By: Wilson Gumilar )**
The discourse surrounding “Reset Indonesia,” which has recently emerged in digital spaces and public discussions, has increasingly highlighted the need for all members of society to work together in strengthening national stability against various forms of symbolic provocation of this kind.
This narrative is often packaged as a call for change, yet behind its resounding slogan lies the potential for disruption to public order, national unity, and the long-term direction of national development.
National stability has always been a key prerequisite for economic growth, social security, and democratic consolidation. Without a conducive environment, development agendas that should run smoothly may become hindered; investments may weaken, and public trust in state institutions may erode.
Based on this concern, various elements of civil society and national figures have emphasized the importance of remaining vigilant against symbolic movements that lack clear direction, definition, and constitutional grounding—such as the so-called “Indonesia Reset.”
Chairman of Pejuang Nusantara Indonesia Bersatu (PNIB), AR Waluyo Wasis Nugroho, views “Indonesia Reset” as a slogan that has the potential to obscure national interests.
The idea is considered to carry foreign influences and is often used in protests and public discussions without any responsible conceptual foundation. Calls for change wrapped in the word “reset” are frequently interpreted as demands for radical overhauls of political, economic, and social systems—even though the nation’s history shows that extreme change without national consensus can trigger horizontal conflict and social polarization.
In other words, the so-called “reset” movement is not a solution but rather contradicts the continuity of national development. Moreover, the provocative issue is essentially just a form of protest lacking any conceptual grounding.
This perspective stems from the understanding that Indonesia stands as a great home built on the foundations of Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, religious values, and the spirit of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.
Gus Wal emphasized that these foundations are not mere symbols but the noble consensus of the founding fathers that has successfully preserved unity amid diversity. Based on this, PNIB upholds the principle of Hubbul Wathon Minal Iman as an ethical framework for interpreting national dynamics and as a safeguard against radicalism, separatism, and transnational ideologies that often ride on calls for systemic change.
Director of the National Strategic Studies and Advocacy Institute of BEM PTNU, Arya Eka Bimantara, expressed a similar view, noting that the “Reset Indonesia” hashtag risks being exploited by extremist groups.
The term often circulates as a popular slogan without any measurable policy direction, creating space for ambiguous interpretations that can be weaponized for destructive agendas. Arya stressed that Indonesia is not merely an administrative entity, but a shared living space unified by religion, Pancasila, and national consensus established since independence.
Arya also highlighted the tendency of some groups to ignore the constitutional mechanisms for reform that already exist. Channels for amendments, legislation, public oversight, and democratic participation provide legitimate and sustainable pathways for corrections.
Calls for a total reset instead risk triggering social chaos and damaging trust in the systems that the nation has collectively agreed upon. National surveys even indicate that the public tends to prioritize stability, security, and continuity of development over radical changes without a clear roadmap.
Furthermore, Indonesia is currently in a phase of economic resurgence through downstreaming and industrialization of natural resources. This momentum requires political and social stability to ensure its benefits can be evenly distributed.
Chairman of Gerakan Pemuda Ansor, Addin Jauharudin, reminded the public that every period of national progress is often accompanied by external efforts to hinder its advancement. The history of developing countries shows increasingly subtle patterns of foreign intervention—from funding organizations to engineering public opinion.
Addin explained that the old model of direct intervention has shifted toward perception manipulation through social media and digital platforms. Efforts to create friction between society and the government, distort public understanding of state policies, and stir public anger have become primary tools for generating social instability. These strategies operate without physical presence, relying instead on exploiting internal national dynamics.
In this context, strengthening national stability does not mean silencing criticism, but ensuring that all aspirations are conveyed through constitutional and democratic channels. Differences in opinion must continue to have space, but should not devolve into provocations that undermine unity and national interests. Rejecting the symbolic “Reset Indonesia” movement is part of maintaining the balance between freedom of expression and national responsibility.
Stability, unity, and historical awareness are key assets for facing global challenges. Rejecting provocation does not mean being anti-change; it means ensuring that change proceeds in a directed, inclusive manner rooted in the nation’s noble values. Without such foundations, calls for change would merely become empty echoes that jeopardize Indonesia’s future.
*) The author is a social affairs observer.
