Every national leader, scored across up to eight dimensions of tenure contribution — from governance and economy to politics and crisis response. Compare current form against the legacy they'll leave behind.
Prabowo Subianto is the President of Indonesia, from the Great Indonesia Movement Party.
How is Prabowo Subianto rated on NationsHelm?
Prabowo Subianto holds a weak Leadership Rating of 54 out of 100. It is a derived blend of sourced leadership dimensions — governance, communication, diplomacy and others — never an estimate.
What are Prabowo Subianto's strengths and weaknesses?
Prabowo Subianto's strongest leadership dimension is Diplomacy (70/100); the weakest is Institutional Integrity (22/100), ranked from the leadership radar.
What challenges does Prabowo Subianto face?
The main pressures are governance accountability and legitimacy pressure. Institutional Integrity score of 22 reflects persistent accountability pressures that constrain institutional effectiveness.
How is Prabowo Subianto viewed internationally?
Prabowo Subianto has a Communication signal of 61/100 from GDELT media coverage and a Diplomatic Conduct score of 70/100.
Data coverage:107 Sourced·85 Derived|Scores refreshed: 2026-08-24·snap-20260824-c9f25cd0|Methodology:Reconstructable|Cite:How to cite
Spot an error?
Profile
Overall54.2as of 2026-08coverage 6/8
Role
President
Party
Great Indonesia Movement Party
Term Started
2024-10
Government
Presidential Republic
Political Position
LeftLeftRight
V-Dem V-Party — economic left–right (v2pariglef, expert-coded), high confidence, party position coded 2019.
SourceWorld Bank + derivedMethod
A note when the record changes — and when a prediction resolves. Free.
Strongest on diplomacy — sharpest weakness institutional integrity.
Next resolution · 2027-12-31
Briefing
The story
Prabowo Subianto, President of Indonesia, has a 54/100 Leadership Rating — a weak score. Their standout dimension is Diplomacy (70/100). In global media, their Communication signal reads 61/100 (high confidence), tracked from GDELT. The pressure to watch: Governance Accountability — Institutional Integrity score of 22 reflects persistent accountability pressures that constrain institutional effectiveness.
The data & sources
The 54 rating is a derived blend of Prabowo Subianto's leadership dimensions, each computed from sourced public inputs — none estimated. Communication 61/100 derives from GDELT DOC tone, reach and message resilience (high confidence). Diplomatic Conduct 70/100 (medium confidence) — performance-under-test blend from directed GDELT events + UCDP. Governing-stability conditions score 51/100, renormalised over WGI, V-Dem and UCDP.
The risk read
For country-risk purposes, Prabowo Subianto's tenure reads as moderately stable: governing-stability conditions score 51/100. Crisis exposure 14/100 (Minimal exposure); response untested. External conditions score 51/100 — the macro tailwind or headwind behind their tenure. For the full opportunity, market-pulse and resilience read, see Indonesia's nation page.
The strategic read
Governing conditions: stability 51/100, external conditions 51/100. Live pressures: governance accountability and legitimacy pressure. The sharpest institutional vulnerability is Institutional Integrity (22/100).
Analyst OutlookAI · not a sourced score
claude-opus-4-8 · 2026-07-08
Cited, adversarially-verified forward analysis — every claim is sourced and survived a red-team. An LLM intelligence brief, not a sourced score, and never blended into this leader's ratings.
Prabowo has already won the fight everyone is watching — elite unity means the protests and the rupiah crisis cannot touch his tenure — and is quietly building the thing almost no one is: Danantara, a ~$900bn-to-$1tn pool of state assets parked outside the treasury that will define both his legacy and his integrity, long after the free-meals program is forgotten.
The Consensus
The mainstream July-2026 read: Prabowo is a consolidating strongman whose grip is secure — a cabinet spanning seven parties (the largest since 1966) and co-opted opposition give him unmatched elite backing — but he is a shaky economic manager. Approval has slid from ~80% in February to the low-70s/high-50s, the rupiah hit a record ~Rp18,171/USD, and recurring youth protests over fuel, food prices and the troubled free-meals rollout keep flaring. Pundits see him politically safe through 2029 but judge his 8% growth target a fantasy and his signature program a fiscal and food-safety liability.
