The 2025 commemoration of National Heroes’ Day turned out to be more controversial than usual. Out of roughly 40 proposed names, only ten were accepted — one of them being Indonesia’s second president, Soeharto, who also happens to be the father-in-law of the current president.

The announcement immediately sparked nationwide debate over whether Soeharto deserved the honor. The idea was not new — similar proposals surfaced in 2010 and 2015, but both were rejected as “too premature.” This time, however, under President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, the proposal was approved.

The decision reignited old wounds and polarized the public discourse. Indonesians were suddenly transported back into the shadows of their own history — between nostalgia for the stability of the New Order era and memories of repression, censorship, and corruption.

Through big-data media monitoring using Newstensity and Socindex, this article maps the narratives of support and opposition surrounding Soeharto’s elevation as a National Hero.

Media and Social-Media Landscape

Between 5–11 November 2025, Newstensity recorded 11,760 news articles related to national awards and honors. The volume peaked around 10 November, indicating strong media attention around Heroes’ Day.

Online outlets dominated coverage with 93.9% of total publications, followed by print media (3.5%) and broadcast media (2.6% or 310 articles).

On social media, Socindex tracked 83 million engagements from 13,600 active accounts that produced about 30,500 posts. Instagram led with 42,017 contents, followed by TikTok with 32,938.

Sentiment analysis showed a contrast between the two ecosystems:

• Mass media carried 83% positive tone, dominated by formal reporting and official statements.
• Social media, however, was mostly neutral (44%), with negative sentiment (25%) outweighing the media’s 16% negativity.

This difference reflects how both spaces operate. While mass media adheres to journalistic formality and relies on government sources, social media remains an organic arena of expression, often used by civil-society groups to advocate for dissenting views.

Interestingly, cyborg or semi-automated accounts (13,000+) outnumbered verified human accounts (11,000+), suggesting possible networked attempts to amplify particular narratives.

The dominance of positive media coverage (83%) implies that four out of five reports leaned toward supportive or constructive framing. Yet, the negative 16% coverage still played a critical role as a form of public accountability and balance.

Key Figures in the Debate

Five prominent figures dominated the coverage:

1. Fadli Zon — Chair of the Council for National Titles and Honors, contributing 32.7% of all quoted statements.
2. Other notable names included government officials and historians involved in the selection process.

Meanwhile, on social media, the AI chatbot account @grok became the most-mentioned handle, as users flooded it with questions about why Soeharto’s award was controversial, especially regarding past human-rights violations. The petition platform @ChangOrg_ID also gained attention through campaigns rejecting Soeharto’s new title.

Thus, mainstream media tended to highlight the procedural legitimacy of the award, while social media expressed emotional resistance and activism-led criticism.

The Pro Narrative: Stability and Development as Legacy

Supporters largely focused on Soeharto’s role in economic growth and national stability, echoing his long-standing image as the “Father of Development.” An interesting term surfaced: “reconciliation.”
This appeared alongside the name Marsinah — a labor activist who became a symbol of resistance during the New Order. Awarding both Soeharto and Marsinah the same honor in 2025 was seen as a symbolic gesture of national reconciliation, bridging opposing sides of history.

Fadli Zon emphasized the rigorous review process behind the selection by saying that all proposed names underwent extensive research by the National Titles and Honors Committee (TP2GP).

Saifullah Yusuf, another official, highlighted the symbolic aspect:

“The essence of this honor is not material, but moral — it serves to inspire families and future generations.”

In short, the pro narrative framed Soeharto’s title as a unifying gesture — a recognition of his contributions to economic progress and national order, while encouraging forgiveness through historical reconciliation.

The Counter Narrative: Human Rights Shadows and Authoritarianism

Opposition came primarily from activists, scholars, religious figures, and digital-native youth.

Prominent cleric Gus Mus openly rejected the decision, arguing that Soeharto’s record on human rights disqualified him. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) also abstained from attending the ceremony, signaling Megawati Sukarnoputri’s disapproval.

Key themes in the opposition narrative included:

• Human-rights violations and political repression
• Corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN) as the dark legacy of the New Order
• The belief that the decision insulted victims of past state violence

The hashtag #SoehartoBukanPahlawan (“Soeharto Is Not a Hero”) trended widely, with accounts like @barengwarga leading online campaigns.

Demographic data from Socindex showed that 30% of anti-Soeharto engagement came from users aged 31–35, indicating that younger digital generations were among the loudest critics.

Epilogue: The Battle Over National Memory

From the data, two opposing narratives clearly emerged:

• The nostalgic narrative, celebrating Soeharto as a symbol of stability and growth.
• The historical narrative, reminding the nation of oppression and injustice.

This tension illustrates how the politics of memory plays out in digital spaces — where the past is continuously reinterpreted through public debate.

The controversy over Soeharto’s title underscores that the label “National Hero” is no longer merely historical symbolism; it has become a battleground for national identity and collective memory.

According to Newstensity and Socindex data, Indonesians remain deeply divided: some remember Soeharto as a pillar of development, while others reject his legacy of authoritarianism.

History, like democracy itself, remains unfinished — constantly rewritten, renegotiated, and reimagined.
Soeharto may now be officially recognized as a National Hero, but the true meaning of that title will depend on how Indonesia chooses to remember its past.

Contributors

Nicko Mardiansyah (Newstensity)

Aan K. Riyadi