The Paradox of Presidential Political Communication
STATEMENT President Prabowo Subianto’s remarks during the 28th anniversary celebration of the National Mandate Party (PAN) on September 18, 2026, have sparked debate over how leaders respond to criticism.
In his speech, Prabowo touched on experts who have criticized the government. He said, “So smart, so smart they become dumb.”
He made this statement while discussing Indonesia's aspirations to become a developed country, issues of child nutrition, stunting, education, and the ability of Indonesia’s younger generation to compete with other nations.
However, this particular phrase quickly drew public attention as it was seen as belittling those who voiced criticism.
This highlights the need to take leadership communication seriously.
In a democracy, criticism is not a threat. It is a corrective mechanism. The government is not obliged to accept every opinion from experts, academics, the media, or the public.
Not all criticism is automatically valid either. But disagreement should be met with data and arguments, not personal attacks.
This idea aligns with John Stuart Mill's (1859) philosophy, which asserts that even wrong opinions have value because they help test and clarify the truth.
Thus, criticism should not merely be seen as a disturbance but as an opportunity to test the quality of policies.
Experts are not always right. Neither is the government always correct. Therefore, the content of the argument is what should be tested.
If data is considered incorrect, the government can present comparative data. If research methods are questioned, the government can clarify the issues.
If conclusions are seen as inconsistent with field conditions, the government can provide evidence supporting its policies.
In this way, the public can assess the quality of the reasoning rather than simply siding with those who hold more authority.
Personal attacks are known as ad hominem. In logical studies, such attacks do not refute the substance of an argument but instead target the character or identity of the person presenting it.
Copi et al. (2014) explain that ad hominem arguments divert attention from the real issue to be tested: whether the presented reasoning is true or not.