Prabowo emerges from the 2025-2026 protest cycle with power consolidated, not weakened: no coalition party formally exits his government, no DPR impeachment motion is tabled, and no credible succession/resignation pressure materializes through end-2027 — the 'strongman falters' narrative never converts into any institutional threat.
AI · not a sourced score · claude-opus-4-8 · 3 cited sources · red-teamed · never blended into ratings
Wrong if any coalition party formally withdraws from government, OR the DPR tables an impeachment/inquiry (hak angket escalating to impeachment) motion against Prabowo, OR he publicly signals resignation, before 2027-12-31. by 2027-12-31
Confidence78%
Show the caseHide the case
Strongest counter — The August-2025 unrest was the largest since Suharto's 1998 fall (~10 dead, 1,000+ injured, 3,000+ arrested) and reignited in June 2026 — a fresh economic shock (a bank run, a sharper rupiah collapse) could crack the coalition. It survives: the coalition is a patronage machine with no incentive to defect while Prabowo controls Danantara's dividends and 41 ministries, and Indonesia has no impeachment tradition absent a formal legal predicate; approval above 70% at a full year in removes the trigger. Kept as banger at 0.78.
Favourability of media coverage over the tenure (GDELT tenure-mean tone), cross-leader percentile
Media reach33%41
Media volume (GDELT tenure-median daily coverage) percentile, gated down when coverage is hostile
Message resilience25%46
Does tone / approval hold up when attention spikes vs. calmer periods (derived)
Reach is discounted to 49% of its raw percentile because tenure-mean coverage tone skews unfavourable — hostile attention isn't credited as positive reach.
Crisis
Exposure
14/ 100
Minimal exposure
Response
Untested
Untested
Low confidence · no major shock in mandate
Worst year (2024) — shock drivers
Conflict intensity31
Economic contraction0
Political-stability decline0
Each is a global percentile: how this year's shock compares to every country-year on record. Disaster shocks are not yet sourced (no open-licensed annual series).
Sourced from 3 mandate-years (2024–2026), 3 of 4 shock components present.
Outlook
Uphill
Can this leader deliver on its agenda?
Limited capability and a demanding environment point to a difficult tenure.
Source: Leadership Rating + structural context·Method: Derived (capability × context)·✓ ReconstructableⓘDerived from this leader's Leadership Rating, the country's structural context (difficulty, governing regime, political stability), time in office, and public approval where sourced. Computed, and updates as the data does. Full model on the Methodology page.
Leadership Radar
Tenure Contribution · to date
Polarized profile — 48-point spread from Diplomacy to Institutional Integrity.
Country scores are blended with live World Bank data where available. Difficulty reflects the structural challenge of governing this nation — not the leader's individual performance.
Source: World Bank·Method: Unweighted average·✓ Reconstructable
Leadership Archetype
No distinct archetype
Polarized profile — 48-point spread from Diplomacy to Institutional Integrity. No archetype rule matches that shape. This is a reading of the sourced stats — not a data gap.
SourceDerivedMethodRule-based classificationConfDeterministic✓ ReconstructableⓘArchetypes are derived automatically from the leadership stat profile — not hand-assigned. "No distinct archetype" means no classification rule matched; profile shape is assessed separately from the best-to-worst spread. A leader lacking enough sourced stats reads as "No data". A secondary archetype is added only when a stat scores exceptionally high.
Compare this leader
Stack this leader against any other in the NationsHelm database.
One email a week — the predictions that resolved and the scores that moved on the nations and leaders you follow.
