Indonesia’s democratization stagnant but not lost
Fifteen years after Soeharto’s New Order, what of the efforts to create a democratic order? According to mainstream political scientists, democracy equals institutions for freedom and fair elections, Indonesia is a success story and liberal democracy is evolving.
For radical political economists who say that such institutions are subordinate to material resources, Indonesia is ruled by oligarchs and shock therapy is needed. What would a more nuanced analysis look like?
Today, emerging results can be found from the third comprehensive assessment of Indonesia’s democratization. Previous studies (2003 2004, 2007) were conducted by Demos (a researchNGO), together with the University of Oslo (UiO). The current survey is within a broader study titled “Power, Welfare and Democracy” at Gadjah Mada University (UGM), supported by UiO.
The questions remain the same: To what extent do institutions and actors really contribute to the development of democracy in terms of the popular control of public affairs on the basis of political equality; and what are the problems and options?
The method is also replicated: collecting information by systematic in depth interviews (sixeight hours each) with the best experts on the ground among more than 600 committed scholars and experienced activists around the country as well as in Jakarta.
What do the early results reveal? There are three key words: stagnation, openings and excitement.
Stagnation, most obviously, is about the persistence of corruption, poor rule of law and political inequalities. This is the ironic outcome of the impressive combination of stability in a coherent political system and extensive elections, freedom and citizen organizations. Powerful actors have not just adjusted to the new rules of the game, they have also decided the details of these rules to their own advantage, such as by making it very difficult for new parties to participate in elections.
Similarly, they have retained their political capacity to dominate the game as such; a rich soccer team tends to win against a poor one even if they follow the same rules.
The media speaks at length of corruption and of the agencies fighting it, but the basic problem is a lack of representation of those who really are against the abuse of power and could make a difference.
Indonesia has not allowed people to form a small prodemocratic anticorruption party on the basis of social movements and participate and win elections, as recently in New Delhi.
Such a victory is certainly not enough, it takes more than a party of discontent to develop alternative policies. But in Indonesia, scattered civil society activists and other informal leaders have only been able to “do politics” individually by invitation from elitedominated parties, even without coordination through broad social movements and interest organizations.