By: Deka Prasetya )**
The “Reset Indonesia” narrative has resurfaced in public spaces and social media, demanding serious attention from the wider community. The discussion has grown rapidly, driven by digital hashtags, online discourse, and waves of opinion mobilization that present the reset idea as a solution to various national issues. Yet behind the packaging of change, the narrative opens a space for provocation that may threaten national stability and social cohesion.
Many societal groups assert that national stability remains a primary prerequisite for ensuring the continuity of development. Without public order and a conducive social climate, welfare programs that should run smoothly will inevitably be disrupted.
In this context, calls for vigilance have emerged so that the public is not swayed by political agitation exploiting public dissatisfaction. Constitutional democracy already provides legitimate channels for expressing aspirations, making confrontational paths unnecessary for pursuing change.
Concerns grew stronger following the demonstrations in August–September 2025, which popularized emotionally charged terms such as “Dark Indonesia” and “Anxious Indonesia,” including the “Reset Indonesia” issue.
Political and social observers note that such linguistic constructions do not always reflect objective reality, yet they are effective in creating a perception of crisis. During that period, the spread of hoaxes and unverified snippets of information filled digital timelines, widening gaps among citizens and triggering horizontal distrust.
Chairman of Pejuang Nusantara Indonesia Bersatu (PNIB), AR Waluyo Wasis Nugroho, known as Gus Wal, views “Reset Indonesia” as a discourse driven by interests and lacking clear definition or direction. According to him, the term reset is often interpreted as a call for radical alterations to political, economic, and social systems—without consideration of the risks of disintegration. National history shows that changes made without shared values have repeatedly sparked conflict and polarization.
Gus Wal sees Indonesia as a shared home built upon Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, religious values, and the spirit of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. From this perspective, PNIB promotes Hubbul Wathon Minal Iman as an ethical foundation to preserve national unity. This principle, deeply rooted in the traditions of Islam Nusantara, has proven capable of sustaining unity across religions, ethnicities, and cultures, while also serving as a bulwark against radicalism, terrorism, and separatism.
A similar view was expressed by Arya Eka Bimantara, Director of BEM PTNU’s National Institute for Strategic Studies and Advocacy. He argued that using the reset term as an action slogan often blurs the distinction between constructive criticism—which is beneficial—and extreme calls for radical change. Indonesia has already established constitutional mechanisms for reform through amendments, legislation, and public participation. Ignoring these channels in favor of drastic leaps, he emphasized, risks creating social chaos.
Arya further noted that Pancasila, particularly its first principle—Belief in One Almighty God—establishes religion as a moral compass for public life without imposing a religious state or a secular state. This founding consensus safeguards the balance between freedom of belief and social harmony.
National surveys indicate that the majority of Indonesians prioritize maintaining stability, security, and development continuity over extreme and unmeasured forms of radical change.
These social facts reinforce the argument that public vigilance is crucial, especially in navigating the turbulence and dynamics of current national developments.
Another reminder regarding vigilance comes from Chairman of Gerakan Pemuda Ansor, Addin Jauharudin, who believes that every phase of Indonesia’s economic rise tends to be accompanied by attempts from external actors to weaken public trust.
In the past, foreign intervention often occurred through the funding of local organizations. Today, the pattern has shifted toward opinion engineering, perception manipulation, and attempts to pit citizens against the government through digital platforms. Such strategies are considered effective in creating instability without direct involvement.
According to Addin, misinterpretation of policies and the exploitation of public emotions via social media can hinder national progress. If left unaddressed, these dynamics may disrupt the investment climate, domestic confidence, and social resilience. As Indonesia advances toward economic independence through downstreaming and natural resource industrialization, consistent policies—not perception-based shocks—are essential.
All these perspectives highlight a common message: the public must distinguish between criticism aimed at improvement and provocations disguised as change. Vigilance does not mean suppressing dialogue, but strengthening critical thinking, verifying information, and maintaining commitment to constitutional pathways.
Safeguarding national unity is a collective responsibility to ensure differences in aspiration do not become flashpoints for division. In such an environment, Indonesia can continue progressing without falling into instability caused by misleading narratives.
*) The author is a social observer.