Reform: Taking its time to effect real change<\/p>\n
Nico Harjanto, Contributor, Jakarta<\/p>\n
----------------------------------------------------
\nHalf-Hearted Reform: Electoral Institutions and the Struggle for
\nDemocracy in Indonesia
\nDwight Y. King, Praeger, Westport, Connecticutt, 2003
\n240 pp
\n------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
Political reform leading to democracy is a complex process, and
\none that Indonesia has experienced since the fall of the Soeharto
\nregime in 1998.<\/p>\n
Many achievements have been made, such as the installation of
\nnew democratic institutions and constitutional and legal reforms.
\nIndonesia has been praised by the international community for a
\npeaceful and democratic general election in 1999.<\/p>\n
However, democracy in Indonesia is far from the ideal.
\nAccording to the 2003 Global Peace and Conflict report from the
\nreputable Center of International Development and Conflict
\nManagement at the University of Maryland, Indonesia is classified
\nas an "anocracy".<\/p>\n
It is a hybrid-regime in Larry Diamond's definition, where
\nelements of authoritarian and democracy mix in its political
\nsystem and processes.<\/p>\n
One fundamental problem why the democracy is far from ideal
\ncould be traced to its electoral system and institutions.
\nElections, a foundation of modern democracy, shape the structure
\nof political representation and the political process. Some
\ncountries end up in protracted transitions because their
\nelectoral systems produce electoral democracy, a minimalist type
\nof democracy in J. Schumpeter's terminology.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's 1999 electoral system seems inconclusive, reducing
\ndemocracy to the sphere of the political elites and leaving the
\nvoters with an insignificant participatory level.<\/p>\n
Considering the importance of this issue, King, a senior
\nIndonesianist from Northern Illinois University, offers his most
\nrecent observations on electoral politics and democratization in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
In the book's 10 chapters, he combines empirical analysis of
\naggregate election and socioeconomic data, a case study and
\ncomparative analysis. His study has two main objectives, first,
\nto determine how and why Indonesia succeeded in installing
\ndemocracy, and second, to explain the direction of the vote in
\nthe 1999 elections and its "underlying social change and
\ncontinuity in the electorate".<\/p>\n
The book is valuable not only for academicians and students,
\nbut also for members of political parties.<\/p>\n
In this thoughtful work, he provides many analytical answers
\nfor political problems and dilemmas faced by Indonesia in its
\ntransition period. In his view, the success of the installation
\nof democracy in Indonesia is the result of smooth but progressive
\nchanges in the transition to compacted political reform,
\nespecially in the electoral system.<\/p>\n
Electoral reform since mid-1998 has not only changed the
\nstructure of representation with the reduction of military seats
\nand replacement of Soeharto's cronies, but also facilitated the
\nemergence of hundreds of new political parties.<\/p>\n
However, he declares that the reform has been half-hearted, as
\nit was designed to act as a compromise between the interests of
\nthe remnants of the New Order regime and emerging political
\nforces.<\/p>\n
In the process of electoral reform, there was debate about
\nwhat system was best for Indonesia. As all electoral systems have
\ntheir own strengths and weaknesses, King argues that the best
\nsystem for Indonesia should be "designed to produce conciliation
\nrather than polarization".<\/p>\n
Therefore, he suggests that the introduction of more
\nmajoritarian aspects, or the practice of basing decisions of an
\norganized group on the numerical majority of its members, into
\nIndonesia's electoral system should be evaluated carefully in
\norder to ensure that all minorities and social groupings can have
\nequal access to power.<\/p>\n
King also offers advanced empirical study of the 1999
\nelections. For those who are familiar with quantitative analysis,
\nparts of the book on a comparison between the 1955 and 1999
\nelections and observations on what factors influenced the choice
\nof the voters in 1999 are challenging.<\/p>\n
Using factor analysis and regression and based on secondary,
\naggregate data, he identifies the socioeconomic factors of
\n"Islamicness", inequality, illiteracy, and urbanization.<\/p>\n
He also statistically proves that there are patterns of
\nsupport to the political parties in the 1955 and 1999 elections.
\nThe relationship between the support for the NU party in 1955 in
\ncertain areas and for the National Awakening Party (PKB), for
\nexample, is empirically proven. These findings are very valuable
\nfor political parties' functionaries to know their traditional
\nconstituents and prospective voters.<\/p>\n
In his comparative analysis of electoral reform and its likely
\neffects on the consolidation of democracy, he sees post-1999
\nIndonesian politics as more complex and ambiguous than Thailand's
\nparliamentary system or the Philippine presidential system. This
\nis mostly because of the Indonesian Constitution and its
\namendments that creates a mixed system. This system causes "a
\nhigh probability of divided government, temporal inflexibility, a
\nless inclusive executive, greater executive instability and less
\ndemocracy", King writes.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, he is optimistic about future democratization
\nin Indonesia. With the success of the implementation of electoral
\ndemocracy, Indonesia needs only to expand democratic quality.<\/p>\n
However, there are some issues that are not addressed in this
\nbook. Prof. King does not give much attention to the role of
\nbureaucracy and military in post-authoritarian electoral politics
\nin Indonesia. These institutions, with the ongoing paternalistic
\ntradition, are still influential in directing votes.<\/p>\n
Another issue is the failure of Islamic political parties in
\nthe 1999 elections and its impact. Lastly, this book offers
\nlimited explanation of why the Golkar Party, the ruling political
\ngrouping under Soeharto and a target for the reform movement, was
\nable to gain a significant number of votes in the elections.<\/p>\n
If King made a case study in West Java instead of Sleman in
\nYogyakarta, for instance, there could be more explanation of why
\nmany people in areas close to the center of the reform movement
\nended up voting for Golkar.<\/p>\n
The reviewer is a researcher at the Department of Politics and
\nSocial Change, CSIS, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reform-taking-its-time-to-effect-real-change-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}