When a policy window opens, the president looks away
How Prabowo missed the chance to regain trust by ignoring the 17+8 demands
By Amanda Tan
This op-ed reflects the author’s own analysis and views and does not necessarily represent those of The Reformist. This opinion first appeared in Tempo, published originally in Bahasa Indonesia.
President Prabowo Subianto’s speech on 31 August 2025, following waves of demonstrations that turned violent, sparked sharp debate across civil society. Instead of carefully, and specifically, addressing the public’s demands, the President focused narrowly on the issue of removing parliamentary allowances for members of the House of Representatives (DPR).
His unfounded claims about terrorism and treason, combined with a call for the public to trust the government amid police brutality, only deepened public frustration.
Yet the demonstrations raised far more pressing issues: the troubled Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis, or MBG) program, the urgent need for police reform, and high youth unemployment.
In a rare moment where the President spoke directly to the public, he could have opened a policy window; signalling a real commitment to addressing society’s core problems. But by choosing to spotlight just one issue, Prabowo squandered a critical opportunity. The disappointment is even sharper given how rarely he makes public statements during his presidency.
Ideally, the President could have paired his remarks with concrete steps (for example, announcing a moratorium on controversial policies); showing he was willing to act – precisely how a policy window is meant to work.
The ‘Multiple Streams’ Framework
In public policy, the multiple streams framework (MSF) explains how major policy shifts can happen outside conventional legislative cycles. It argues that a policy window opens when three streams converge: the problem stream (issues recognized as urgent), the policy stream (available solutions), and the political stream (political will).
When the three streams meet, a golden moment emerges for leaders or organizations (inside or outside government) to act as policy entrepreneurs by advancing solutions.
With his political capital, Prabowo could have stepped into that role. Instead, he narrowed his response to a single viral issue and let the moment slip.
This stands in contrast to his predecessor, Joko Widodo, who often used omnibus laws to accelerate legislation and leave a political legacy, albeit in practice, many of those laws created more problems than they solved.
Prabowo’s speech also leaned on unsubstantiated narratives of treason and terrorism. Tempo reports even told a different story: that Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin had proposed martial law, an alarming contradiction to the President’s framing.
Worse, the President offered no real apology for the death of Affan Kurniawan, who was killed by police brutality, nor did he call for greater professionalism from law enforcement. Instead, he blamed demonstrators and portrayed the protests as mere anger that should have been channeled through “peaceful” forums. This evasive communication only shut doors to dialogue, stoked public anger, and fueled deeper skepticism.
Research by Mintrom and O’Connor on crisis communication stresses the importance of consistent messaging. But, context matters. In a health crisis, a single message may suffice; in mass demonstrations, people expect more. At minimum, the President could have signaled legislative action on issues like corruption; one of the public’s core demands.
For instance, he might have announced a timeline for consultations with the DPR to strengthen anti-corruption safeguards, such as reforms to procurement laws. By failing to do so, the government left the public feeling ignored; fueling anger and opening space for broader calls for reform. These eventually crystallized into the 17+8 movement, spearheaded by activists and amplified online.
The cost of an empty response
The government’s failure to seize this moment has ironically opened opportunities for civil society. Prabowo’s remark that public aspirations could be directly conveyed to the government created a “new window” for citizen groups to push deeper demands: budget transparency, stronger party commitments, and genuine political dialogue.
Among these demands was justice for Affan Kurniawan’s death. Reviving such calls has re-energized public awareness. Citizens who have tuned out of policy debates are once again sharing and amplifying these issues online.
Yet while participation spaces are open, implementation remains weak. Too often, civil society input goes unanswered. This undermines the right of citizens to be heard and to understand the rationale behind government decisions.
There are proven models of digital public participation to draw from. Platforms like lapor.go.id, Jakarta Kini (JAKI), and the Ministry of Health’s consultative process on the Health Bill show that digital participation can generate clear feedback loops. The government should learn from these practices; using this policy window not just to talk, but to reform how it engages with citizens.
The DPR’s response to the 17+8 movement briefly raised hopes. While the answers were incomplete (lacking detail or strong justification, such as on the issue of lawmakers’ hefty communication allowances) the fact that the DPR responded at all showed a degree of collaboration worth noting.
The 17+8 movement itself, despite its flaws, deserves recognition. Critics point out that it did not initially involve directly affected groups. Still, the movement has modeled a new form of engagement.
By leveraging the policy window, 17+8 has gone beyond pressuring the government. It has become a platform for citizen solidarity and civil society consolidation. It proves that even when the government squanders opportunities, the people can—and will—find ways to reclaim them.