Indonesia: An "in-danger" state?
Alexandra Retno Wulan, Jakarta
Foreign Policy magazine just released its 2009 Failed States Index (FSI) in its July/August edition. Unsurprisingly, Indonesia is still listed in the second “worst” category - titled the “in-danger” list.
It might be true that this period of time has been a very fragile period for states throughout the globe. The virulent global financial crisis, natural disasters and government collapses, the most ubiquitous features.
However, it remains important to examine more deeply what went wrong and who is to blame for the “in-danger” status, especially as Indonesians have the chance to change this reputation in the presidential election.
Foreign Policy examined 12 indicators of state vulnerability that cover social, economic and political issues. The 12 indicators include demographic pressures, refugees/IDPs, group grievances, human flight, uneven development, economic decline, state legitimacy, public services, human rights, security apparatuses, factionalized elites and external intervention.
Each indicator is ranked on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 representing the most vulnerable; hence the total score is on a scale of 0 to 120, with 0 being the most stable.
For the last five years, Indonesia’s total score has ranged from 83.3 to 89.2, thus, Indonesia has repeatedly been listed as “in-danger”. Indonesia scored 84.1 in the 2009 Failed States Index (FSI), but scored 83.3 last year and 87 in 2005.
In the social indicators, Indonesia’s population growth rate increased the demographic pressures rating from 7 to 7.3, additionally, a lack of substantial improvements in state policy regarding minority groups, such as the banning of Ahmadiyah, the anti-pornography law and the relations between the state and the indigenous people of West Papua, led to a higher ranking in the group grievances indicator, 6.5 this year from 5.9 in 2008.
In the economic indicators, Indonesia undoubtedly suffered from the global financial crisis. Thus, the rating for economic decline rose from 6.3 to 6.9. Additionally, the government seemed to fail to deal with uneven development. Despite the fact that the government has expanded its decentralization policies, Indonesia still has vast disparities between urban and rural development, as well as unequal development in Java and Bali in comparison to other islands.
This combination of factors certainly increased Indonesia’s rating for uneven development from 8 in the FSI 2008 to 8.1 in the FSI 2009.
In the political indicators, the most striking increases were in the factionalized elites and security apparatus categories. These indicators signify the potential failure of the government to ensure civilian supremacy due to lack of civilian capacity to manage security spheres, and the failure to develop a mature democracy in Indonesia.
Military reform in Indonesia has successfully taken place and the military has retracted from day-to-day politics. It is about time to start the military transformation period to ensure that the score for the security apparatus category eventually declines. Additionally, the commitment to increase the welfare of soldiers and assurances for a better weapons system for the armed forces (TNI) would contribute greatly to insulating the possible emergence of praetorian guards that serve the interest of regime.
Moving from the rank of 60 to 62 is indeed a positive step for Indonesia. However, the fact that Indonesia is still considered an “in-danger” state, at least since 2005, cannot be considered an achievement.
Much work is needed to successfully manage a volatile economy, sectarian strife, disparities in development, effective government and professional armed forces. It is important for Indonesians to cast their votes for a future leader that will be able to switch the status of Indonesia from an “in-danger” state to one of stability.
The writer is a researcher at the politics and international relations department, CSIS Jakarta.
Foreign Policy magazine just released its 2009 Failed States Index (FSI) in its July/August edition. Unsurprisingly, Indonesia is still listed in the second “worst” category - titled the “in-danger” list.
It might be true that this period of time has been a very fragile period for states throughout the globe. The virulent global financial crisis, natural disasters and government collapses, the most ubiquitous features.
However, it remains important to examine more deeply what went wrong and who is to blame for the “in-danger” status, especially as Indonesians have the chance to change this reputation in the presidential election.
Foreign Policy examined 12 indicators of state vulnerability that cover social, economic and political issues. The 12 indicators include demographic pressures, refugees/IDPs, group grievances, human flight, uneven development, economic decline, state legitimacy, public services, human rights, security apparatuses, factionalized elites and external intervention.
Each indicator is ranked on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 representing the most vulnerable; hence the total score is on a scale of 0 to 120, with 0 being the most stable.
For the last five years, Indonesia’s total score has ranged from 83.3 to 89.2, thus, Indonesia has repeatedly been listed as “in-danger”. Indonesia scored 84.1 in the 2009 Failed States Index (FSI), but scored 83.3 last year and 87 in 2005.
In the social indicators, Indonesia’s population growth rate increased the demographic pressures rating from 7 to 7.3, additionally, a lack of substantial improvements in state policy regarding minority groups, such as the banning of Ahmadiyah, the anti-pornography law and the relations between the state and the indigenous people of West Papua, led to a higher ranking in the group grievances indicator, 6.5 this year from 5.9 in 2008.
In the economic indicators, Indonesia undoubtedly suffered from the global financial crisis. Thus, the rating for economic decline rose from 6.3 to 6.9. Additionally, the government seemed to fail to deal with uneven development. Despite the fact that the government has expanded its decentralization policies, Indonesia still has vast disparities between urban and rural development, as well as unequal development in Java and Bali in comparison to other islands.
This combination of factors certainly increased Indonesia’s rating for uneven development from 8 in the FSI 2008 to 8.1 in the FSI 2009.
In the political indicators, the most striking increases were in the factionalized elites and security apparatus categories. These indicators signify the potential failure of the government to ensure civilian supremacy due to lack of civilian capacity to manage security spheres, and the failure to develop a mature democracy in Indonesia.
Military reform in Indonesia has successfully taken place and the military has retracted from day-to-day politics. It is about time to start the military transformation period to ensure that the score for the security apparatus category eventually declines. Additionally, the commitment to increase the welfare of soldiers and assurances for a better weapons system for the armed forces (TNI) would contribute greatly to insulating the possible emergence of praetorian guards that serve the interest of regime.
Moving from the rank of 60 to 62 is indeed a positive step for Indonesia. However, the fact that Indonesia is still considered an “in-danger” state, at least since 2005, cannot be considered an achievement.
Much work is needed to successfully manage a volatile economy, sectarian strife, disparities in development, effective government and professional armed forces. It is important for Indonesians to cast their votes for a future leader that will be able to switch the status of Indonesia from an “in-danger” state to one of stability.
The writer is a researcher at the politics and international relations department, CSIS Jakarta.