Anies Jawab Ganjar Soal Ibu Kota Pindah Ke Ikn: Jangan Tiru Belanda: The statement “jangan tiru Belanda” (“don’t imitate the Dutch”) delivered by Anies Baswedan during the First Indonesian Presidential Debate 2024 has become one of the most quoted political moments of recent years. Even in 2026, the exchange between Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo continues to shape public discourse around the relocation of Indonesia’s capital to IKN Nusantara.
Context: The 2024 Presidential Debate and the IKN Issue
The debate took place on December 12, 2023, organized by the General Elections Commission (KPU) at its headquarters in Menteng, Central Jakarta. The event featured the three presidential candidates:
-
Anies Baswedan (Candidate No. 1)
-
Prabowo Subianto (Candidate No. 2)
-
Ganjar Pranowo (Candidate No. 3)
The debate theme covered governance, law, human rights, anti-corruption, democracy, public services, and social harmony—with the issue of moving the capital city emerging as a central topic.
By that time, the IKN Nusantara project in East Kalimantan, initiated under President Joko Widodo, was already under construction. Ganjar Pranowo, aligned with the ruling coalition, strongly supported the project as part of a broader vision of Indonesia-centric development.
Ganjar Pranowo’s Question: The Case for IKN
Indonesia-Centric Development Vision
Ganjar Pranowo framed his question around the idea that Indonesia should no longer be Java-centric, arguing that Jakarta’s long-standing problems justified the capital relocation.
He cited:
-
Chronic traffic congestion
-
Urban overcrowding and migration
-
Severe air pollution
-
Uneven development across regions
Ganjar asked Anies directly whether he supported the idea of moving the capital as part of Indonesia’s “big dream” to create balanced national development.
Implicit Support for Jokowi’s Legacy
Ganjar’s question was not neutral. It reflected strong support for:
-
The IKN Nusantara project
-
President Jokowi’s long-term infrastructure agenda
-
The belief that Jakarta’s burden could be eased by shifting the center of governance
This positioned Ganjar clearly as a continuity candidate, defending IKN as both symbolic and practical.
Anies Baswedan’s Core Response: “Don’t Leave Problems—Solve Them”
Anies Baswedan’s answer was structured around a philosophical argument rather than a technical one.
“Problems Should Be Solved, Not Abandoned”
Anies stated emphatically:
“If there is a problem, don’t leave it—solve it.”
He argued that moving the capital does not solve Jakarta’s core problems, such as:
-
Pollution
-
Flooding
-
Land subsidence
-
Inequality
According to Anies, relocating civil servants (ASN) to IKN would reduce Jakarta’s congestion by only 4–7 percent, since:
-
Businesses would remain in Jakarta
-
Families of ASN would often stay behind
-
Economic activity would not fully move
In his view, Jakarta would still suffer, but with less political attention.
“Jangan Tiru Belanda”: The Historical Analogy Explained
Colonial Batavia and Weltevreden
The most memorable part of Anies’ response was his historical analogy:
“Don’t imitate the Dutch.”
He referred to the colonial era, when the Dutch moved their administrative center from Old Batavia (Kota Tua) to Weltevreden (today’s Monas area) due to:
-
Disease
-
Poor sanitation
-
Land subsidence
Instead of fixing Old Batavia, the colonial government abandoned it, leaving long-term urban decay.
Why the Analogy Resonated
Anies warned that IKN risks repeating this mistake:
-
Jakarta could be politically sidelined
-
Structural problems might remain unresolved
-
Urban inequality could worsen
This analogy struck a chord because it:
-
Connected modern policy to historical injustice
-
Framed IKN as a potential elite escape, not a solution
-
Appealed to nationalist sentiment and collective memory
The phrase “jangan tiru Belanda” quickly went viral, becoming a symbol of resistance to what critics saw as symbolic but shallow development.
Legal and Budgetary Criticism of the IKN Project
Beyond philosophy and history, Anies also raised procedural and governance concerns.
Criticism of the IKN Law (UU IKN)
Anies argued that the IKN Law was:
-
Drafted and passed too quickly
-
Lacking meaningful public participation
-
Insufficiently debated in parliament
He suggested that a project of such national significance should have involved:
-
Broader civil society input
-
Academic review
-
Regional consultation
Budget Priorities and Social Justice
Anies further criticized the allocation of state funds, pointing out that:
-
Many schools in Kalimantan remain in poor condition
-
Basic public services still need funding
-
Large budgets were instead directed to a new capital city
This argument reframed IKN as not just an infrastructure issue, but a question of justice and priorities.
Political Impact and Long-Term Significance (2026 Perspective)
A Clear Divide in Vision
The debate crystallized the ideological divide among candidates:
-
Ganjar & Prabowo: Pro-IKN, continuity, infrastructure-led growth
-
Anies: Skeptical, problem-solving-first, governance-focused
Anies did not simply reject IKN—he challenged its underlying logic.
Why the Statement Still Matters in 2026
By 2026, as IKN development continues, Anies’ warning remains relevant:
-
Questions about cost, environmental impact, and equity persist
-
Jakarta’s problems have not disappeared
-
Public debate increasingly focuses on urban reform vs relocation
The phrase “jangan tiru Belanda” has become shorthand for:
-
Avoiding cosmetic solutions
-
Learning from history
-
Demanding accountability in mega-projects
Conclusion
Anies Jawab Ganjar Soal Ibu Kota Pindah Ke Ikn: Jangan Tiru Belanda: The exchange between Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo during the 2024 presidential debate was more than a campaign moment—it was a philosophical clash over how Indonesia should face its future.
Anies’ statement “jangan tiru Belanda” framed the IKN debate as a choice between solving structural problems or moving away from them. Whether one agrees or disagrees, the argument forced Indonesians—and global observers—to think more deeply about development, history, and justice.
In 2026, the debate remains a key reference point in understanding Indonesia’s political direction and the true meaning of nation-building.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What did Anies mean by “jangan tiru Belanda”?
He warned against abandoning Jakarta’s problems, referencing colonial-era mistakes.
2. Did Anies reject IKN entirely?
He criticized the approach and priorities, not development itself.
3. Why did Ganjar support IKN?
He viewed it as part of Indonesia-centric development and national equity.
4. Was the debate widely covered?
Yes, it was broadcast live and widely discussed in national media.
5. Is the IKN project still controversial in 2026?
Yes, debates about cost, governance, and effectiveness continue.