The “foreign agent” narrative has the potential to be used as a tool to maintain or secure power by silencing critical voices.
Recently, the label “foreign agent” has resurfaced. This narrative has been discussed in greater depth alongside the government’s move to draft a Bill on Countering Disinformation and Foreign Propaganda.
For civil society coalitions working in the natural resources sector, this phenomenon is not merely a political dynamic, but a real threat to public accountability.
The “foreign agent” narrative is not new for President Prabowo Subianto. Since the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections, this rhetoric has been consistently used to build a nationalist-ideological image.
In mass psychology, this narrative effectively touches on sensitivities related to national sovereignty. However, when campaign rhetoric transforms into state policy or instruments of power, it becomes a dangerous weapon because of its “open to interpretation” nature.
An Instrument of Propaganda and Silencing?
In this context, the “foreign agent” narrative can be used as a tool to maintain or secure power by suppressing critical voices in society.
“Foreign agent” can become an accusation against those who criticize or take a critical stance toward government policies. At the same time, it can function as propaganda to preserve hegemony and power.
In propaganda theory, there are techniques such as appeal to prejudice and name-calling. These techniques aim to attach negative labels to opposing parties to delegitimize their arguments. During the New Order era, criticism was silenced with the label “communist agent”; now the pattern repeats with the label “foreign agent.”
In international political practice, the United States has often used such propaganda techniques. For example, by labeling certain figures or groups in Middle Eastern countries as “terrorists” when they threaten or do not align with their interests.
The use of this narrative by authorities creates an appeal to authority condition, where the public is directed to believe government claims without further scrutiny.
In this context, anyone who questions government policies, including civil society organizations demanding transparency, can easily be branded as enemies of the state. This reflects a flag-waving practice that borrows patriotic symbols to justify repressive actions.
Risks of Criminalization in the Natural Resources Sector
The Asta Cita vision of energy and food self-sufficiency is a crucial point where the “foreign agent” narrative intersects with natural resource exploitation interests. These self-sufficiency programs require large-scale land availability, which often triggers agrarian conflicts and tensions with Indigenous and local communities.
Experiences from National Strategic Projects (PSN) show that criticism regarding negative externalities, such as environmental damage, human rights marginalization, and limited community participation, is often seen as “obstructing national interests.”
There is a significant risk that environmental activists or community advocates in mining and energy areas will be labeled as groups threatening national sovereignty simply for demanding transparency and protection of community rights.
This situation is further exacerbated by the threat of treason provisions in the new Criminal Code (Law No. 1/2023) and vague articles in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law), which can easily be used against critical voices.
Shrinking Civic Space
This further contributes to the narrowing space for civil society in public life. CIVICUS data (2025) places Indonesia in the “obstructed” category, indicating serious challenges to freedom of expression.
INFID reports also record high levels of attacks against human rights defenders despite existing constitutional guarantees. The “foreign agent” narrative functions as a complement to this repressive legal infrastructure.
When civic space shrinks, oversight of the natural resources sector weakens. Without oversight, the risks of corruption and policies benefiting only a small elite increase significantly.
The “Foreign Agent” Narrative Must Not Become a Mask for Exploitation
As head of state, President Prabowo indeed has a mandate to realize national sovereignty. However, true sovereignty cannot be achieved without transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation.
True sovereignty exists when the people have control over their own natural resources, and this can only happen if civic space remains open and protected.
The “anti-foreign agent” narrative and sovereignty rhetoric must not become a mask to conceal unaccountable natural resource governance practices.
All elements of civil society must remain vigilant to ensure that sovereignty narratives are not used to exploit natural wealth without accountability, while affected communities are silenced in the name of false nationalism.
Writer: Ariyansah NK
Source: Indonesiana