As President Prabowo approaches his first year in office, we see that he is perhaps the only Indonesian president in the Reformasi era who has directly implemented the fundamental programs based on the Asta Cita political promises in less than a year. Prabowo’s flagship programs include free nutritious meals (MBG), the Red and White Village Cooperatives program, 19 million jobs, 3 million houses for the people, and agrarian reform, which involves expanding access to land for the people.
The acceleration of these Asta Cita-based programs has certainly not been without obstacles. The creation of quality jobs has been hampered by the global economic slowdown and budget austerity policies, which have hampered economic growth. The MBG program has been hampered by cases of food poisoning affecting 5,194 receivers, including schoolchildren, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers. Cooperative programs, public housing, and others have been hampered by bureaucratic preparedness and ministers who do not understand Prabowo’s ideological programs.
Not to mention the stance of academics and activists, such as the Aliansi Ekonom Indonesia dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia , who reject Prabowo’s social programs, such as the MBG (Indonesian Development Goals) and Cooperatives, as populist and anti-democratic. The label of Prabowo’s social programs as populist and anti-democratic by academics and activists, most of whom are economists, legal practitioners, and doctors, is actually interesting, because populism is essentially a political style that emphasizes siding with the people (populares) and is the opposite of elitism, which emphasizes the exclusivity and privileges of the elite.
By labeling Prabowo a populist, does this alliance of economists, legal practitioners, and doctors represent the interests of elites who are disturbed by Prabowo’s social programs, which are actually ideological? If they prioritize the interests of the elite status quo, how can they consider themselves to be upholding democracy?
Populism is an Ideological and Democratic Attitude!
Despite experiencing pejorative influence, populism, as a political style that emphasizes siding with the plight of the common people, is born from an ideological stance. The founding of the Republic of Indonesia, based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, had the ideological goal of realizing social justice for all people. This means that if the government, as the state administrator, wishes to implement social programs, the benefits of justice must be felt by all citizens as a substantial manifestation of democracy.
Contrast this with the policies of the 27 years of Reformasi, which were designed by elitist and pragmatic economists. Their formula for dealing with crises has always been deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, specifically for the poor. However, according to the Statistics Bureau (BPS), Indonesia’s social structure is dominated by 66.35 % middle class and is moving towards the middle class.
So, for economists, deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies are like magic mantras for all situations, both crisis and normal, like Pak Pung Oil, which is effective for all kinds of sickness!
Pragmatic policies are indeed a kind of religion for mainstream economists. We certainly remember how mainstream economists like Dr. Sjahrir, Dr. Sri Mulyani, and Dr. Sri Adiningsih agreed to remove the principle of kinship from the fourth amendment to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, arguing that this principle was the cause of corruption, collusion, and nepotism during the New Order era.
Instead of refining the principle of kinship with more ideological principles such as democratic equality and brotherhood, Ciil and Duo Sri instead sought to incorporate the principle of efficiency as the foundation of our country’s economy. Efficiency is, of course, a principle that encompasses the agenda of deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, including liberalization and privatization, the neolib mantra of the Washington Consensus from multilateral institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF.
Prabowo, who repeatedly stated in his Gerindra Party declaration and election campaign that he wanted to restore Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution to its original form, would certainly not align with the elitist-pragmatic economists who carry this neolib mantra. And neoliberal mantra chanters will always label their ideological opponents as anti-democratic, even though it has been repeatedly emphasized that Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is an effort to improve democracy in the areas of economic development and social welfare, not just politics.
The Urgency of an Engineering-Wise Attitude
In building his government, Prabowo’s choice to rely on academics and practitioners with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, and agriculture (STEM) signifies a paradigm shift from a conservative-pragmatic, cautious policy to a progressive-ideological, engineering-wise approach. Government portfolios covering the health, nutrition, higher education, and financial sectors are held by figures with engineering-wise thinking.
Therefore, in the petition, in the articles published by Aliansi Ekonom dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia, you won’t find academics or activists with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, or agriculture. An engineering-wise perspective almost always synergizes with the perspectives of politicians with military backgrounds like Prabowo, especially since military science is essentially science and engineering for the purposes of war.
The engineering-wise perspective is a unique approach to implementing state policy. First, engineering-wise views all problems, whether simple or complex, whether regular, complex, random, or irregular, as things that can be structured, patterned, and analyzed using mathematical formulations, and can be explained in human language that is easily understood by the public.
Second, engineering-wise views every problem as having a solution, constraints that can be engineered, and limitations or boundaries that cannot be violated. Therefore, every engineer is essentially a disciplined problem solver, and the constraints and limitations encountered in life are actually answers to the universe, which, based on God’s Law, will always strive to find equilibrium, like connecting vessels in a physics and chemistry laboratory.
Third, engineering wisdom always considers building sustainable systems. An engineering-wise person will never just solve short-term problems, but also long-term and sustainable solutions for the future.
An engineering-wise perspective is most appropriate for development in a democracy that allows for differences in political views and attitudes. Consider President Habibie, a politician with a background in aircraft engineering. He was able to use the principles of aerodynamics and aeronautics to implement economic policies, which helped economic growth rise from minus 13 percent to minus 4 percent, and the dollar exchange rate to the rupiah dropped from 16,000 to 6,700.
But look at what the neolib economists of the Ciil and Sri camps did? They continued to criticize Dr.-Ing Habibie’s abilities even as he successfully rescued the nation’s economy from the monetary crisis. Public distrust grew stronger, until Habibie’s accountability report was ultimately rejected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), and he was not willing to be nominated for reelection as President of the Republic of Indonesia.
Conclusion
The Prabowo administration should be able to resolve the problems it faces in implementing its ideological social policies with an engineering-wise perspective. We see figures with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering becoming important officials in Prabowo’s regime. Politicians in Prabowo’s inner circle, Gerindra, generally have backgrounds in mathematics and engineering, such as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Prof. Dr. Ir. Sufmi Dasco Ahmad (Electrical Engineering), Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi (Forestry), Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiono (Computer Engineering), Deputy Minister of Agriculture Sudaryono (Mechanical Engineering), and Pertamina President Director Simon Aloysius Mantiri (Marine Engineering).
Six ministers and one agency head are professionals, academics, and bureaucrats with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB): Minister of Finance Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa (Electrical Engineering), Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin (Physics), Minister of Public Works Dody Hanggodo (Petroleum Engineering), Minister of Higher Education Brian Yuliarto (Engineering Physics), Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sakti Wahyu Trenggono (Industrial Engineering), Minister of Manpower Yassierli (Industrial Engineering), and Head of the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) Amalia Adininggar Widyasanti (Chemical Engineering). Minister/Head of Bappenas Rachmat Pambudy is a livestock engineer, and Head of the National Development Planning Agency (BGN) Dadan Hindayana is an agricultural engineer from Bogor Agricultural University (IPB).
As a Cabinet dominated by politicians and professionals with an engineering-minded approach, the scientists and engineers in the Prabowo regime are certainly capable of structuring and finding solutions to existing problems, obstacles, and limitations, and developing these ideological policies into long-term programs. And of course, scientists and engineers can address the increasingly evolving dynamics of democracy in society. After all, Prabowo’s ideological social programs can only be sustainable if they are trusted by the public, right?
Let us embrace the changing tide of the times, from a conservative-pragmatic era that favored chanting the mantras of the neoliberal elite to development with ideological nuances, even tending towards socialism. We must face a few difficulties to realize the shared happiness of the Indonesian nation. Let us face these difficulties with science and technology.
