Academic Simulacra and the Death of Technocracy

JAKARTA - The meeting between President Prabowo Subianto with around 1,200 rectors and professors from various public and private universities at the State Palace, Thursday, January 15, 2026, left a number of questions.

Moreover, the Minister of Higher Education Brian Yuliarto, apologized and admitted that the forum took place without an official discussion session or dialogue. Although, he argued that President Prabowo took the time to discuss informally with several professors on the sidelines of the event. The same confession was made by the Professor of Political Science at UPI, Cecep Darmawan, who said that participants from various regions were not given the opportunity to ask questions or aspirations. "Exposure to the president only," he continued.

This meeting without a dialogue session made a number of professors consciously refuse to fulfill the president's invitation. Professor of Communication Sciences at the Islamic University of Indonesia, Masduki, said he was not present because the invitation was considered sudden and did not explain the discussion framework clearly. "I see the forum tends to be ceremonial and top down," he said.

The forum, which tends to be ceremonial and top down, made the Chairman of the P2G Expert Council, Rakhmat Hidayat, suspect that President Prabowo's meeting with thousands of rectors and professors was an attempt to coopt or embrace and dampen the critical currents of campuses and academics. Because, the meeting has no strong reason, both in terms of urgency and substance.

"I see that there is actually no substantial and urgent reason, yes, to invite the rector and professors, especially in such a large number. What is the substance, what is the urgency, I don't see that way," he said.

According to him, President Prabowo's move is a reflection of the country's concern about campuses that have recently become more vocal, from lecturers to students. "If you read it more critically, this is actually a response or a reflection of President Prabowo's concern when universities have begun to show their critical power, especially among academics and students," he continued.

Rakhmat assessed that the meeting was not just a face-to-face meeting, but an effort and potential to consolidate the strengthening of the legitimacy of power in the academic space. "This is a kind of consolidation effort from the Prabowo regime by inviting professors and campus rectors, to be 'tame' by the state," he added.

The suspicion, he said, could be seen from the meeting format which only ran in one direction and zero participation of participants. "It is seen that there is no discussion room, no opportunity for rectors and professors to ask questions or provide their perspectives," he said.

The concern about the cooptation of the academic world by the government, as launched by Rakhmat Hidayat, is like uniting two interrelated concepts, namely academic simulacra and government cooptation. The unity of the two concepts illustrates the condition in which the higher education world or intellectual environment loses its critical substance due to the control of political power and technocracy. In this context, academic activities become a simulacra, an image or sign without an original existence, just a formality to legitimize government policies.

The concept of simulacra itself is known to have started in 1981, when a French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, wrote a book titled Simulacres et Simulation. In the book, which was translated into English in 1983, Baudrillard introduced the concept of simulacra, which simply means a cross-slang sign that has no relationship with reality.

In a world filled with such cross-sengkarut, it is difficult to distinguish between the original and the fake. Everything is blurred. Previously, Baudrillard exemplified the phenomenon of simulacra only existed on television, film, advertisements, and consumerism culture. However, now simulacra also seems to have started to exist in universities, especially in Indonesia.

Reinvigorating the Concept of Technocracy in Indonesia

Academic from the State University of Surabaya, Muhammad Zahrudin Afnan explained, the unification of the concept of academic simulacra and government cooptation can occur when intellectual actors, experts, or academic institutions are drawn into the circle of power, making them a tool of legitimacy, not a critical partner. As a result, technocracy is only a tool of legitimacy, where experts are asked to speak in forums, but their voices are often not heard or manipulated for political interests. In addition, the campus' dependence on government grant funds makes universities reluctant to be critical of government policies.

"In the midst of the crowd of jargon of progress and digitization, a silent voice is slowly disappearing from the Indonesian bureaucratic civilization: the voice of science-based common sense. We are witnessing a silent tragedy, the death of technocracy in a country that is supposedly pursuing the "golden Indonesia vision". Not because of war or economic crisis, but because the system is slowly but surely removing reason, expertise, and knowledge from the decision-making center," he explained.

He revealed that in Plato's ideal world, the state should be led by philosopher kings or those who are knowledgeable, wise, and not caught up in personal interests. However, in reality, Indonesia has moved away from that principle. Technocracy, the power run by experts and knowledgeable people, has been seized by the interests of populism, oligarchy, and electoral politics for a moment.

Zahrudin emphasized that technocracy is not only about who is leading, but how decisions are made, based on data, common sense, and long-term calculations. A technocrat is not a god, but also not a puppet of power. A technocrat lives in the silence of the laboratory, research debates, and in-depth policy studies. In practice, technocracy lives when the government provides space for experts to formulate development directions.

"Unfortunately, in the Indonesian political reality, technocracy is reduced to a complement to legitimacy. Experts are asked to speak, but are not heard. They are asked to compile academic manuscripts, but the final result is determined by lobbies and social media popularity. Therefore, instead of advancing the nation, our public policies often appear as the result of a compromise of irrational power," he said.

He gave an example of when the Covid-19 pandemic occurred. According to him, in normal logic, the pandemic should be the main stage for scientists. But in Indonesia, what happened was epistemic chaos. At the beginning of the pandemic, the statements of officials who claimed that "the virus does not live strong in Indonesia because of the tropical climate" showed how low the role of science in policy was.

When epidemiologists ask for a lockdown based on the infection curve, the government instead chooses gray terms such as PSBB and PPKM which often change rules every week. As a result, hundreds of thousands of lives are lost in the midst of confusion and politicization. "In a normal world, technocracy will be a shield. But in Indonesia, technocracy is actually a scapegoat when policies fail," he continued.

Zahrudin revealed that there were three main roots of the death of technocracy in Indonesia. First, the politicization of bureaucracy and the weakness of meritocracy, where strategic positions in government are often filled based on political loyalty, not scientific capacity. Genuine technocrats lose out to buzzers or former successful teams. The bureaucracy does not give space for those who are not politically submissive.

Second, populism and polarization, where Indonesian society is increasingly divided in noisy identity narratives. In this situation, science and technocracy lose their speaking space. Public opinion is more influenced by influencers than professors. This creates an epistemic collapse, where rationality is replaced by sentimentality.

"The third is technocrats who fail to be people-oriented. Many technocrats are comfortable in the ivory tower. Their language is too academic, closed, and not communicative. This makes the gap between experts and people wider. Without a communication bridge, technocracy will continue to be considered elitist and irrelevant," he said.

However, Zahrudin assessed that technocracy in Indonesia has not really died, but is in a coma. And like a critical patient, his revival requires quick and serious action. Therefore, the government must implement several policies, such as the restoration of meritocracy in the recruitment of public officials. In this case, public officials must be selected based on competence, not just loyalty or electability. The government must give independent space for professionals to lead strategic institutions, without political intervention.

Second, strengthening academic autonomy and research institutions. The campus world and research institutions must be protected from political cooptation. BRIN, LIPI, and state universities must be professionally managed and open to criticism. The courage to think must be treated, not suppressed. Third, technocrats must learn to speak to the public. "Experts must come down from the ivory tower and be active in the public space. They must learn to speak in the language of the community, make touching narratives, and fight for science as part of the public discourse," he added.

Fourth, public education based on scientific literacy. The public needs to be educated to understand the importance of evidence-based policies. Mass media, schools, and digital campaigns must be directed at improving scientific literacy so that expert voices do not drown out in political noise.

"The death of technocracy is a sign that this country is experiencing an epistemic crisis. We not only lose the direction of development, but also lose the rational foundation for thinking as a nation. When policies are no longer born from knowledge, then development is only a repetition of mistakes wrapped in euphoria," said Zahrudin.