Aceh – Indonesia, By: Zahlul Pasha Karim
Lecturer in Constitutional Law at UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh
[email protected]
This is not the first time President Prabowo has accused critics of his programs. Initially, he referred to critics as “foreign lackeys” and “londo ireng” (black Dutchmen). Recently, he also attacked intellectuals by calling them “fools” because he believes they have spread slander in evaluating the government’s work.
Activists and academics have responded to these accusations. The Indonesian Caucus for Academic Freedom (KIKA) identified Prabowo as an anti-science figure (Kompas, 21/09/2026). Prabowo’s character is believed to increasingly resemble that of a fascist leader, as he exercises power while steering clear of data, ignoring criticism, and displaying hostility toward intellectuals (Tempo, 25/09/2026).
So, what can be critiqued from this argument? Is Prabowo truly anti-science? What about several of his policies that indicate the opposite tendency, such as increasing research funds and driving the domestic science and technology industry? Just a few days ago, he also inaugurated members of the Presidential Advisory Council (Wantimpres), one of whom is an academic.
This article seeks to offer another perspective on Prabowo by examining the various accusations against him more holistically and comparing them with several of his policies toward science. Therefore, I offer one argument: Prabowo is not an anti-science leader, but rather an anti-scientist one.
We know that science is the product or system of knowledge, whereas scientists/scholars/intellectuals are the subjects or people who create and develop that science itself.
Under Prabowo, I have observed that he does not show an anti-science inclination. Instead, he views the autonomy of scientists with suspicion. A number of his policies indicate that the government relatively supports research sectors and utilizes them to boost economic growth and military competitiveness.
For instance, in July 2026, Prabowo increased the higher education research budget to 12 trillion IDR, up from 8 trillion IDR (Tempo, 15/01/26). This budget hike was intended to support research in the food sector, energy security, and the strengthening of strategic industries.
By positioning science as a national economic asset, Prabowo also emphasizes that those working in these fields are national heroes. In the military realm, Prabowo has asked state apparatuses to master artificial intelligence, cyber systems, and unmanned technology (Tempo, 22/07/26). He stressed that the superior military officers of the future are those who master science and technology.
Populist Character
Prabowo’s trajectory immediately reminds me of several other populist leaders. As explained by Krisztián Szabados (2019), populist regimes such as those in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and the United States value science and technology to support their agendas. President Putin views science as a tool to elevate international reputation and initiated efforts to pursue global leadership in artificial intelligence and genetics.
President Erdogan doubled research funding relative to Turkey’s total GDP. President Orban also restructured Hungary’s budget to prioritize applied science research, which directly impacted the industrial sector and economic growth. President Trump followed a similar path by increasing federal research budgets and augmenting NASA’s budget for space policy.
Rather than rejecting science, populist leaders prefer to shift their focus toward controlling the scientific community, such as interfering with university autonomy and appointing politically loyal figures to head research institutions.
Such political practices can be found universally under any political leadership with undemocratic tendencies. In the eyes of populist leaders, scientists are considered a threat to power because they represent the group most difficult to manipulate with populist political messaging.
To be sure, Prabowo does not discard all scientists, choosing instead to leverage them to support the government’s agenda. However, like other populist leaders, Prabowo applies a patronage system to place loyal scientists in strategic positions. Trump employed a similar system by replacing federal officials at the US Environmental Protection Agency with figures aligned with his business interests and ideology.
Focus on Science and Technology
Another approach is redirecting funding toward applied research and technology that directly impacts economic growth or regime-supporting industrial sectors. Conversely, populist leaders suppress and cut funding for scientists in the social sciences who frequently voice criticism against the government.
Prabowo has taken a similar approach in the field of social sciences. Although he increased the overall research budget in 2026, those funds were prioritized for the science and technology sectors, while social sciences became increasingly marginalized. LPDP scholarships are now also directed to focus on STEM fields, with quotas allocated for those disciplines reaching 80%.
Unlike applied scientists, researchers in the social sciences and humanities frequently air criticism toward the government. The Academic Freedom Outlook released by KIKA in 2025 showed that targets of academic freedom violations generally centered on academic forums rooted in the social sciences rather than applied research forums.
Events such as movie screenings and critical discussions regarding the impacts of national strategic projects have been targets of dissolution. Actors who criticize government policies, particularly academics demanding state accountability for the social impacts of government programs, have also been criminalized.
Through these methods, Prabowo maintains science as an institution of knowledge. At the same time, he rejects the autonomy of scientists as a group with the potential to become direct opposition to his programs.