View the Prabowo Subianto ethical assessment profile
This assessment does not reduce the subject to one moral ranking. Each dimension is scored separately from −100 to +100 and must be read with its evidence and uncertainty.
Scorecard status: Recalculated under multidimensional system
The assessment covers allegations arising from military command, democratic accountability, military expansion into civilian government, nutrition policy, economic development, religious freedom, West Papua and suppression of dissent.
The score evaluates documented public conduct during the stated period. It does not measure inherent human worth, does not constitute a legal verdict and remains open to correction when stronger evidence becomes available.
Prabowo's social and economic programmes may create substantial benefit, but his ethical record remains burdened by unresolved military-era allegations and a presidency that has expanded military influence and restricted civic accountability.
This assessment presents six separate ethical dimensions rather than one overall moral score. Each result must be read with its evidence, plausible range, confidence, disputes, exclusions, severe-harm findings and sources.
| Domain | Score | Intensity | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequences | +5.0 | 5.0 | C — moderate |
| Rights and duties | -40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate |
| Virtue and character | -45.0 | 45.0 | C — moderate |
| Intentions | -15.0 | 15.0 | C — moderate |
| Care | +5.0 | 5.0 | C — moderate |
| Justice | -35.0 | 35.0 | C — moderate |
| Wisdom and judgment | -25.0 | 25.0 | C — moderate |
| Baseline ethics | -40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate |
| Positive pole | Negative pole | Score | Intensity | Confidence | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human dignity | Dehumanisation | -40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Human dignity and Dehumanisation. |
| Care | Neglect | +5.0 | 5.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Care and Neglect. |
| Benefit | Harm | +5.0 | 5.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benefit and Harm. |
| Responsibility | Irresponsibility | -15.0 | 15.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Responsibility and Irresponsibility. |
| Justice | Injustice | -35.0 | 35.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Justice and Injustice. |
| Respect for rights | Violation of rights | -40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Respect for rights and Violation of rights. |
| Integrity | Corruption | -45.0 | 45.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Integrity and Corruption. |
| Prudence | Recklessness | -25.0 | 25.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Prudence and Recklessness. |
The strongest positive evidence concerns the free nutritious meals programme, continued economic growth and stated commitments to religious tolerance and social welfare.
The score is reduced by unresolved responsibility for past abuses, renewed military influence, repression of dissent, discrimination and weak accountability.
PRA-C1
Food and development programmes may improve welfare, while coercive governance and environmental and fiscal risks reduce expected benefit.
PRA-R1
Expression, assembly, religious minorities and Papuan communities faced continuing restrictions and discrimination.
PRA-V1
Past allegations remain unresolved, while active military influence in civilian government weakened transparent accountability.
PRA-I1
Nutrition and development goals were constructive, but institutional choices increased military control and reduced correction.
PRA-CA1
The meals programme reflects practical concern, while Papuans, minorities and critics received inadequate protection.
PRA-J1
Historical accountability remained unresolved and minority communities faced unequal treatment by state institutions.
PRA-W1
Ambitious social and industrial policies lacked sufficient transparency and were paired with renewed military political influence.
PRA-B1
Intimidation, discrimination and militarised governance treated affected communities as obstacles rather than equal rights holders.
Prabowo denies responsibility for serious historical abuses and supporters emphasise electoral legitimacy and social programmes. The assessment distinguishes established institutional findings from unresolved personal allegations.
Criminal responsibility not established by a competent court was not treated as a conviction or severe-violation finding.
No corrections have been recorded.