Striving for democratization

Indonesia striving for democratization.


Theme and thesis

Since 1998, a democratization process took of in Indonesia. In general, this process does not evolve smooth and orderly and most, if not all of these movements face a series of crises that try to undermine democratic transition. The movement from the authoritarian rule of Suharto towards a more democratic government in Indonesia was no exception, it brought several challenges for the country of which some are still present today. The removal of authoritarianism stimulated ethnic and religious conflicts, and even encouraged regional separatism, thereby creating political and economic uncertainties.[1] On the contrary, it did give the Indonesian citizens a range of freedoms which would never have existed without democratic transition. For the first time, the Indonesians were left the choice to elect their own leaders and were given the liberty to organize themselves in the way they prefer.[2] One of these outcomes was the election of July 8 2009:

"It hardly looked like a vision of democratic perfection. One presidential candidate was the nationalist daughter of a former strongman, while the incumbent was a retired general whose in-law was just jailed for corruption. Two of the vice-presidential nominees had been accused of directing human-rights abuses during their military careers. Yet the election that took place in Indonesia on July 8 was, in fact, testament to the remarkable political experiment unfolding in the world's fourth most populous nation."[3]

To understand the reasons why Indonesia underwent this development towards democratization we have to look at the economic and political situation which lie at the heart of the transition period. In 1997, the Asian region was hit by the Asian economic crisis and due to this crisis, Indonesia's economy was driven into a downward spiral based on the collapse of the Indonesian currency, the rupiah.[4] It has been identified that this economic crisis hit Indonesia the hardest and resulted in a lack of faith towards the Indonesian government. The declined standard of living of the Indonesian population was the primary factor behind the fall of Suharto's regime, whose rule was legitimized on the basis of improving Indonesia's economic development.[5] When the economy collapsed, after Suharto's fanciful predictions about Indonesia's economic future, his power, which was already in doubt, declined quickly.[6] His rule was quickly replaced by Habibie's government, Suharto's former vice-president, and was given the task to be transnational and provide a mechanism whereby Indonesia might move from authoritarian rule to a democratic one. [7]

"Little more than a decade ago, tens of thousands of Indonesians joined together in a people-power overthrow of dictator Suharto, who had ruled for 32 years. Since then, the country has had four Presidents, with peaceful transitions of power between each leader. Indonesia's success at the ballot box has silenced skeptics who doubted whether Indonesia with its diversity of islands, religions and ethnicities could mature into a democratic state. Indeed, compared to countries such as Malaysia and Thailand, where democratic institutions are stagnating if not backsliding, Indonesia has cemented its status as Southeast Asia's political role model."[8]

Although the Indonesian democratization process has been progressing steadily and the transition period has evolved into the democratic consolidation, the quality of Indonesian democracy and the extent of its consolidation are still under serious consideration and heated discussion.[9] The main challenges Indonesia is facing concern the political, economic and security situation in the country of which many Indonesian have expressed their disappointment. More specific problems in the Indonesian consolidation of democracy such as; the lack of capacity among political elites, terrorism, problems at the political level, a culture and society that is mostly still paternalistic, patrimonial and emotional and problems with law enforcement can be divided under these three main challenges.[10] Although these specific problems keep changing and the threat of these problems to democracy can differ from time to time, the division into these three main challenges will give a clear overview of the problems Indonesia's democratic transition has faced since 1998 and is still facing in its consolidation process.

All these aspects in Indonesia's democratization process lead to the question: What is holding back the democratization process in Indonesia, after the fall of Suharto? For answering this question a clear definition of democracy is necessary and will therefore be given in the theoretical framework. However, not only the final goal of democracy is necessary to understand, to process towards democracy might even be more significant to bare in mind. Although the political, economic and security challenges the country is facing in its process towards democracy, are unique for Indonesia, this process can be seen in the light of many other transitional situations throughout the world. Many theorist have discussed the main preconditions under which democratic transition can take off and although Dankwart Rustow, a professor of political science and sociology does not seem to agree with these preconditions he did identify a general path that all countries travel during democratization. [11] The democratic transition in Indonesia is an extraordinary case in which preconditions were close to non-existent and the path of democratization was followed, unlike many other countries, in a remarkably peaceful way. Furthermore, Indonesia has seemed to go into the process of democratic consolidation, a process which tries to improve the overall quality of democracy.[12]

These extraordinary achievements makes the country a very interesting case to look at for speculating its chances in creating a stable democracy. Although the democracy in Indonesia has not found its desired shape yet, much progress has been booked within Indonesia's political and economic structures, therefore the thesis statement of this paper will be:

After the fall of Suharto, in 1998, a democratization process started in Indonesia, and although this process faces many security, political and economic challenges it has the potential of becoming a full and stable democracy.


