By: Wignyan Wiyono *)
In the midst of efforts to build optimism and unity, the narrative of “Dark Indonesia” emerged. This movement is not constructive criticism, but rather an attempt to divide and conquer that damages national cohesion. This pessimistic narrative is often triggered by parties who reject the presence of President Prabowo Subianto’s leadership, not on the basis of objective facts, but rather narrow political motivations.
Rahayu Saraswati Djojohadikusumo, General Chairperson of PP Tunas Indonesia Raya, firmly assessed that the ‘Dark Indonesia’ narrative was deliberately thrown to provoke public doubts about the government’s program. According to her, the Dark Indonesia narrative is a narrative that was indeed launched and instigated by parties who may not like Prabowo Subianto’s leadership. This statement is a reminder of the dangers of propaganda rooted in negative sentiment, not rational analysis. If such a narrative is swallowed raw, it is the same as letting the illusion of darkness cover the light of progress that is being pioneered.
The government itself asserts that the space for public aspirations remains open as long as it is delivered peacefully and constitutionally. The image of ‘Dark Indonesia’ only creates an illusion of fear that is irrelevant to real conditions. The national economy is growing positively, community activities are running normally. The Dark Indonesia narrative is actually contrary to objective facts. This statement shows a striking difference between hoaxes that poison perception and the reality of stable socio-economic development.
Social truth must be tested through empirical evidence and rational argumentation, not just a political “hoax test .” The narrative of divide and rule thrives when society loses its critical capacity.
Not only the government, religious figures also voiced the importance of public literacy. Deputy Minister of Religion Romo HR Muhammad Syafi’i reminded that the pessimistic movement must be answered by increasing collective intelligence. According to him, the younger generation must be smarter in reading the situation. Don’t let their energy be used by parties who want to damage the nation’s social cohesion. Public power lies in dialogue and exchange of ideas, not manipulation of fear.
Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives Cucun Ahmad Syamsurijal also warned of the high risk if the ‘Dark Indonesia’ movement is not addressed with caution. He said there were parties trying to infiltrate the student movement with a dark narrative. According to him, it is not only about demonstrations, but also a big agenda that can damage the national order. It is important to keep social movements pure as expressions of aspirations, not instruments of political agitation.
The ‘Dark Indonesia’ narrative has the potential to be used to build destructive opinions that do not reflect the factual conditions of the nation. This kind of movement should be suspected as an old strategy that has been repackaged. There are several fundamental reasons why the “Dark Indonesia” narrative needs to be rejected. First, this narrative is contrary to objective facts on the ground. Current economic, social, and political indicators actually show a trend of growth and stability, as evidenced by data from the Central Statistics Agency, Bank Indonesia, and independent institutions that report gradual improvement, not destruction.
Second, this kind of pessimistic narrative divides national solidarity by fostering distrust between citizens and eroding the spirit of mutual cooperation, even though it should strengthen Pancasila which emphasizes unity in diversity. Third, the ‘Dark Indonesia’ narrative diverts focus from the constructive agenda being implemented by the government and society—such as food security programs, new job creation, and infrastructure development—by instead provoking discussions towards the rhetoric of fear, rather than substantive solutions. Fourth, this kind of movement is vulnerable to being infiltrated by narrow political agendas, both from external and internal parties, who want to exploit public doubts for the sake of power. In fact, people’s sovereignty should not be used as an arena for a war of opinions; instead, it must be protected through open dialogue and constructive criticism based on facts.
Pessimistic narratives can close the space for rational discourse. There needs to be a genuine public deliberation, where arguments are tested by logic and evidence, not by intimidating rhetoric. Therefore, the younger generation must be invited to learn to think critically, examine sources of information, and discuss productively.
Rejecting ‘Dark Indonesia’ does not mean turning a blind eye to real problems—such as inequality, convoluted bureaucracy, or poverty. In fact, constructive criticism is very much needed. Constructive criticism will be based on data, dialogue, and national spirit, not negative sentiment driven by hoaxes. The nation’s youth certainly think long-term and can continue to contribute according to their respective fields, so that every citizen takes part in the development process, not just cornering.
Collective awareness to reject the propagation of darkness and advance deliberative democracy is the middle way to build a strong nation. Indonesia needs to strengthen the digital literacy network, strengthen law enforcement agencies against hoax spreaders, and strengthen grassroots organizations so that society can avoid provocation.
Indonesia is not a dark country. The light of economic development, social innovation, and democratic progress continues to grow, albeit slowly. The narrative of ‘Dark Indonesia’ is just a gloomy shadow that can be dispelled with common sense, data-based criticism, and togetherness. In the hands of a critical and cultured young generation, Indonesia will continue to move towards a bright future—as the vision of Golden Indonesia 2045 is currently being put together.
*) The author is an observer of social issues
