Contemporary Southeast Asia

Case Study Paper

Daniel Hookins

2010

Indonesian democracy and democratization efforts

Many countries of Southeast Asia experience varying degrees of democracy – ranging from countries
such as Burma, who under authoritarian rule, have little or no democracy – to countries with
‘electoral’ democracies such as Indonesia. This is a country with a long history of authoritarian rule,
but is now seen as the torchbearer for democracy in the region. This case study paper will focus on
the democracy and democratisation of Indonesia. It will investigate the issues surrounding this
relatively new democracy, including the historical socio-political and economic factors that have
brought about democracy in Indonesia. It will then look at the current issues that risk the stability of
a democratic system within Indonesia – particularly in the areas of corruption, freedom of the press,
freedom of religion, issues regarding separatism and social divisions and also the ways in which long
periods of authoritarian-style government have impacted on Indonesian political culture today.

Griffiths et. al. describe democratisation as being the “processes associated with the spread of
democracy around the world from its core in Western Europe and North America.” (Griffiths,
O’Callaghan and Roach 2008: 68) Since gaining independence from Dutch rule in 1945, Indonesia has
been through various stages of democratisation – but, ultimately democracy had not flourished in
Indonesia until 1999. The first attempt to initiate a democratic system in Indonesia lasted from 1950
to 1957 and featured multiple political parties and a parliamentary government. However, due to
the unstable nature of the country – as it transitioned from dependence on the Dutch colonisers, to
its own independence – there was great political unrest. It was the democratic system itself that
was blamed for the Indonesia’s failed economy and for the collapse of the country’s infrastructure.
Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, put forward a new idea of democracy – one which he believed
was more fitting to the traditional Indonesian culture – this has been given the term ‘guided
democracy’. Ultimately “Sukarno’s notion of a unique, indigenous form of guided democracy was
readily embraced as more fitting for Indonesia.” (Dayley and Neher 2010: 199) Traditionally
Indonesian political culture has been based on a hierarchical and authoritarian structure. The

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 1

central authority figure does not often tolerate the individual or independent gathering of power -
as this will threaten the stability of the state. “Sukarno’s notion of democracy appeared to fit
traditional Javanese value systems in which power is bestowed upon one person, usually a sultan.”
(ibid: 120) The prevalence of Javanese hierarchical culture can still be seen in Indonesia today –
notably in the special provinces, such as Yogyakarta in Central Java – which remains a sultanate to
this day and the sultan continues to have strong support from the local people (Conley 2009). This
idea of ‘guided democracy’ during the time of Sukarno was seen differently by Indonesians than it
was by those living in Western democracies. As Dayley and Neher put it, to the Indonesian
perspective, “guided democracy was the most effective way to make policy.” However, from a
Western perspective, “guided democracy ensured the perpetuation of Sukarno’s power at the
expense of the liberties and openness available under liberal democracy.” (ibid: 120) This lack of
civil and electoral freedom only became more restrictive during the successive Suharto era – who
came to power, with military backing, in 1968.

Suharto’s authoritarian regime is known as the “New Order”. This was a regime that was even less
focused on democracy and instead focused on centralised rule with a strong military backing. Amy
Freedman describes the Suharto era and says that over time “Suharto created an authoritarian
regime characterized by tightly centralized control and personal rule. He gradually asserted control
over the military (ABRI) and gave the army generous resources, personnel, and equipment. The
armed forces played important roles in maintaining social order and in political life.” (Freedman
2006: 85) Suharto’s “New Order” era has also been looked back on as a time of great corruption –
and Suharto has been accused of having stolen between $15 and $35 billion dollars from Indonesia,
during his 31 years in power. (Mansbach and Rafferty 2008: 569) By the 1990s state privatisation
had benefited the close friends and relatives of Suharto – and had left the rest of Indonesia suffering
from an economic crisis. It was this that eventually led to the downfall of Suharto. “Soaring inflation
and unemployment following the financial crisis of 1997 prompted urban riots in 1998, and Suharto
was forced to resign.” (Freedom House 2010)

Immediately following the fall of Suharto, Indonesia looked like it would not be successful in its
democratisation process. In addition to the Asian Financial crisis of 1997-98, there were three
specific factors that looked as if they would impede Indonesia’s new democracy. The first was the
remaining aspects of Suharto’s regime and the inheritance of a strong military force. This was a
military with a strong political role and it was perceived by many people to be the natural successor
to Suharto (Aspinall 2010). Second, local actors threatened the “state” of the Republic of Indonesia
– invoking violence between ethnic and religious groups within Indonesian society. Edward Aspinall

