Komunikasi Politik Dalam Reshuffle Jilid V Kabinet Merah Putih

Abstract

The Fifth Cabinet Reshuffle of the Red and White Cabinet conducted by President Prabowo Subianto on April 29, 2026, generated diverse discourses in the mass media, particularly regarding the strengthening of government communication through the appointment of the Head of the Government Communication Agency and the Presidential Special Advisor for Communication Affairs. Media coverage revealed debates over whether the reshuffle represented an effort to improve government communication or merely a strategy of political consolidation. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the representation of the cabinet reshuffle as a political communication strategy in the mass media. This study employed a qualitative approach using Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model. The research data consisted of nine news articles concerning the Fifth Reshuffle of the Red and White Cabinet published by Kompas, Tempo, and Jawa Pos during the period of April 29–May 5, 2026. The analysis was conducted through Fairclough’s three dimensions: text analysis, discursive practice, and social practice. The findings indicate that the Fifth Cabinet Reshuffle of the Red and White Cabinet was represented differently across the media. Kompas and Tempo tended to frame the reshuffle as a form of political consolidation and the strengthening of governmental legitimacy, whereas Jawa Pos emphasized it as an effort to improve government communication and enhance administrative effectiveness. This study concludes that the fifth reshuffle of the Merah Putih Cabinet was represented in the media not only as an administrative mechanism for replacing government officials, but also as a political communication strategy aimed at strengthening governmental legitimacy, managing political image (impression management), and responding to public criticism and evolving public discourse. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of political communication is determined not solely by the government's capacity to manage and disseminate messages, but also by the extent to which the narratives it promotes are aligned with the substantive outcomes of policies experienced by society.