Weighted average
ConfMedium
✓ Reconstructable
ⓘLeadership Rating measures change under the leader relative to global trends — a score near 60 means performance broadly matched the benchmark trajectory. It is a weighted average of up to eight dimensions, renormalised over the ones with sourced data (the coverage note beside the score says how many), and requires all four core dimensions — Governance, Economy, Politics and Institutional Integrity — to be sourced. Five use live World Bank indicators; the rest are derived from sourced signals (WIPO/Oxford/UNESCO, GDELT, World Bank + UCDP, survey data) where coverage exists. Diplomacy is a GDELT-derived engagement proxy, and anything unsourced shows as no data. Political position is V-Dem V-Party expert coding. Full weights on the Methodology page.
SourceGDELT DOC 2.0
MethodWeighted blend (42/33/25)
ConfHigh
✓ Reconstructable
ⓘA pure media-communication signal, blended from GDELT and renormalised over what's present: Coverage Tone (42%); Media Reach (33%, gated down when coverage is hostile); and Message Resilience (25%). Domestic approval is not counted here. Shown only where GDELT coverage exists. Full model on the Methodology page.
Share of the country's international interactions coded cooperative vs conflictual
Restraint20%5
Inverse of net material force the country projects — armed-conflict events it initiates minus those it absorbs. Force projected abroad lowers it; being invaded does not
Coalition breadth15%89
How many distinct countries it cooperates with as initiator
Agreements & mediation15%81
SourceWorld Bank GDP + UCDP deaths (annual + Candidate GED) + WGI stabilityMethodCountry-year shock severity · peer-relative damageConfLow✓ ReconstructableⓘCrisis Exposure measures how severely a leader was tested — a peak-biased aggregate of per-year shock severity (conflict intensity, economic contraction and political-stability decline vs. recent normal) over the mandate. It is context, not a verdict: high exposure is neither good nor bad on its own. Crisis Response measures how the country fared during its genuine crisis years relative to comparable crisis episodes worldwide — country-years hit with the same shock severity. Higher = less national damage than peers at that severity. Leaders who never faced a major shock are marked Untested rather than rewarded. Per country-year, real WB/UCDP/WGI shocks are winsorised and percentile-ranked into a ShockSeverity; Exposure is the peak-biased mandate aggregate. Crisis years (severity ≥ 60) score Response = 100 − damage percentile among comparable-severity crises worldwide, then severity-weighted over the mandate. Untested = no major shock (never rewarded). Absent components are reweighted, never filled.
Source: World Bank + derived·Method: Contribution·✓ ReconstructableⓘEach dimension measures change under the leader relative to global trends — how the indicator moved over their tenure, net of the world's move over the same window — not the country's absolute level. A score near 60 means performance broadly matched the benchmark trajectory; above = improved the country's standing, below = declined. Governance / Economy / Politics / Institutional Integrity from World Bank WGI, WDI and V-Dem trajectories; Vision from the country's innovation rank (WIPO patents + UNESCO tertiary), former leaders only (patents lag ~3 years); Crisis Response (World Bank + UCDP + WGI, an absolute response-quality scale) and Communication (GDELT) from tenure signals; Diplomacy (Diplomatic Conduct) is active-only. A tenure under six months, or an indicator whose series hasn't reached the term, shows as no data. Full model on the Methodology page.
Stewardship
Inherited-strength lens · separate from the rating
—
Governance
—
Politics
—
Integrity
—
Innovation
—
0 of 4 groups eligible and sourced
Source: World Bank WGI + V-Dem + derived·Method: Stewardship·✓ ReconstructableⓘMeasures whether strong institutions inherited at the start of the tenure were preserved, improved or eroded. It does not reward the leader for inheriting a strong country. A metric qualifies only when the inherited baseline was at least 75 on its normalized scale; the score is the world-net change over the tenure on the single public scale (60 = preserved relative to global movement). Requires two or more eligible sourced groups, the six-month tenure floor and a post-tenure-start observation — otherwise No data, never a zero. Weights mirror the current-form groups (gov 0.17 · pol 0.15 · int 0.08 · vis 0.09), renormalized over what is eligible and sourced.
