Reform: Taking its time to effect real change

Nico Harjanto, Contributor, Jakarta

---------------------------------------------------- Half-Hearted Reform: Electoral Institutions and the Struggle for Democracy in Indonesia Dwight Y. King, Praeger, Westport, Connecticutt, 2003 240 pp ------------------------------------------------

Political reform leading to democracy is a complex process, and one that Indonesia has experienced since the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998.

Many achievements have been made, such as the installation of new democratic institutions and constitutional and legal reforms. Indonesia has been praised by the international community for a peaceful and democratic general election in 1999.

However, democracy in Indonesia is far from the ideal. According to the 2003 Global Peace and Conflict report from the reputable Center of International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland, Indonesia is classified as an "anocracy".

It is a hybrid-regime in Larry Diamond's definition, where elements of authoritarian and democracy mix in its political system and processes.

One fundamental problem why the democracy is far from ideal could be traced to its electoral system and institutions. Elections, a foundation of modern democracy, shape the structure of political representation and the political process. Some countries end up in protracted transitions because their electoral systems produce electoral democracy, a minimalist type of democracy in J. Schumpeter's terminology.

Indonesia's 1999 electoral system seems inconclusive, reducing democracy to the sphere of the political elites and leaving the voters with an insignificant participatory level.

Considering the importance of this issue, King, a senior Indonesianist from Northern Illinois University, offers his most recent observations on electoral politics and democratization in Indonesia.

In the book's 10 chapters, he combines empirical analysis of aggregate election and socioeconomic data, a case study and comparative analysis. His study has two main objectives, first, to determine how and why Indonesia succeeded in installing democracy, and second, to explain the direction of the vote in the 1999 elections and its "underlying social change and continuity in the electorate".

The book is valuable not only for academicians and students, but also for members of political parties.

In this thoughtful work, he provides many analytical answers for political problems and dilemmas faced by Indonesia in its transition period. In his view, the success of the installation of democracy in Indonesia is the result of smooth but progressive changes in the transition to compacted political reform, especially in the electoral system.

Electoral reform since mid-1998 has not only changed the structure of representation with the reduction of military seats and replacement of Soeharto's cronies, but also facilitated the emergence of hundreds of new political parties.

However, he declares that the reform has been half-hearted, as it was designed to act as a compromise between the interests of the remnants of the New Order regime and emerging political forces.

In the process of electoral reform, there was debate about what system was best for Indonesia. As all electoral systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, King argues that the best system for Indonesia should be "designed to produce conciliation rather than polarization".

Therefore, he suggests that the introduction of more majoritarian aspects, or the practice of basing decisions of an organized group on the numerical majority of its members, into Indonesia's electoral system should be evaluated carefully in order to ensure that all minorities and social groupings can have equal access to power.

King also offers advanced empirical study of the 1999 elections. For those who are familiar with quantitative analysis, parts of the book on a comparison between the 1955 and 1999 elections and observations on what factors influenced the choice of the voters in 1999 are challenging.

Using factor analysis and regression and based on secondary, aggregate data, he identifies the socioeconomic factors of "Islamicness", inequality, illiteracy, and urbanization.

He also statistically proves that there are patterns of support to the political parties in the 1955 and 1999 elections. The relationship between the support for the NU party in 1955 in certain areas and for the National Awakening Party (PKB), for example, is empirically proven. These findings are very valuable for political parties' functionaries to know their traditional constituents and prospective voters.

In his comparative analysis of electoral reform and its likely effects on the consolidation of democracy, he sees post-1999 Indonesian politics as more complex and ambiguous than Thailand's parliamentary system or the Philippine presidential system. This is mostly because of the Indonesian Constitution and its amendments that creates a mixed system. This system causes "a high probability of divided government, temporal inflexibility, a less inclusive executive, greater executive instability and less democracy", King writes.

In conclusion, he is optimistic about future democratization in Indonesia. With the success of the implementation of electoral democracy, Indonesia needs only to expand democratic quality.

However, there are some issues that are not addressed in this book. Prof. King does not give much attention to the role of bureaucracy and military in post-authoritarian electoral politics in Indonesia. These institutions, with the ongoing paternalistic tradition, are still influential in directing votes.

Another issue is the failure of Islamic political parties in the 1999 elections and its impact. Lastly, this book offers limited explanation of why the Golkar Party, the ruling political grouping under Soeharto and a target for the reform movement, was able to gain a significant number of votes in the elections.

If King made a case study in West Java instead of Sleman in Yogyakarta, for instance, there could be more explanation of why many people in areas close to the center of the reform movement ended up voting for Golkar.

The reviewer is a researcher at the Department of Politics and Social Change, CSIS, Jakarta.