March 18, 2025
SINGAPORE – During a recent speech, President Prabowo Subianto unexpectedly chanted “Hidup Jokowi!” (Long live Jokowi) three times, triggering debate across the nation. Was this a symbolic tribute to his predecessor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo? Or did it reveal an underlying difficulty in stepping out of Jokowi’s shadow?
Regardless of Prabowo’s intent, this moment was more than just political rhetoric—it was a demonstration of leadership communication, shaping public perception in real time.
Effective messaging is not just about what is said, but how it influences perception and defines leadership. A leader’s words can reassure, mobilize or divide a nation. But as Marshall McLuhan famously argued, “the medium is the message”—meaning that how a message is framed and delivered often holds more significance than its literal content. In this case. Prabowo’s chant was not just about the words themselves but about the political weight they carried.
In my work as a teacher of entrepreneurship and communication, I often emphasize the power of top-down communication, message clarity and the ability to deliver a pitch in 30 seconds. My students learn that the most effective leaders are not just those who make decisions but those who ensure their message is clearly received and understood.
Then, the stakes become clear: What happens when a leader repeatedly invokes his predecessor’s name? Is this a calculated strategy, or does it signal something deeper about power, governance and institutional resilience? Understanding this requires more than a political lens—it calls for a philosophical inquiry into how leadership, legitimacy and governance function in Indonesia.
To analyze this moment effectively, we must go beyond politics and consider its deeper implications. Words in politics are never just words—they shape reality, influence perception and reinforce societal values. Political communication is not just about what is said but about how it is understood, why it is said, and what values it reinforces.
This is where philosophy becomes useful. By applying three philosophical perspectives—ontology, epistemology and axiology—we can uncover the deeper significance of this event.
Ontology asks about reality itself: Is Jokowi’s influence still politically “alive” even though he no longer holds office? His name may be repeated, but does that translate into real political power?
Epistemology focuses on how people perceive and interpret this chant—was Prabowo’s decision a conscious communication strategy or a reflexive political habit formed over years of leadership training?
Finally, axiology examines what values this moment reinforces. Does this reflect a democracy in which governance is based on institutions, or one where political legitimacy remains tied to individual figures?
Politics is not just about legal authority. It is also about the continuity of influence beyond official power. While Jokowi is no longer in power, his decisions, alliances and personal brand still shape national governance. His influence may not be institutional, but it is politically alive as long as leaders, including Prabowo, continue to invoke his name.
This raises an important distinction from previous transitions in Indonesia. In the past, new leaders sought to create distance from their predecessors, establishing independent authority. B.J. Habibie introduced reforms to differentiate himself from Soeharto. Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid was democratically elected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) and did not position himself as a continuation of Habibie’s leadership. Likewise, Megawati Soekarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and even Jokowi himself did not explicitly build their image upon their predecessors.
In contrast, Prabowo has made an intentional departure from this pattern, openly embracing Jokowi’s legacy through repeated public statements, including the now-famous chant.
The key question is not whether Prabowo’s chant was premeditated or spontaneous, but whether it was an instinctive habit or a trained political strategy. Maybe his political instincts naturally favor reinforcing continuity and stability. However, maybe this was a deliberate rhetorical choice, one he has trained for—knowing that repeating Jokowi’s name would trigger cognitive ease and emotional reassurance among voters.
There is also the possibility that this was a calculated political strategy, a deliberate rhetorical move designed to achieve multiple objectives. Politicians frequently use association techniques to align themselves with trusted figures.
By invoking Jokowi’s name, Prabowo may have sought to signal continuity, reassuring Jokowi’s voter base that his administration will uphold the previous leader’s legacy. This is a well-documented political communication tactic: Leaders borrow credibility from their predecessors to stabilize their own authority.
However, while this discussion focuses on leadership messaging and public perception, an important question remains: How does this communication strategy translate into actual governance? If Prabowo frames his administration as an extension of Jokowi’s leadership, does this mean continuity in policies, or is it merely a campaign tool to maintain voter confidence?
Regardless of whether Prabowo acted out of instinct or strategy, the impact remains the same—his words reinforce deeper leadership values in Indonesia. The repeated invocation of Jokowi’s name signals something about the nation’s leadership culture. This leads us to axiology, where we examine what this moment reveals about Indonesia’s political values and the role of institutions versus individuals.
In a system where institutions are strong, leadership transitions rely on policies and governance frameworks rather than personal influence. But in Indonesia, where leadership perception is often tied to individual figures, Prabowo’s chants suggest that institutional authority alone is not enough to guarantee political continuity.
A mature democracy ensures stability not because a leader’s name endures, but because governance is rooted in strong institutions. Without institutional resilience, transitions of power remain tied to personal influence rather than lasting governance structures.
Political leadership is as much about navigating public perception and cultural expectations as it is about democratic ideals and institutional governance. Leaders, whether in established democracies or emerging political systems, depend on networks, alliances and public trust in familiar figures.
In Indonesia, where leadership perception remains closely tied to individual figures, Prabowo’s approach may reflect a strategic alignment with this reality. This does not necessarily weaken democracy, but it reinforces the idea that leaders must navigate and respond to the political culture in which they operate.
What remains clear is that political transitions should reinforce institutional, instead of personal legacies. The long-term success of the current administration will not be determined by its connection with Jokowi, but by how it governs effectively in his absence.
The writer is an alumnus of Harvard Business School and affiliated alumnus of MIT Sloan School of Management. The views expressed are personal.