In Indonesia, the title Pahlawan Nasional—or National Hero—is not only a ceremonial recognition but also a reflection of how the nation chooses to remember its past. Every year, debates surrounding who deserves this title reveal the complexity of Indonesia’s historical memory, where political legacies, regional identities, and moral judgments converge. This year, the renewed proposal to grant the late former president Soeharto the status of National Hero has reignited a heated national conversation.
What makes this debate particularly striking is the chorus of support emerging from Papua, a region often associated with long-standing political sensitivities and historical grievances toward the central government. In a surprising turn, several Papuan figures—activists, legislators, and youth organizations—have publicly backed the idea of recognizing Soeharto’s contributions to Indonesia’s unity and development, especially in Papua itself.
Their voices, invoking the themes of reconciliation, unity, and recognition of national service, challenge prevailing assumptions about how the Orde Baru (New Order) era is remembered. To them, Soeharto’s legacy, while complex, represents a period of integration and progress that should not be obscured by political bitterness.
A Shift in Perspective: Papuan Voices Call for Reconciliation
Among the most prominent supporters is Charles Kossay, a Papuan activist who urged Indonesians to rise above the “political wounds” of the past. Speaking to JPNN.com, Kossay argued that Soeharto’s service to the nation—especially his role in building stability and driving development—should be recognized in the spirit of reconciliation, not resentment.
“If we continue to judge the past only through our pain, this nation will never heal,” Kossay said. “We must not inflict political wounds on the next generation.”
His statement came in response to public opposition voiced by some political figures who claimed that Soeharto’s authoritarian past disqualified him from being honored. Kossay’s message, however, emphasized political maturity—the ability to acknowledge both mistakes and contributions without being trapped by emotion.
For many Papuans like Kossay, the key to national unity lies in forgiveness and recognition, not in perpetuating division. By supporting Soeharto’s nomination, these voices are calling for Indonesia to move forward as a nation that learns from history rather than relives it.
Papuan Youth Organizations Join the Call for Historical Healing
The sentiment of reconciliation is echoed by Papuan student and youth groups such as Gerakan Mahasiswa dan Pemuda Papua (GEMAPI). The group’s chairman, Habelino Sawaki, framed their support not as a political endorsement of Soeharto’s regime, but as an appeal to national introspection.
“A great nation is one that appreciates the services of its leaders without being trapped by past wounds,” Sawaki said.
GEMAPI’s call for rekonsiliasi sejarah (historical reconciliation) highlights the importance of looking at Indonesia’s history as a continuum rather than a series of isolated conflicts. According to the group, Soeharto’s leadership—while far from perfect—represented a time when Indonesia’s territorial integrity and development agenda were consolidated.
Sawaki pointed out that during the New Order, Papua was given special attention in national development programs. The construction of roads, schools, and government centers during that era symbolized the physical and administrative integration of Papua into the Republic. For Papuan youth leaders, recognizing Soeharto’s legacy is not about denying the region’s struggles, but about acknowledging that Papua’s development journey began under his leadership.
Legislators from Papua Highlight Soeharto’s Historical Role
Beyond the voices of activists and students, Soeharto’s nomination has also gained support from Papuan politicians who highlight his concrete historical contributions to the region. Robert J. Kardinal, a member of Indonesia’s House of Representatives (DPR) from Papua, has been among the strongest proponents.
Kardinal underscored Soeharto’s critical role in the liberation of West Irian (now Papua) from Dutch colonial control. As the commander of the Mandala Operation in the early 1960s, Soeharto played a pivotal part in the campaign that led to the Dutch withdrawal and the eventual integration of Papua into Indonesia. Kardinal described this as a “milestone in the nation’s history of sovereignty.”
“Soeharto’s contribution to Papua is undeniable. He not only helped reclaim West Irian for Indonesia but also ensured that development programs reached our region,” Kardinal said in an interview quoted by Merdeka.com and Inilah.com.
For Kardinal, this historical role justifies Soeharto’s recognition as a National Hero. He emphasized that the criteria for such an honor should rest on a person’s tangible service to the state—and in that regard, Soeharto’s actions speak louder than his controversies.
