As the floodwaters in Sumatra started to recede, the full extent of the devastation became painfully clear: more than 800 lives lost, over 3.2 million people affected and entire communities left underwater. It ticked every box for national disaster status. Yet President Prabowo Subianto never declared it, insisting the situation remained manageable. That decision kept emergency funds locked behind bureaucratic red tape, prevented ministries from rapidly reallocating budgets, and blocked formal channels for international assistance.
This is not a lament about disaster management – it is about reactionary governance. Indonesia is stuck in a never-ending loop: disaster strikes, the government scrambles to respond, fine-sounding promises flow, attention fades, and the cycle starts again.
The true scale of the devastation reveals years of institutional neglect.
Prabowo set out five key directives in response to the latest floods, which followed an unusual cyclone last month in the Malacca Strait. He wanted road access restored, electricity and water services back on, quicker logistics to deploy the military, and a focus on improving climate preparedness. Helicopters flew in, military ships reached isolated communities, and the media captured Prabowo in action. But while these measures were visible and swift, they addressed only the immediate damage. They did nothing to tackle the deeper, structural failures that made the disaster possible. His emergency actions may be well timed but they are short-term fixes, not long-term solutions.
The true scale of the devastation reveals years of institutional neglect. In Sumatra, critical watersheds have been stripped of their natural defences due to deforestation and poor land-use planning. The government must enforce measures to halt land clearing, restore damaged areas that separate different rivers and seas, and address the upstream environmental degradation that fuels these disasters. Rehabilitation regulations have existed for years, yet meaningful enforcement has been largely absent.
At the same time, spatial planning violations continue unchecked. Buildings rise along riverbanks, land-use changes further up the river exacerbate flooding, and floodplains are rapidly being developed for housing. The legal tools to prevent this damage already exist, but Prabowo’s directives still do not include any review of development permits, audits of local spatial plans, or meaningful enforcement of the laws already on the books. Without these measures, there is effectively no deterrent against reckless development in flood-prone areas.
Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency highlighted key weaknesses in the response system, including inadequate logistics, insufficient risk mitigation and emergency response systems, weak disaster management institutions and a lack of coordinated field data. These are not just isolated issues that can be resolved with emergency aid – they are symptoms of deeper systemic failures that need long-term solutions.
Indonesia is often called a “disaster supermarket”, where earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides and forest fires recur due to its position at the junction of three tectonic plates in the Pacific Ring of Fire. These risks are worsened by the wet tropical climate, monsoon cycles, La Niña events, and environmental degradation, all of which increase community vulnerability. Physical hazards, social vulnerability and dense populations in exposed areas make Indonesia one of the world’s highest-risk countries for disasters.
Prabowo has urged local governments to prepare for climate change. But real preparedness requires more than just words – it takes resources, political will and a whole lot of effort to enforce tough regulations against powerful interests such as the fossil fuel, timber and mining industries. What Indonesia needs is more than just crisis management. It needs a whole new approach – one that breaks the destructive cycle of respond-forget-respond that has characterised disaster management for years.
On paper, Indonesia’s disaster management laws are relatively progressive. The real problem lies not in the legislation itself, but in its poor implementation.
Meanwhile, several ministries responsible for flood-resilient infrastructure and disaster response have seen their budgets slashed. Local governments, which depend on central government transfers, have also faced significant cuts. These financially starved councils are now expected to prioritise climate resilience, even as they struggle with basic services such as infrastructure. Yet amid these fiscal constraints, Prabowo’s government continues to channel funds into his populist flagship programs, such as free nutritious meals, leaving little room for meaningful investment in disaster prevention or climate adaptation.
On paper, Indonesia’s disaster management laws are relatively progressive. The real problem lies not in the legislation itself, but in its poor implementation. When emergency responses replace long-term risk reduction, political theatre overshadows the building of strong institutions, and budget cuts weaken agencies given responsibility for climate resilience, the gap between promises and reality can be deadly.
The Sumatra floods should be a serious warning about Prabowo’s approach to governance. Populist programs might win votes, but they require more than catchy slogans and media stunts. They need functional institutions, proper funding, and a sustained political commitment to addressing the tough, unglamorous work of watershed management, spatial planning enforcement and disaster risk reduction.
Until Prabowo aligns his budgets with his climate promises, until spatial planning carries real consequences, until watershed management is prioritised, and until Indonesia’s disaster response agencies get the resources and institutional capacity they need, the country will keep responding to disasters instead of preventing them.
