Reconciliation Of History Through Soeharto's Name

Heroes' Day, November 10, 2025, marked a historic milestone. President Prabowo Subianto announced ten figures who would receive the title of national hero. As stated by Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi, Soeharto's name was included on the list.

This is not merely a symbolic award. It is a reassessment of a leader who has long been the subject of debate. Loved and hated in equal measure. Despite the controversy, this discourse deserves fair space. It is not meant to gloss over a dark history, but to re-examine the significant contributions that have long been hidden behind political rhetoric.

As Indonesia's second president, Soeharto built Indonesia with a technocratic approach. National stability, economic growth, food self-sufficiency, infrastructure development, and increased welfare were key factors. Observers have stated that Soeharto "maintained political stability, strengthened economic sovereignty, and laid the foundations for national development."

Formal evidence shows that the proposal for this title was not a spur-of-the-moment proposal. Soeharto's name was proposed through official channels from the regional government, then processed by the Ministry of Social Affairs, and forwarded to the Title Council. Minister of Culture Fadli Zon, who is also the Chairman of the Council for Titles, Medals, and Honors (GTK), emphasized that Soeharto was eligible to be awarded the title of National Hero. He stated that Soeharto's name had been proposed "even three times," and had gone through a comprehensive process from the district to the central level.

The awarding of the title does not mean sanctifying the past. Quite the opposite—a great nation must be able to embrace all fragments of history, both painful and proud. Criticism remains important and legitimate. However, recognizing concrete contributions is also part of a holistic reading of history. This nation cannot continue to live in a black-and-white dichotomy. Great services and grave mistakes can be remembered simultaneously, without negating each other.

Opposition to this nomination came from various groups. From the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Gus Mus, to several civil society elements who highlighted human rights violations and corrupt practices during the 32 years of the New Order. Amnesty International Indonesia even called this nomination a form of "the greatest betrayal of the spirit of the 1998 reforms."

All criticisms are valid. However, it's also important to note that this award won't erase criticism, erase wounds, or change history. Instead, this award will open up the public space to discuss Soeharto more clearly and proportionally.

Indonesian society has been through more than two decades of reform. Time provides distance, and distance allows for re-reading. At this time, the nation needs a mature approach to its own history. Moreover, the official proposal procedures have been followed—from the community, local governments, to the ministry and the Titles Council. This process is legal, formal, and based on law. If the president ultimately decides to award the title of national hero, the decision cannot be called manipulative.

What's interesting is that the awarding of this title opens up a space for reconciliation. Not between victims and perpetrators, but between generations: the generation that lived through Soeharto's era, and the generation that grew up after the reforms. This title doesn't erase suffering, but it can be a path to understanding the twists and turns of Indonesian history. This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. It's about the courage to see history as it is—not with resentment, but with maturity.

If the title of hero is ultimately awarded, the most striking aspect will not be the inclusion of Soeharto's name on the list. Rather, it will be this nation's courage to interpret history in a more mature way. That great figures need not be free from flaws. That respect does not always mean forgiveness. That appreciation can coexist with criticism. And perhaps, that is the starting point of this nation's historical maturity.