Fadhilah Primandari and M. Ammar Hidayahtulloh reflect on the Indonesian government’s response to Sumatra's calamitous floods in November 2025. They argue that when authorities gaslight disaster victims into believing they can handle the consequences, they merely prolong and delegitimise victims’ suffering
In late November, deadly floods and landslides hit three provinces in Indonesia's Sumatra Island: Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra. As of 27 January, the disaster has caused 1,204 fatalities. More than 111,800 people have been displaced; 140 are still missing.
The central government response has been slow, hindered by policies that focus on reactive rather than preventive measures. Accompanying the government’s post-flood management have been brazen claims that Indonesia is a strong, independent nation with capacity to deal independently with the flood’s aftermath.
President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly tried to boost national morale by asserting that Indonesia is a strong state. As such, he claims, it can overcome this 'trial' (cobaan) with 'national power' (kekuatan nasional) alone.
According to Prabowo, the situation is 'under control'. He claims that all the nation’s 'powers', including over 50,000 police and military personnel, have been deployed to Sumatra. Prabowo boasts that his cabinet's 'tireless work' is providing effective relief for disaster victims and survivors. He has urged the public to work shoulder-to-shoulder (bahu membahu) with his government.
Indonesia's President Prabowo Subianto claims that all the nation's 'powers', including over 50,000 police and military personnel, have been deployed in disaster relief efforts
To offers of aid from other countries, Prabowo responded defensively: 'we are capable. Indonesia can handle this'. Home Affairs Minister Tito Karnavian wants to avoid appearing reliant on foreign aid.
Yet despite suggesting that Indonesia does indeed have agency, these assertions risk harming the very people most damaged by the floods. The government's claims to agency prioritise its institutions’ reputation over the flood victims’ voices. Consequently, they have inflicted (and risk perpetuating) serious material and antidemocratic harms.
The Indonesian government has the power to translate its claims into policies that make life materially better for flood victims.
The public, including civil coalitions in Sumatra, has demanded the government declare a state of national disaster. This would streamline the chain of command and the mobilisation of logistics, accelerating the disaster response.
However, Prabowo has doubled down on his claim that things are 'under control' and that the situation does not warrant national disaster status. He downplayed the danger, emphasising that the floods 'only hit three out of 38 provinces'.
His claim, however, was made while some areas remained cut off. Victims had to walk over twenty kilometres to access food and medicine. In Central Aceh, it took more than two months to recover access to 16 villages, hindering the distribution of essentials. Meanwhile, massive floods have since struck East and North Aceh.
Prabowo continues to claim that the situation is 'under control' and does not warrant national disaster status
Prabowo’s self-sufficiency narrative has led to confusion about whether international aid can enter the country, further hampering distribution of relief.
The mayor of Medan city, for example, initially returned a relief aid package from the UAE. The government later re-admitted the package after it was clarified that the aid was from the UAE Red Crescent. Aid from non-governmental entities is acceptable.
International governmental and non-governmental aid have in the past been crucial to Indonesia's post-disaster recovery. Following the 2004 Aceh Tsunami, for example, the international community provided IDR 105 trillion, enabling Aceh’s reconstruction within eight years.
Indonesia's government estimates Sumatra’s post-disaster reconstruction at IDR 51.8 trillion. It claims to have set aside IDR 60 trillion for the task. However, Indonesia’s Center of Reform on Economics has calculated reconstruction will cost IDR 77.4 trillion. Without international aid, post-flood recovery may take up to 30 years.
The Indonesian government’s insistence on self-sufficiency risks hampering post-disaster recovery, and delegitimises victims’ experiences of suffering.
The government is claiming to speak on behalf of the communities affected by the Sumatra floods. Yet this sorely misrepresents the victims. The claims conflate the government’s perception of its institutional capacity with victims’ ability to tolerate relief delays.
Since early December, the media have highlighted local communities’ dissatisfaction with the pace of government response. They have raised concerns about scarcity, and the traumatic experiences of losing family members and homes. Some families were forced to use personal funds to rent excavators to clear up debris and find their loved ones. In the third week after the floods, several localities in Aceh raised white flags to call for help and solidarity.
The national government, meanwhile, continues to perpetuate its narrative of self-sufficiency. Yet it is precisely the government’s delayed response that has forced local communities to rely on themselves to survive.
The national government's narrative of self-sufficiency has been 'enforced' through efforts to shut down criticism
Narratives about agency can serve antidemocratic purposes when they are 'enforced' through efforts to silence voices of discontent. Several content creators and activists have been brave enough to speak up about Sumatra’s ecological disaster. As a result, they have become targets of intimidation from unknown sources.
The intimidation took place following Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya's plea for influencers (pemengaruh) to avoid making claims about government inaction. Similarly, Prabowo has called on the public to avoid 'looking for' shortcomings in the government’s flood management. He warned against (outside) 'forces who don’t like [seeing] Indonesia strong and resilient'.
Both these acts delegitimise citizens’ ability to form their own opinions, and they undermine freedom of expression.
The Indonesian government's response to the Sumatra floods illustrates how official narratives about agency are not always empowering. Who is making the claims, and on behalf of whom? Whose interests do these claims serve? Power relations between claim-makers and their constituents are particularly relevant.
When agency claims gloss over and even inflict harm, amplifying experiences of suffering can reclaim the discursive space. This reclaiming recentres marginalised and critical voices. Victim narratives help expose how disproportionate distributions of vulnerabilities are unjust. These narratives can mobilise collective solidarity and empower efforts to seek justice and accountability, especially when those crises are the result of a government's poor policy choices.