The legislator also pointed out that Soeharto’s administration invested heavily in infrastructure, agriculture, and education in Papua. The Trans-Papua highway, rural electrification projects, and government programs to improve healthcare were all launched during his tenure. While these efforts were far from perfect, Kardinal argued that they laid the foundation for Papua’s modern development.
From Controversy to Reflection: The National Debate on Soeharto’s Legacy
The call to grant Soeharto the title of National Hero has divided public opinion across Indonesia. Supporters, including many from Papua, argue that his contributions to nation-building outweigh his faults. Critics, however, contend that acknowledging him risks whitewashing the human rights violations and suppression of democracy during his rule.
Organizations such as KedaiKOPI, a public opinion research institute, conducted surveys indicating that more than 80% of respondents supported Soeharto’s recognition as a National Hero—evidence that public memory of him remains largely positive, especially in terms of economic stability and development.
For Papuans who back the proposal, this national trend mirrors their own pragmatic outlook: while historical grievances remain, there is value in learning from the past without being imprisoned by it. As one youth leader from Jayapura noted in local media, “Forgiveness does not mean forgetting; it means acknowledging what was done right and wrong and choosing to move forward.”
This sentiment reflects a wider shift in how regions on Indonesia’s periphery perceive their relationship with the central government. Whereas the past was often defined by resentment, today’s Papuan leaders and youth increasingly frame engagement with Jakarta through cooperation and constructive dialogue.
Revisiting Soeharto’s Development Vision in Papua
The heart of the Papuan argument for Soeharto’s heroism lies in his development agenda. During the New Order, Papua was no longer seen as a distant frontier but as a vital part of Indonesia’s territorial and economic map. Soeharto’s government initiated policies that aimed to integrate Papua not only politically but also socially and economically.
Massive infrastructure projects—such as the expansion of airports, seaports, and roads—opened Papua’s isolated regions to trade and mobility. Government programs also encouraged education and healthcare outreach to rural areas. Although critics later questioned the long-term impact of such initiatives, for many Papuans they symbolized the first time the central government took tangible steps to connect them to the rest of the archipelago.
This sense of being “seen and included” remains deeply significant. In interviews with national media, several Papuan community figures recalled the Soeharto era as the time when the state’s presence was most visible in their daily lives. While political repression during that era cannot be ignored, these local experiences show that the perception of Soeharto’s rule in Papua is layered and multifaceted.
A Symbol of Unity and Healing
At its core, the Papuan support for Soeharto’s national hero nomination is about healing and belonging. Papua’s relationship with Indonesia has long been shaped by mistrust, partly due to historical trauma and the uneven distribution of national benefits. Yet the recent wave of support indicates a willingness among Papuan leaders to participate in redefining that relationship.
Their advocacy for Soeharto’s recognition is, in essence, a message of reconciliation. By choosing to remember Soeharto’s role in integration and development, rather than solely focusing on his authoritarianism, they signal a desire to strengthen Papua’s place within the Indonesian nation-state.
As Kossay remarked, “We cannot continue to live in division. Our generation must build a stronger nation by understanding—not erasing—our history.”
Conclusion
Whether or not Soeharto ultimately receives the title of National Hero, the debate surrounding it has already achieved something important: it has reopened a national dialogue on how Indonesia remembers its leaders and how regions like Papua engage with that memory.
For Papua, supporting Soeharto’s recognition is not about denying the past—it is about claiming agency over it. It is an act of political participation, a declaration that Papua’s voice matters in defining Indonesia’s collective identity.
History, after all, is not only written by victors—it is rewritten by those who seek healing. The voices from Papua remind Indonesia that national memory must accommodate complexity: that a leader can be both flawed and foundational, both controversial and consequential.
In this light, the movement to recognize Soeharto as a National Hero becomes more than a debate about one man’s legacy—it becomes a reflection of a nation learning to reconcile with its own history. And perhaps, in that reconciliation, lies the truest form of heroism.