BandungBergerak.id – When President Prabowo Subianto unveiled his new cabinet in mid-2025, the public’s reaction was not so much about who was chosen but how many. Forty-eight ministers, sixty-one deputy ministers, and twelve agency heads (per November 2025) brought the total to 121 positions, the largest governing team since the 1960s.

It was far from the campaign promise of a zakenkabinet, a lean, merit-based team of professionals. Yet the decision reflects an enduring logic in Indonesian politics: a larger cabinet is seen as the price of political stability.

The government’s reason is familiar. A wide-ranging alliance prevents the fragmentation of the ruling elite and ensures that multiple pieces fit together in a sprawling democracy. In a sense, this is understandable. Indonesia’s history is one of shaky bargains; too much ferment at the top can easily spill over into conflict below.

However, as history teaches, inclusion can also devolve into overreach. Prabowo’s game plan is effectively a continuation of what previous governments have done, from Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s consensual politics to Joko Widodo’s “big tent” pragmatism.

This includes a parliamentary supermajority, achieved by bringing almost all of the larger parties on board, but at a cost: the separation between power and accountability is blurred.

The expansion also revives broader concerns about Indonesia’s commitment to meritocracy. The ruling government describes the cabinet as an “inclusive” one, though inclusivity can quickly become a euphemism for political compromise. When appointments are driven by loyalty, political debts, or access to power, competence usually takes a back seat.

This tension, between stability through patronage and effectiveness through professionalism, has long shaped Indonesian governance. Stability may keep elites’ content, but it rarely guarantees public confidence.

Baca Juga: From Automation to Regulation as Efforts to Reducing Workplace Accidents in Indonesian Industry
Preventing Conflicts of Interest in Indonesia's Green Transition
Rewriting The Nation: How Literature Challenges Biased Histories and Reviews Indonesia’s Silenced Voice

The Vanishing Opposition

With virtually every major party now part of the ruling bloc, Indonesia’s formal opposition has all but collapsed. Until recently, however small, a voice of dissent in Parliament has kept executive power in check. Nowadays, the function has largely been outsourced to other domains, such as universities, civil society groups, and social media.

This change may indicate that the most vital energy in democracy today is outside formal institutions. Nevertheless, it also highlights a paradox. Elite unity, while tidy on paper, does not tend to translate into social stability. It can, of course, also increase public frustration when citizens sense decisions are made in echo chambers.

Fiscal Strain, Public Tension

The resulting frustration boiled over in early 2025, when the government proposed a 250% increase to the Land and Building Tax (PBB). The policy came in the face of 5.2 percent inflation and youth unemployment at 14 percent, far from ideal timing. Protests spread like wildfire, with Pati in Central Java becoming one of the epicenters.

For many people, the tax question came to represent something larger: a feeling that the government’s fiscal priorities were drifting away from everyday struggles. Leaving in place an oversized bureaucracy, complete with layers of deputy ministers and special advisers, seemed disconnected from the economic anxieties of average households.

Soon, public anger over economic issues spilled onto the streets. What started as protests about taxation and legislative privileges evolved into demands for police reform and restrictions on the military’s involvement in civilian affairs.

The tension was not free of violence. In Jakarta on August 28, an online driver named Affan Kurniawan was killed in clashes. The unrest extended to Bandung, Surabaya, and Makassar, resulting in ten dead and thousands more injured or detained. The message of the protests was simple: it was not about ideology; it was about trust. People wanted empathy from their leaders, not just forced stability.

Finding a New Balance

The question now is not whether Indonesia can achieve stability, but how. The political calculation that the government needs to balance must be weighed against economic and institutional credibility.

On the fiscal side, spending priorities must be subjected to hard scrutiny. Efforts like Makanan Bergizi Gratis (Free Nutritious Meals) are well-intentioned, but they leave themselves open to budget overruns if not sufficiently transparent and meticulous.

Politically, accountability must be revived. A working opposition is not a threat. It is a guard against dictatorship. Reforms in the police, military, and judiciary are also overdue if public protests continue to be met with coercion rather than dialogue.

Moreover, meritocracy needs to be more than a slogan. The appointment of capable, independent-minded officials is more than a matter of fairness; it is an essential condition for trust.

Conclusion

Indonesia’s democracy has always existed under the tension between stability and social justice. The problem with Prabowo’s “big cabinet” is not so much its size but how it is managed.

Proper stability does not come from the number of people at the table, and it surely does not come from suppressing the voices of dissent. It stems from fairness, transparency, and a government that’s willing to listen when the public speaks with frustration rather than applause.

Even a large cabinet could still represent inclusion if run with discipline and empathy. However, if it is a stage for an elite compromise, its stability will remain fragile.

It is not too late for President Prabowo to change political direction. Through serious bureaucratic reform, fiscal responsibility, and open dialogue with civil society, what the critics deride as an “overfed cabinet” could still be a credible basis for public confidence.

Finally, democracy does not crumble because people demonstrate. Above all, it stumbles when leaders cease to listen.

***