legacy that serves the current political agenda. However, the fierce opposition shows that symbols can be contested, and that the meaning of heroism remains a deeply disputed concept in a nation still grappling with the ghosts of its past.

What Lies Ahead for Indonesian Democracy?

The controversy over Suharto's hero status raises profound questions about the future of democracy in Indonesia. The rise of Prabowo, a figure so closely linked to the old regime's worst excesses, coupled with this attempt to rehabilitate an authoritarian ruler has alarmed observers both at home and abroad. They fear a democratic regression, a slide back towards a more authoritarian style of governance where dissent is less tolerated and the military plays a more assertive role in politics. The coming years will be a crucial test for Indonesia's democratic institutions and the resilience of its civil society. The outcome of this struggle over historical memory will have a lasting impact on the nation's political culture and its commitment to the democratic ideals that were so hard-won after Suharto's fall from power.