Anti-Communism That Copies Its Enemy: The Paradox of Authoritarianism in Indonesia

Anti-Communism That Copies Its Enemy: The Paradox of Authoritarianism in Indonesia

Indonesia strongly rejects communism as its ultimate enemy. Yet, when you look closely, the way anti-communism is practiced in the country surprisingly mirrors some aspects of Stalinism: leader cults, single-story narratives, and the creation of internal enemies to maintain power.

Anti-Communism as a National Dogma

Indonesia is known for being extremely anti-communist. This narrative took root after the tragic events of 1965, when the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was banned and thousands of its members and supporters were killed or imprisoned without trial.

In schools, media, and public discourse, communism is always portrayed as an existential threat—destroying morality, religion, and national unity. Over time, anti-communism has become almost a sacred national principle, demanding loyalty from every citizen.

When Rejection Becomes Imitation

Looking more closely, a paradox appears. In the ways propaganda is used, leaders are idolized, and history is simplified, Indonesia’s anti-communist practices resemble Stalinism—not in economics or political ideology, but in how the state builds the image of a leader as an all-knowing, all-caring figure. Media and education are used to control narratives, while internal enemies are constructed to protect power.

Leader Cults and “Father of the Nation” Politics

Leader cults are especially noticeable. Stalin was seen as the “father of the people,” a moral and historical center. Images of him filled schools and public spaces; criticizing him was seen as betrayal.

In Indonesia, similar patterns appear. Sukarno (1945-1966) was praised as the revolutionary leader and “father of the nation,” with history always told in heroic terms. Under Suharto (1966-1998), the president was portrayed as the father of development; every project and policy was credited solely to him. Even today, the idea of the president as the “father of the nation” continues in media and official statements, keeping the image of a central, indispensable leader alive.

Controlling History and Ideological Education

Like Stalin’s era, history is tightly controlled. School books emphasize the 1965 events as the destruction of the nation by communists, while the state’s own violence is rarely discussed. Mainstream media highlights government achievements, and criticism is often silenced or labeled radical. Education and campaigns teach citizens to see issues in black-and-white: communism is evil, leaders are heroic.

Internal Enemies as a Tool for Power

In both contexts, internal enemies legitimize authority. Stalin labeled Trotskyists and other critics as “enemies of the people,” while in Indonesia, communists and “foreign agents” were used as abstract threats to justify violence, censorship, and suppression of dissent. This strengthens the image of the leader as the ultimate authority who knows what is best for the nation.

Authoritarianism Without a Communist Label

The paradox shows that rejecting one ideology does not automatically protect a society from authoritarian practices. Leader cults, propaganda, and moral simplifications can appear under many circumstances, even in countries that claim to be democratic or pluralistic. The ideology may change, but the social and psychological patterns remain similar.

Indonesia demonstrates that extreme anti-communism can coexist with authoritarian practices that structurally resemble Stalinism. The narrative of the president as “father of the nation,” controlled media, simplified history, and constructed internal enemies all create a system where freedom of thought and speech remains limited, even as anti-communism is loudly proclaimed as a core moral and political principle.