Strengths & Weaknesses
Top Strengths
Diplomacy70
International relations and multilateral negotiation
Key Weaknesses
Institutional Integrity22
Perceived transparency and anti-corruption track record
Politics52
Political coalition-building and governability
Governance53
State management and policy execution capacity
Current Challenges
Governance Accountabilityhigh
Institutional Integrity score of 22 reflects persistent accountability pressures that constrain institutional effectiveness.
Legitimacy Pressuremedium
Continuity & legitimacy of 35 points to a contested or fragile mandate underpinning Indonesia's institutions.
Source: Derived·Method: Rule-based·✓ ReconstructableⓘFlags challenges when a sourced dimension falls below the published benchmark band: any leadership dimension < 58 (severe < 48), Stability < 50, Crisis Exposure > 60, or regime continuity/legitimacy < 40 — plus an adverse Stability Trend, adverse External Conditions, or Severely Constrained / Extreme domestic context. Economy derives from World Bank indicators; Institutional Integrity from V-Dem's executive-corruption index (World Bank Control of Corruption as fallback); Communication from GDELT media reach, tone and resilience; Crisis Exposure and continuity from the stability blend. A low Communication signal can mean thin coverage OR wide-but-hostile coverage — the flag distinguishes the two.
ⓘ
Country scores are the unweighted average of scored World Bank indicators — the same model used on the nation's own page. Difficulty reflects structural constraints on governing this nation, independent of the current leader.
Mediating, negotiating and signing formal agreements as initiator (GDELT CAMEO)
Sanctions balance10%85
Sanctions the country imposes minus those imposed on it
Engagement volume10%81
Count of international diplomatic events — country-level
Media tone10%—
Favourability of foreign coverage of the leader on diplomacy — leader-level, low-weighted
Partial coverage: 90% of the formula's weight is currently sourced; the score renormalises over what's present. Remaining components appear as data lands.
SourceGDELT 2.1 Events + DOC APIMethodPerformance-under-test blend, severity-amplifiedConfMedium✓ ReconstructableⓘHow a head of state conducts themselves on the world stage, not how much activity their country generates. Blends cooperative ratio (20%), Restraint (inverse of net force projected, 20%), coalition breadth (15%), agreements & mediation (15%), sanctions balance (10%), engagement (10%) and leader media tone (10%), renormalised over available data. Test Severity (active conflict + conflictual share + sanctions received) amplifies the blend so conduct under fire moves the score more. Full model on the Methodology page.
Source: Derived·Method: Ranked by stat value·✓ ReconstructableⓘUp to 5 strengths (dimensions scoring 70+) and 5 weaknesses (scoring 57 or below), ranked from the leadership radar. Dimensions in the 58–69 benchmark band appear in neither column. Descriptions are fixed per dimension and don't vary by country. Dimensions without a sourced signal show as no data. Full model on the Methodology page.
Leadership Conditions
Government Stability
51
Contested legitimacy · Low political violence · Mixed political stability
External Conditions
51
Neutral external conditions.
Stability breakdown
Political stability33%56
WGI Political Stability & Absence of Violence
Institutional strength22%48
WGI Rule of Law, Government Effectiveness & Control of Corruption
Continuity & legitimacy17%35
V-Dem political continuity and regime legitimacy
Violence & safety17%60
UCDP organized-violence deaths, population-scaled and inverted — prefers the fresh current-year UCDP-CED reading, else the finalized annual GED
Stability trend11%52
3-year direction of the WGI stability score
Time in Office 22 months·Since 2024-10
Source: WGI · V-Dem · UCDP · trend·Method: Weighted blend·✓ ReconstructableⓘGovernment Stability blends six sourced signals, renormalised over what's available: WGI Political Stability (30%), institutional strength (20%), V-Dem continuity (15%), UCDP violence deaths (current-year UCDP-CED where available, else finalized annual GED, 15%), Fragile States social cohesion (10%) and the 3-year WGI trend (10%). External Conditions derives from a World Bank GDP-growth shock over the tenure.
