Reform: Taking its time to effect real change
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.