Makar's Mention to the Observer Adds a Murk to the Portrait of Freedom of Opinion

JAKARTA - Political observer Saiful Mujani's speech some time ago became the spotlight and was considered treason by the Main Expert of the Presidential Staff Office (KSP) Ulta Levenia.

The social media world is being shaken by a video clip of the founder of Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC), Saiful Mujani, regarding President Prabowo Subianto.

In the video, Saiful openly said that President Prabowo was not presidential. According to him, Prabowo did not care if he was given suggestions for improvement.

"If you advise Prabowo, you can't either. Usually it is just dismissed. That is saving, not saving Prabowo, but saving ourselves and this nation," said Saiful in a halal bihalal event entitled 'Before the Observer is Disciplined' which was held at Beranda Utan Kayu, Tuesday (31/3/2026).

He added that the way to overthrow Prabowo could not be done through a formal procedure in the form of impeachment or impeachment through the MPR on the DPR proposal. For him, the only way is for the public to consolidate itself to overthrow Prabowo.

"In my opinion, the alternative is not in the formal impeachment procedure like that. It won't work," he said.

The video clip went viral after being uploaded to the Instagram account @leveenia. In his post, he called Saiful's speech provocative and could be called treason. Political observer and founder of the Lingkar Madani, Ray Rangkuti, regretted the word treason that came out of President Prabowo's men.

Meanwhile, senior researcher in the field of politics at the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) Lili Romli reminded that there were strict rules in the 1945 Constitution regarding the impeachment of the president.

Ray Rangkuti regretted the statement of KSP Expert Ulta Levenia who said that Saiful Mufani's speech could be categorized as treason. He said, words that seem to cut down on freedom of speech continue to emerge from the palace environment.

Previously, he said, the president himself said he would discipline the observers, accusing those who disagreed as foreign agents and now, the makar has begun to be pinned on observers.

He also wondered if this was one form of the discipline that was previously intended.

"Of course, the palace is the most knowledgeable about whether the insertion of the word treason in the observer's speech is part of a series of reprimands or not," Ray said in a statement received by VOI.

Furthermore, Ray Rangkuti urged the palace to explain the use of the word treason in the speech, whether it was part of a series of reprimands or not.

Or in other words, is the word makar a series with the word discipline or has no relationship at all, that the president does not intend to equate the word discipline with makar.

"If not, then the president should discipline his aides first so that they do not spread new narratives of fear that can erode public popularity and favor," he said.

"But, more than that, so as not to add a gloomy face to freedom of expression in the era of Prabowo's leadership," he continued.

"The word makar, said Ray, was spread to indicate that there was panic and confusion in the palace environment. A sign of declining confidence, and power began to lose its persuasive touch.

"When criticism and protests begin to be answered with arguments or facts, then the legal path is taken. One of them is by accusing critics and protesters of committing treason," he said.

On the other hand, BRIN senior political researcher Lili Romli reminded, there are strict rules in the 1945 Constitution regarding the impeachment of the president. For impeachment, according to Lili, it must meet the conditions of certain legal violations and through a long process in state institutions.

"Impeachment cannot be done immediately, but must go through several state institutions. Such as the DPR, MK, and MPR. Thus, it is not easy both substantively and procedurally, especially since President Prabowo is supported by a majority of parties in the DPR," said Lili.

The impeachment discourse is not the first time it has happened. In the leadership of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) to Joko Widodo (Jokowi) there has always been a discourse to overthrow the government. However, according to Lili, this is not appropriate in the Indonesian democratic system.

"I myself think that the effort to overthrow the government in the middle of the road is not a good thing. In the presidential system in Indonesia, the government's position is fixed for five years and must continue to run during that period," explained Lili.

Meanwhile, SMRC researcher and manager Saidiman Ahmad claimed that the video was only a piece that was deliberately spread to mislead opinions. What Saiful said according to Saidiman was actually a normal political speech made by academics to criticize the course of government.

He also strongly denied that Saiful Mujani was said to have invited rebellion, because in essence criticizing the government is a legitimate thing.

"Not at all (not a call for rebellion). To a certain extent, overthrowing a government that violates the Constitution can also be done in a democratic system," he concluded.