By: Zaki Kurnia
Indonesia’s second President, Soeharto, has been proposed as one of the figures to receive the title of National Hero. Many groups from various sectors have expressed support, believing that the New Order leader deserves such national recognition. This development also marks how Indonesia’s democracy continues to live and evolve to this day.
In nurturing and strengthening that democratic climate, it is crucial for all parties to jointly maintain social harmony and public order — key pillars ensuring that every national process reflects the nation’s maturity and wisdom in democracy.
A mature democracy is not measured merely by freedom of expression but by the ability of society to manage differences peacefully and constructively. In the context of granting the hero title to Soeharto, this democratic maturity is tested: can the nation discuss without hostility, respect differing views without disparagement, and view history as a whole without being trapped in past resentments?
The government is currently reviewing around 40 candidates for the title of National Hero, with Soeharto being among the most prominent. The proposal has come from a wide range of groups — from political parties and local governments to civil society organizations.
Support for Soeharto also flows from Indonesia’s two largest Islamic organizations — Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) — both recognizing his significant contributions to national development and stability during his leadership.
Dr. Makroen Sanjaya, Head of the Library and Information Council of Muhammadiyah’s Central Board, described Soeharto as an important figure in Indonesia’s journey. He stressed that Soeharto not only took part in the struggle for independence — notably in the 1 March 1949 General Offensive — but also left a major legacy in economic and social development.
According to Makroen, the success of the Five-Year Development Plan (Repelita), rice self-sufficiency, and the stability of politics and security during the New Order era are undeniable parts of the nation’s history.
He further explained that Muhammadiyah’s support aligns with its principle of honoring national leaders while maintaining critical reflection. Just as Muhammadiyah once supported the hero title for Soekarno, he sees Soekarno and Soeharto as two great figures with different yet equally significant contributions to Indonesia’s progress — a stance reflecting objectivity and historical maturity.
From Nahdlatul Ulama, KH Arif Fahrudin expressed a similar view. He noted that Soeharto made major contributions to economic development and national stability, while Gus Dur played a vital role in advancing democracy and reconciliation after the Reform era. Arif urged the public not to reopen old wounds with hatred.
He emphasized that no leader is perfect, yet their dedication and service deserve appreciation as part of the nation’s historical journey. Arif called on all elements of society to uphold harmony and avoid letting differences lead to division.
Meanwhile, Dr. Heri Herdiawanto, Dean of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Al Azhar University Indonesia, stated that awarding Soeharto the hero title should serve as a moment to strengthen historical awareness.
He underscored the importance of wisdom and reconciliation in addressing such issues. Honoring each national figure’s contribution, he said, is the hallmark of a great nation — one that is politically and morally mature. Heri emphasized that a great nation is not one that forgets its past mistakes, but one that assesses its history honestly and fairly, without being swayed by emotion.
Furthermore, Heri called on public figures to set an example by spreading the spirit of unity. In his view, a nation’s maturity is not measured by how fiercely its people argue, but by how they appreciate the leaders who have served the country. He reminded that the tradition of forgiveness and respect is part of Indonesia’s noble cultural heritage.
A similar sentiment came from Dr. Arwan M. Said, an academic from IAIN Ternate, who stated that a mature nation is one capable of forgiving without forgetting. According to him, judging Soeharto solely from past wounds would be unwise.
Arwan stressed that Soeharto contributed greatly to development and national sovereignty. He reminded that differing opinions should not be passed down as generational grudges. For Arwan, honoring past leaders does not mean silencing criticism — rather, it means placing history proportionally as a source of national learning.
These perspectives share a common thread: maintaining social harmony amid the debate over Soeharto’s hero nomination is a true reflection of democratic maturity. A healthy democracy is not marked by insults or hostility, but by mutual respect for differing views and appreciation for each national figure’s contributions.
The conferment of a national hero title should not be seen merely as a political act, but as part of the nation’s long journey in honoring its most devoted sons and daughters.
In that spirit, maintaining social calm and exercising wisdom is a shared responsibility — of the government, mass organizations, academics, and all citizens alike.
Achieving democratic maturity means ensuring that every national process unfolds in an atmosphere of peace and mutual respect. The proposal to grant Soeharto the title of National Hero is but a small test of that maturity. A great nation does not view history solely through its wounds, but through its enduring will to stay united in pursuit of a better future.
— The author is a public policy observer