Democracy Baseline Survey

Leading Researchers: Professor Olle Törnquist, Amalinda Savirani, PhD, Hasrul Hanif, MA, Willy Purna Samadhi, MA, & Eric Hiariej, PhD

The baseline survey on the development of democracy is the first item on the project’s research agenda. The assessment allowed researchers to map the landscape of democracy and Indonesia’s progress towards democratisation. The core question addressed concerns, not only on the state of democracy—although this was an important component—but also on existing challenges to or alternatives for developing a more substantive democracy. In other words, the goal was to assess support for the aims of democracy, as defined by Beetham (1999)ⁱ and in widely accepted terms as the popular control of public affairs on the basis of political equality. The assessment also highlighted the critical issues that require further analysis through special thematic studies. In addition, the survey was aimed to produce beneficial engagement in robust and consistent comparative and longitudinal studies on the processes of democratisation across countries in the Global South and farther afield—including, for instance, the countries of Scandinavia.

The baseline survey did not require a new analytical framework and set of survey questions. The framework developed and applied by the Center for Democracy and Human Rights (Lembaga Kajian Demokrasi dan Hak Asasi, Demos) and the University of Oslo (Universiteit i Oslo, OiU) in 2003-2004 and 2007 (Priyono et al., 2007ⁱⁱ; Samadhi & Warouw, 2009ⁱⁱⁱ) continued to provide a useful guideline for the assessment of both crucial rights and institutional standards and the will and capacity of vital actors to use and support them. The assessment question on institutional standards was based on Beetham’s (1999) separation between the aims and means of democracy and addressed institutional effectiveness to promote democracy. This model was modified slightly to account for the expansion and scope of standard institutions, as well as to encompass informal institutions. A supplementary focus on actors and actor capacity was rooted in theories on social and political organizations and power relations. This became a key aspect of the new survey; actors’ politics and policies—as well as actor capacity to support or abandon rights and institutions—largely depends upon relations of power.

In addition to examining the components outlined in previous surveys, the PWD Project has provided follow up to Demos and UiO’s previous research accomplishments. Results from initial surveys conducted in 2003-2004 and 2007 were previously published and have gained public approval. By maintaining the basic framework of the previous surveys, the PWD project has had the unique opportunity to trace the process of democratisation and discuss its pros and cons over a substantial time period. As in many other countries, an ability to map and analyse change over time is crucial for well-informed policy development.

The next step of the study was for expert representatives of UiO who conducted the previous surveys with Demos to assist the research team in drawing in refining the framework and specific survey questions to expand on the dimensions of power and welfare most relevant to the PWD project.

The Demos/UiO survey was considered both an expert and action-oriented survey. Information was collected from leading pro-democracy activists who were both dedicated to the dissemination of survey results, as well as to their utilization for the further development of democracy. This strategy was central to the PWD Project as well. In other words, the use of an academically rigorous study to increase knowledge production contributes significantly to discourses and progress towards democratisation. As was the case with previous surveys, however, further work was needed to engage and train reliable and embedded key informants and assistants throughout the country.

The research team made no attempt to aggregate information on various indicators or to construct the often-arbitrary indexes so commonly employed in mainstream assessments. Rather, any aggregation or weighting of data was grounded in comprehensive and grounded theories of democratisation.

Special attention was also given to two necessary conditions for democracy that should be assumed in mainstream assessment schemes: The first is a clearly defined demos (people or populace) based on two perspectives: (i) officially defined demos versus existing political identities on matters of public concern and (ii) the socio-political construction of demos. In both cases, the demos within a democracy should be considered as politically equal to members within a political community. The second regards the definition of the public affairs that a country’s citizens control, on the basis of political equality.

The survey additionally considered a number of democratic processes that are largely excluded from conventional liberal democratic models, but which play important roles in social democratic models, including interest based representation. In order to avoid over-packing the new survey with too many dimensions and questions, the following fifteen democratic processes were targeted and supplemented by contextual indicators:

• Equal and inclusive citizenship, in relation to clearly defined public affairs
• Governance that aligns with international law and UN conventions
• The rule of law
• Equal access to justice
• Civil and human rights, including social and economic rights
• Basic needs and education, including citizens’ rights and democracy
• Democratic political representation through parties and elections
• Institutionalised channels for interest- and issues-based representation
• Citizens’ participatory constitutional and legal rights
• Democratic decentralisation without the compromise of citizen rights
• Democratic control of instruments of coercion (including private forces)
• Transparent, impartial and accountable governance
• Government independence and capacity to implement decisions
• Freedom of and access to public discourse, culture and academia
• Democratic civil society

Actors and their politics and policies

In the previous assessment, additional focuses included identifying the most important dominant and alternative actors and asking how these related to the institutional democratic processes. This was crucial to determine the extent to which various actors already abided by the rules of democratic governance or attempted to adjust to them. The PWD assessment addressed the same issues, but also examined the processes and dynamics involved, in order to understand the politics and policies of the actors. This expanded focus generated a clearer picture on whether and how some actors assume dominance and adjust certain means of democracy towards their own interests.

