Two Years of Prabowo-Gibran: What Does Their Report Card Say?
Prabowo-Gibran Administration Receives Low Marks in Two-Year Evaluation
Kabarsaji.com – A new assessment of the Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka administration has produced ratings below the halfway mark from both experts and members of the public. The evaluation, released by the Shadow Cabinet and the Center for Economic and Law Studies (Celios), examines the government’s performance as it enters its second year.
On a 10-point scale, experts gave President Prabowo a score of 2.8, while Vice President Gibran received 2.2. Public respondents gave somewhat higher ratings, but neither official reached five: Prabowo was rated 4.6 and Gibran 4.9.
“Both of them scored below 5,” Bhima Yudhistira said during the survey’s online presentation on Sunday, October 11, 2026.
Bhima, Celios’ executive director and the Shadow Cabinet’s Minister of Finance and Budget Governance, said the findings also reflected doubts over the president’s leadership capacity. Of the 129 experts involved in the study, 71 percent considered Prabowo’s leadership inadequate.
Separate views from experts and the public
The researchers used different approaches to gather views from the public and from specialist respondents. The public survey included 1,142 people from provinces across Indonesia. Responses were collected through Meta Ads using non-probability sampling, then weighted to better reflect the population aged over 17.
The expert survey covered 129 respondents from a range of academic and professional fields. It used snowball sampling, in which participants can help identify additional respondents with relevant expertise. The two methods were designed to capture both everyday public sentiment and more specialized evaluation of government performance.
Isnawati Hidayah, a Celios researcher and the Shadow Cabinet’s Minister of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, said the questionnaire tools were tested before the findings were finalized. The team used validity and reliability measures including Cronbach’s alpha, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, and Bartlett’s test.
“We also performed several similar tests and found consistent results that the surveys used are reliable and valid to address the questions or objectives of this research,” Isnawati said.
Such testing is important because polling results depend not only on the number of respondents, but also on whether questions consistently measure what the research intends to assess. The study separates its expert and public results rather than treating them as one combined score, making clear that the two groups assessed the administration differently.
Evaluation beyond the government’s early period
Wahyu Media Askar, a Celios researcher and the Shadow Cabinet’s Minister of Economy, said the project builds on earlier reviews conducted after the administration’s first 100 days and first year. This latest process took three months, covering the preparation of questions, data collection, analysis, and report drafting.
Media Askar stressed that the work was conducted independently and did not receive financial backing from donors or outside institutions.
“It is not financed by any institution or donor, purely an academic contribution to evaluate the Prabowo-Gibran administration,” Media Askar said.
He also underlined that the ratings should be understood as the responses of participants rather than the personal verdict of the research team.
“I want to note that every figure that comes out of this study does not come from us researchers, but from the general public and the experts involved,” Media Askar said.
The transition into a second year gives the assessment particular significance. Early administrations often receive an initial period in which voters and observers wait for campaign promises to be translated into policy and for those policies to affect daily life. Media Askar said that period has passed for the current government.
“This is no longer the government’s honeymoon period,” Media Askar said.
The gap between expert scores and public scores is also notable. The public gave both leaders higher marks than the expert group did, though public ratings remained below five. This suggests that dissatisfaction identified by the survey is not restricted to specialists, while the depth and reasons for concern may differ between groups.
Ministerial rankings use positional scoring
The evaluation also includes a method for ranking ministerial performance. Celios adapted the Borda count, a positional scoring approach that gives weight to a respondent’s placement of candidates. The system is comparable to the method used in the Ballon d’Or awards, where consistently high placement carries more value than isolated top rankings.
For a cabinet assessment, that approach is intended to distinguish officials who are repeatedly considered strong performers from those who receive only occasional support. Rather than relying on a simple first-place tally, it accounts for rankings across a wider range of positions.
The report’s central message is straightforward: both the president and vice president received ratings below the midpoint from the two respondent groups. As the administration moves further into its term, the survey places added attention on whether government policies, leadership decisions, and cabinet performance can improve public and expert confidence.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Two Years of Prabowo Gibran?Two Years of Prabowo Gibran is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Two Years of Prabowo Gibran matter?Two Years of Prabowo Gibran matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.