By: Nadira Citra Maheswari)*
The government continues to urge the public not to be provoked by the movement to reject the title of National Hero for the second President of the Republic of Indonesia, Soeharto. This appeal comes amid escalating debate in the public sphere, particularly on social media, which tends to be unconstrainedly provocative. The controversy surrounding the awarding of the title of National Hero to Soeharto has resurfaced, eliciting mixed reactions from various community groups.
The debate surrounding President Suharto has always been at the intersection of historical assessment, political sentiment, and differing generational perceptions. Some view President Suharto as a figure instrumental in steering Indonesia out of the economic uncertainty of the early New Order era, while others highlight human rights violations, restrictions on political freedoms, and abuses of power that allegedly occurred during his 32-year rule.
The government emphasizes that the assessment of hero designations is a formal process, conducted through official institutions and stages. Each proposal must undergo in-depth study and rigorous academic and administrative assessment. Historical considerations and social impact remain crucial factors in this process. The government wants to ensure that the process is not influenced by emotional public pressure or provocative mobilization of opinion.
Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi stated that differences of opinion are a natural part of the dynamics of public aspirations in a democratic system. He believes that the public must still prioritize national interests amidst the pros and cons, and he also urged the public to see the positive side and appreciate the contributions of the nation’s predecessors. He also stated that the process of awarding the title of National Hero is carried out professionally through verification stages by the Council for Titles, Medals, and Honors. Therefore, he urged the public to respond to this policy objectively and wisely, while demonstrating national maturity by continuing to respect the services of previous leaders.
In this context, the government encourages all parties to prioritize comprehensive historical literacy and a rational approach. Indonesian history is not just about one figure, but rather a long series of national journeys involving numerous events and figures. Partial or selective understanding of history often gives rise to endless debates that obscure the essence of historical learning. Therefore, the government encourages the public to address the issue of hero titles by referring to credible sources and distinguishing between historical facts and opinions based on political preferences.
Furthermore, the government emphasized the importance of restraint in spreading provocative narratives on social media. In the digital age, provocative posts often go viral faster than nuanced, in-depth explanations. Content that incites anger or hatred easily divides society into opposing groups. The appeal to the public not to be provoked is directed not only at groups rejecting titles, but also at those encouraging them. The government wants to ensure that differences of opinion remain healthy and prevent them from escalating into conflict.
Indonesian House of Representatives member Nurul Arifin stated that the awarding of the title of National Hero to President Soeharto represents state recognition of his significant contributions to Indonesia’s development. He also reminded the public to respond calmly to this development and not be swayed by politically motivated objections. He believes the award is not merely a ceremonial symbol, but also a reminder of the importance of the nation’s continued development. He encouraged the public to demonstrate maturity by continuing to appreciate the contributions of leaders who have played a role in the nation’s development.
The issue of President Suharto is indeed one of the most sensitive topics in modern Indonesian history. His reign was a long chapter filled with achievements, controversies, and complex political dynamics. For some, Suharto was a symbol of stability and economic development. But for others, he was a symbol of restrictions on freedom and human rights violations. When these differing perceptions clashed, tensions were often unavoidable.
Asrorun Niam Sholeh, the head of the Indonesian Ulema Council’s Fatwa Division, stated that all former presidents, including Suharto, are considered worthy of the title of national hero because each has made significant contributions to Indonesia’s journey. He urged the public not to dwell on the dark side of Suharto’s past, reminding them that no human being is completely without flaws. He argued that religious teachings encourage remembering one’s good deeds and forgiving one’s mistakes, so debates about the past should not hinder respect for the services of the nation’s leaders.
Ultimately, the government reiterated that the controversy surrounding Soeharto’s hero designation must be placed within a proportional framework. While people may hold differing views, these differences must not be allowed to become a source of polarization. By not being provoked and not getting caught up in divisive narratives, the public can contribute to maintaining social harmony amid legitimate differences of opinion in a democratic nation.
*) The author is a Content Writer at Galaswara Digital Bureau