Actors’ capacity

A major addition to the previous assessment has been data collection on actors’ political capacity, or their power to avoid, abuse, use or promote the institutional means of democracy in accordance with the five basic variables extracted from theories on power relations and political and social movements. The PWD project followed up on previous surveys by adding the following dimensions to address the dynamics of involved processes:

• Political exclusion and inclusion
• Ability to transform economic, social, cultural and coercive capital into authority (i.e., political power)
• Capacity to transform private concerns into public political matters
• Capacity to mobilise and organise support for demands and policies
• Ability to use, reform or develop existing means of participation

The political dynamics of domination and resistance and attempts to develop alternatives for the democratisation process – Special focus on representation

A major weakness in the previous analytical framework and assessment studies was a lack of resources that would allow for the mapping and analysis of crucial variables to determine how such variables are related within political processes and dynamics. This information is crucial: Without knowledge on political dynamics, a study may only assess advances and deficits within democracy, but not why those advances or deficits exist or, even more importantly, what can be done to tackle existing problems.

By their nature, studies on process and dynamics will not be as comprehensive as a general survey. They require a limited focus. In the case of the PWD study, this focus was limited to the major problem of democratisation identified in previous surveys: a lack of popular representation. Several conclusions regarding this problem require further examination of what took place between 2003 and 2007. For example, elite dominance led to the marginalisation of independent representation for the interests of middle and lower classes of people. Additionally, the era saw an increase in both lobby groups exercising so-called liberal pressures and the importance of personal contacts and networking, at the expense of institutionalised forms of interest representation. The polycentric, often divisive nature of participation and related representation led to confusion over what public affairs citizens were supposed to influence, with regards to individual territories, sectors and issues.

In subsequent studies, dilemmas over representation were examined, with special attention to how key actors manage issues of power, welfare and sustainable development. Törnquist, Webster and Stokke (2009^iv) and Törnquist (2011^v) developed the following points of departure for the current study’s special analytical focus:

• Projects and strategies in democratisation: In addition to examining the problems of representation, the PWD project pays special attention to the dynamics of various political projects, strategies and related practices.
• From research to recommendations: Following an identification of the problems of democratic institutions, balance of power, project dynamics and strategies in democratisation, the roots of such problems are identified and compared with experiences in context in order to develop recommendations on strategies to successfully tackle them. This forms the basis for scholarly and transparent recommendations—grounded in empirical research—on transformative democratic politics. The aim is to challenge the increasingly prevalent proposition that Indonesian democratisation developed prematurely and that the country requires stronger leadership to build strong institutions.
• Operationalisation and training: Greater attention has been given to preparatory workshops with the team, local partners and key informants in order to develop indicators and questions for the survey.

Identifying the Problems and Options of Democratisation in Indonesia

The primary objective of the most recent survey has been to revisit and analyse problems and recommendations on Indonesian democratisation approximately five years after the previous assessment. Research questions were as follows:

• What are the continuities and changes?
• What are the advances and setbacks?
• What is the status of the major conclusions regarding problems and recommendations identified in the previous two assessments?
• What is the status of the popular representation needed to enact policies for sustainable, welfare-based growth?
• How do these findings compare with country trends elsewhere in the Global South?
  • Based on this comparison, what recommendations can be made on democratic transformation?

The baseline survey proved to be crucial as a data-rich foundation for a deeper knowledge of democratisation issues and expanded thematic studies on democracy and related education and training. The survey and its conclusions will also serve as a reference database for future studies and policy-making research.

Expected outcomes

The following survey outcomes are expected:

• Status report on the state of democracy and democratisation in Indonesia.
• Baseline knowledge on the problems and options for promoting a more substantive democracy, for the benefit of scholars, students, experts, journalists, politicians and activists.
• Identification and specification of particular issues that call for more detailed studies, some of which may be carried out within the MA and PhD educational framework.
• Assessment on whether and how transformative democratic politics can facilitate (i) improved popular representation and (ii) welfare-based sustainable development.
• Definitive knowledge on problems of democratisation related to power and welfare following the 2014 elections.

Research location: Nationwide

The survey was carried in selected territories nationwide, with a special focus on engaging a large number of representatives from various political contexts at the district level, as well as a number of central governing institutions.

i. Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
ii. Priyono, A. E., Samadhi, W. P., and Törnquist, O. 2007. Making Democracy Meaningful: Problems and Options in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Demos – PCD.
iii. Samadhi, W. P., & Warouw, N. (2009). Demokrasi di Atas Pasir. Jakarta-Yogyakarta: Demos – PCD.
iv. Törnquist, O., Webster, N., & Stokke, K. (2009) Rethinking Popular Representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
v. Törnquist, O.(2011). Dynamics of peace and democratization: The Aceh lessons. Democratization, 18(3), 823–846.