The Missing Chair in Indonesia's Policymaking

In the week of July 2026, a senior aide at the Presidential Staff Office appeared on a podcast discussing the Red-and-White Village Cooperatives program. The policy, aimed at farmers and fishermen, was quickly overshadowed by a clip explaining that cooperative managers would undergo military-style training. This was not an isolated communication mistake; the Prabowo-Gibran administration had 151 communication missteps in its first year, with only one in five mentions being of cabinet ministers.The issue runs deeper than poor execution of communication strategies.

Too often, communicators are brought in only after decisions have been made, asked to explain policies they did not help shape. A deeper problem lies in a structural flaw: communication often follows policy finalization, focusing on outputs rather than the understanding, trust, and action citizens take from it. Effective communication should be judged by its impact on people's comprehension, trust, and perceived relevance.

However, communicators are typically called upon to rectify, not anticipate, communication risks in policy design.The Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs calls for a shift in government PR, moving from producing press releases to being data-driven reputation managers. Yet, this paradigm shift remains insufficient. Communication needs to be integrated earlier in the policymaking process, with formative research identifying potential communication risks before policies are finalized.

Public participation, clarity, fairness, and transparency should guide communication, with a communicator's role extending beyond explaining decisions to predicting, addressing, and mitigating potential communication challenges.