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 2

of the Australian National University explains how these divisions were so dangerous that “for a time
national leaders thought *they+ endangered the country’s very survival.” (ibid: 20). Finally, Islamist
political forces also threatened the future of Indonesian democracy. Many of these Islamist groups
had been suppressed during Suharto’s regime – but had since become more assertive. Some groups
were campaigning for Indonesia to become an Islamic state and to introduce sharia – Islamic law -
into the constitution (ibid). However, it now seems as though Indonesia has managed to deal with
all three of these challenges to its democracy. The military is no longer an impeding political force –
the worst of the violence between different ethnic groups has subsided – and most Islamist forces
have now become properly incorporated into Indonesia’s mainstream politics (ibid). In addition to
dealing with these political problems – Indonesia has achieved a great deal more in its
democratisation process. The country has greatly expanded its civil liberties – an attractive and
pluralistic media market has emerged and there are freely contested multi-party elections (ibid).
“Significantly the willingness of Megawati and Yudhoyono to play by the rules and endure political
failure without resorting to power grabs, a state of emergency, or extraconstitutional measures is
the greatest contribution they could offer to Indonesia’s democratic future.” (Dayley and Neher
2010: 120) Since 2004 the President of Indonesia has been directly chosen by the people. It is these
factors that have seen Indonesia emerge as the democratic ‘torchbearer’ of the Southeast Asia
region (see Mietzner 2009).

The nature of democracy in Indonesia is different to the experience of democracy in Australia,

Western Europe or North America. Indonesia is considered to be an ‘electoral democracy’, in
contrast to Australia’s and Western Europe’s ‘liberal democracy’. Therefore it is important that we
understand what is implied when using these terms. The term liberal democracy refers to a number
of conditions. Griffiths, et. al. outlines these conditions as being:

 meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and organised

groups (especially political parties) for all effective positions of government
power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of force;
 a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders
and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no major
(adult) social group is excluded;
 a level of civil and political liberties – freedom of expression, freedom of
the press, freedom to form and join organisations – sufficient to ensure the
integrity of political competition and participation.
(Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach 2008: 68-69)

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 3

In regards to civil liberties and inclusiveness, Indonesia does not currently meet the conditions of a
liberal democracy. Freedom House’s annual “Freedom in the World” report, gave Indonesia a Civil
Liberties Score of 3 out of 7 (on a scale in which 1 represents the highest level of freedom and 7
representing the lowest level of freedom) – while Indonesia’s Political Rights score was 2 (Freedom
House 2010). Indonesia is now a country where elections take place – and essentially, the
government is chosen by the Indonesian people. Therefore Indonesia is considered as an electoral
democracy. This political structure is still fairly new for Indonesia and, for the first time in 2004,
Indonesian’s directly elected their president and all of the members of the House of Representatives
(DPR). (ibid) Griffiths and O’Callaghan define electoral democracies stating that:

Electoral democracies may hold periodic elections and thus demonstrate

some measure of political competition and popular participation, but large
parts of the population are often kept out of the political process.
Moreover, the military and other important parts of the state are
frequently isolated from democratic control, the media may be censored,
and the courts may be corrupt and ineffective. In short, elections take
place but democracy has not developed in most other respects.
(Griffiths and O’Callaghan 2002: 69)

In spite of the amazing transition into democracy over the past decade, there are still many factors
that are restricting Indonesia’s transition into a true liberal democracy. There are issues of political
rights and civil liberties that must be addressed before Indonesia can be considered more than just a
shallow electoral democracy and instead become a country that is fair and free for its entire
population, meeting Griffiths et. al.’s definition of a liberal democracy. While areas such as
corruption, radical Islam and separatism have been greatly improved upon over the past few years,
there are still numerous issues that have arisen.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was re-elected in April 2009 – which is an indication of the
Indonesian people’s satisfaction with his economic management and anticorruption efforts.
However, despite his progress in tackling corruption there have been recent setbacks as leaders of
the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) were arrested. “KPK chairman Antasari Azhar was
arrested in May *2009+ and eventually put on trial for the murder of a businessman” (Freedom
House 2010). Corruption is an important issue, particularly in emerging democracies – and it affects
countries not only politically, but economically and socially as well. Thus, it is reassuring to see civil
society organisations able to participate in the eradication of corruption in Indonesia. Schütte

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 4

explains how it is not just the government that is taking measures to stamp out corruption – but the
people are active in this task as well. “It is interesting to note that government agencies increasingly
seek the advice and cooperation of experienced civil society organizations. The National Anti-
corruption Action Plan expressly states that civil society should be involved in the monitoring and
evaluation processes in respect of its implementation.” (Schütte 2009: 98) Evidently corruption is
still widespread in Indonesia – however, it is clear that both the Indonesian government and the
Indonesian people are committed to its eradication. This is a promising sign for greater freedom in
Indonesia and something that would have been impossible during the Suharto era.

