Problems Arise from Flagship Programs and the President's Circle of Power

These four dimensions can be utilized to evaluate Prabowo's government communication.

First, does the government provide accessible and verifiable information?

Second, does government communication address public concerns? Third, is the government willing to listen to criticism and accommodate public interests? Fourth, is there consistency in communication among ministries and agencies?

The issue is not how often officials make statements, but whether the information provided meets public needs and is accompanied by tangible actions.

The OECD in its Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 also identifies integrity, openness, reliability, responsiveness, and fairness as critical factors influencing public trust in government.

These findings strengthen the argument that transparency is not merely a communication tool. Transparency is an essential part of governance that enables the public to oversee power.

Thus, building public trust requires more than positive narratives. The government must ensure that its institutional behaviors and performance align with the messages conveyed.

The Next Three Years Will Be a Test of Trust

After two years in office, Prabowo needs a more fundamental evaluation. The issue is not just how to respond to the various crises that have arisen but also how to ensure similar problems do not continue to recur.

At least four agendas warrant attention.

First, evaluate the integrity and governance of strategic officials. The placement of officials should not rely solely on political considerations, closeness, or coalition accommodation.

Capacity, track record, integrity, and the ability to manage public interests must be primary considerations.

Second, strengthen oversight of the President's priority programs. The MBG and other strategic programs should have audit mechanisms, procurement transparency, independent oversight, and effective public grievance channels.

The success of a program should not merely be measured by the size of the budget or the number of beneficiaries but also by governance quality and its impact.

Third, establish a Reputation and Accountability Center within the government. This center should not merely serve as a media monitoring or news management hub.

Its function should encompass reputational risk mapping, early issue detection, cross-agency communication coordination, public perception analysis, and policy follow-up evaluation.

This center must be capable of identifying potential conflicts of interest, discrepancies between promises and policy implementation, and public dissatisfaction with services before they escalate into crises.

However, this center must not be a tool to control news coverage or limit criticism. Its role should ensure the government is more open to information and quicker to rectify mistakes.

Fourth, shift governmental communication orientation from defensive to dialogic and accountable.

The government needs to create spaces for criticism, honestly explain issues, and communicate progress on problem resolution. Communication must be based on data and tangible actions, not just positive narratives.

The last two years of Prabowo's administration serve as a lesson that ambitious programs do not always correlate with execution quality.

Flagship programs require strong governance, integritous officials, and oversight systems that do not rely on political favoritism.

Prabowo needs to use the next three years as a moment of reform—not merely replacing officials or reshuffling the political composition around power, but reinforcing a governmental system that holds every official accountable, ensures every program is transparently monitored, and mandates that every institution operates within the law.

From a Political Public Relations perspective, the government’s reputation cannot be dissociated from its political behavior and governance quality.

Ultimately, effective communication will not conceal poor governance in the long run. Conversely, good governance demands open communication so the public is informed, understands, and can oversee.

The criteria for governmental success is not only about how many programs are launched, how much budget is spent, or the strength of political support in parliament.

A more fundamental measure is whether the country is governed with integrity, whether the law applies to everyone, and whether the public still has reasons to trust their government.

For the greatest challenge of governance after two years is not just about maintaining the President's image but ensuring that his flagship programs do not become sources of problems and that those close to him do not become vulnerabilities for the administration.