Freedom of the press is an important aspect of liberal democracy. Since the Suharto era, Indonesia
has made great progress in allowing a free media environment. This progress began in 1999 with
third President Habibie who removed a number of legal constraints on the media industry. Today,
Indonesia has an active and diverse media – however, recent reports have found that “press
freedom remains hampered by a number of legal and regulatory restrictions…In addition to legal
obstacles, reporters sometimes face violence and intimidation” (Freedom House 2010). A recent
example was “Radar Bali” journalist A. A. Narenda Prabangsa – who was murdered after publishing
articles on local corruption (Erviani 2010). This demonstrates limitations on freedom of speech,
freedom of the press and also involves human rights violations that become overlooked in a shallow
electoral democracy. In order to avoid legal and other ramifications, journalists often censor
themselves (Freedom House 2010). “Article 311 of the 2007 criminal code makes defamation
punishable by four years in prison.” (ibid) Thus, this is one aspect of the Indonesian political system
that would need to change in order to develop into a more liberal democracy.

Religion is very important in Indonesia. The country is home to people of many faiths – and is noted
as having the world’s largest Muslim population – whereby approximately 86.1% of its nearly 243
million citizens are Muslim. (CIA 2010) However, in the interests of a liberal democracy, all religions
must be supported – and the people must be allowed the freedom to follow whatever religion they
choose – or to follow no religion at all. This is an area that Indonesia must address if they are to
continue their democratisation. As the 2010 Freedom House report states, “Indonesia officially
recognizes Islam, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
Members of unrecognized religions have difficulty obtaining national identity cards. Atheism is not
accepted, and the criminal code contains provisions against blasphemy.” (Freedom House 2010).
Freedom of religion becomes particularly important in such a diverse country as Indonesia where
religious divisions in the past have led to problems of separatism, violence and in their most extreme,
terrorism.

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 5

Overall it is clear that Indonesia has been very successful in establishing an electoral democracy and
its success in doing so has led Indonesia to become a ‘torchbearer’ for democracy in the Southeast
Asian region. This is a particularly outstanding achievement given that Indonesia has only recently
emerged from a long period of authoritarian rule. Despite authoritarian governments, this process
of democratisation has been occurring in various stages since Indonesia’s independence from the
Dutch. Democratisation continues to progress under the current democratically elected President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. There are, however, numerous issues that are preventing Indonesia
from becoming a true liberal democracy. It is important that Indonesia deals with issues such as
corruption, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and issues relating to freedom for all of
Indonesia’s diverse population. Both the Indonesian government and other civil society
organisations have demonstrated their intentions for the reforming of some of these areas, but still
there are many areas in need of reform. The future looks bright for the continued democratisation
of Indonesia and its citizens can expect greater freedom as Indonesia heads towards a more stable
and liberal democratic system.

Bibliography

 Anwar, D. F. (2005) “The Fall of Suharto: Understanding the Politics of the Global”, in Francis
Loh Kok Wah and Joakim Öjendal (eds.) (2005) ‘Southeast Asian Responses to Globalization:
Restructuring Governance and Deepening Democracy’, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies,
Singapore, pp. 201-232.

 Aspinall, E. (2010) “The Irony of Success”, ‘Journal of Democracy’, vol.21, no.2, April 2010, pp.
20-34.

 Bünte, M. and Ufen, A. (2009) “The New Order and its legacy: Reflections on
democratization in Indonesia”, in Marco Bünte and Andreas Ufen (eds.) (2009)
‘Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia’, Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series ,
New York, pp. 3-30.
 CIA (2010) “Indonesia”, ‘The World Factbook’, http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook/geos/id.html .

 Conley, M. (2009) "Revealing Royalty: Indonesia's Sultan", ABC News International,

http://abcnews.go.com/International/AroundTheWorld/story?id=6611864&page=1 .

 Dayley, R. and Neher, C. D. (2010) ‘Southeast Asia in the New International Era’, Westview
Press, Boulder, pp. 99-131.

 Erviani, N. K. (2010) "Supreme Court decision in slain journalist case applauded", ‘The
Jakarta Post’, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/09/27/supreme-court-decision-
slain-journalist-case-applauded.html .

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 6

  Freedman, A. L. (2006) ‘Political Change and Consolidation: Democracy’s Rocky Road in
Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and Malaysia’, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 83-106.

 Freedom House (2010) ‘Freedom in the World – Indonesia (2010)’, Freedom House,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010&country=7841 .

 Griffiths, M. O’Callaghan, T. and Roach, S. (2008) ‘International Relations: The Key Concepts’,
Second Edition, Routledge Key Guides, New York, pp. 68-71

 Griffiths, M. O’Callaghan, T. and Roach, S. (2002) ‘International Relations: The Key Concepts’,
First Edition, Routledge Key Guides, New York, pp. 68-71

 Mansbach, R. W. and Rafferty, K. L. (2008) ‘Introduction to Global Politics’, Routledge,

London

 Mietzner, M (2009) "Indonesia in 2008: Democratic Consolidation in Soeharto's Shadow",

'Southeast Asian Affairs', Vol. 2009

 Schütte, S. A. (2009) “Government policies and civil society initiatives against corruption”, in
Marco Bünte and Andreas Ufen (eds.) (2009) ‘Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia’,
Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series , New York, pp. 81-101.

Daniel Hookins Democratisation of Indonesia Page 7