In order to examine the thesis statement 'After the fall of Suharto, in 1998, a democratization process started in Indonesia, and although this process faces many security, political and economic challenges it has the potential in becoming a stable democracy." I will start by explaining the concept of democracy and the minimal political institutions a democracy requires. During this explanation I will try to address the main difficulties the concept of democracy entails. Furthermore the general way authoritarian regimes move towards a democracy and the way transition can result in consolidation will be discussed in the first chapter. In this chapter it is important to understand that the process of democratization will entail both the transition towards democracy and the democratic consolidation. Therefore the following question will be addressed:

What can be understood by a democracy and how does the process of moving from an authoritarian regime towards an democratic one take place?

The second chapter will discuss the democratic rate of Indonesia and the way Indonesia's democratization process has taken place since 1998. The theoretical framework of the previous chapter will be used to analyze this and explain how the transition period evolved in Indonesia, therefore the following question will be central:

To what extent can Indonesia be seen as a democracy today and in which way has democratic transition taken place within the past?

The third chapter will examine the main challenges Indonesia's democratic process is facing. As was said in the introduction, there are three main challenges which will be discussed namely: economic, which will address the economic set back after the Asian economic crisis; security challenges, namely the role of the military, terrorist threats and violence; and political challenges including institutional reform, public opinion, corruption and the judiciary system. The effect these challenges have on democratic transition will be central, therefore through all these different aspects I will try to answer the question:

In which way can the challenges Indonesia is facing effect the democratization process?

These chapters will be followed by a conclusion with an analysis of the thesis statement and an answer to the main question of this paper:

'What is holding back the democratization process in Indonesia, which started after the fall of Suharto?

chapter 1.

Theoretical framework


To examine the democratization process in Indonesia which started after 1998 and the process of moving from an authoritarian regime towards a democracy, we must first define what can be understood by a democracy. From there we can hopefully understand the democratic level of Indonesia today and see the path it has gone through and the possible change it still needs to achieve. This path of transition will be discussed in the following section of this chapter, where transition from authoritarian rule will be central. Both sections together will try to answer the question: What can be understood by a democracy and how does the process of moving from an authoritarian regime towards an democratic one take place?

The meaning of the concept democracy is a long debated and still very debatable subject, it is therefore no surprise that many definitions regarding the matter can be found. The term democracy has a Greek origin where demos meant people and kratos rule, so a democracy is a form of government in which the people rule.[13] This 'rule by the people' might seem like an easy concept but it brings about many difficulties. For instance the concept op people in not clear in this matter, in the past this has mostly meant the rule by only white men in Western democratic countries and not the entire society. Even today, while most of the society is included in many democratic systems, you can always find restrictions in the level of participation, like for instance the rule that you have to be eighteen to vote. Furthermore, originally the ideal type of democracy was considered to be one in which the people ruled directly over there own country.[14] This type of direct rule is however nearly impossible to reach, especially in a highly populated country where it is necessary to let only a select group of people govern to country in a stable manner.

Even if this direct rule is can only exist in theory, there can be found many forms of indirect democracies throughout the world. These democracies originated in one of the three 'democratic waves', the first wave being between 1828 and 1926, the second between 1943 and 1962 and the last started in 1974 and continues ever since.[15] Even though there have been some backlashes of countries returning to an authoritarian rule, the waves of democratization continued and more and more countries seem to developed in to some sort of democracy. To understand these 'waves of democratization' David Held has put down the main reason why many countries evolve or transform into a democracy as "the assumption that, from all its alternatives it comes closest in achieving one or more of the following fundamental values or goods: political equality, liberty, moral self-development, the common interest, a fair moral compromise, binding decisions that take everyone's interest into account, social utility, the satisfaction of needs and efficient decisions."[16]

Even though so many countries have transformed into democracies is it still hard to give a clear definition of a democracy because democracy 'has meant different things to different people at different times and places'[17] A minimal definition by Robert A. Dahl can give a somehow clearer idea of the concept he defines democracy as 'a means that enables all citizens to participate in politics and effectively influence the outcome of the decision-making process.'[18] Additionally, he determents the minimal required political institutions in a large scale democracy which include: Elected officials; Free, fair and frequent elections; Freedom of expression; Alternative sources of information; associational autonomy; inclusive citizenship.[19] This minimal definition can lead to further understanding of the concept, and can be broadened by analyzing the amount of which the required political institutions fully be considered democratic.

The fact that many countries transform into democracies implies that there must be an end point for democracy, a stage where democratic institutions and values have reached all levels of society. This end point is however quite vague, and a democracy must rather be seen as an ideal form of governance which one must try to achieve. The strength of a democracy can therefore measured by level in which a democracy has fully been consolidated, according to Linz and Stepan this will mean that "democracy has become "the only game in town", democracy becomes routinized and deeply internalized in social, institutional, and even psychological life, as well as in calculations for achieving success."[20]

Because the transformation and consolidation happens differently in many countries moving towards democracy there are many forms of democracy throughout the world. The specific of democracy form that Indonesia might moving towards will therefore not be important in this paper, the strength and stability of its democracy however will. Strength will be measured by the level of consolidation, for the stability other requirements will be taken under consideration. There have been many theories regarding the stability of a regime, on how for instance one political framework could be regarded more stable than another. However, for keeping matters slightly simplified, I will regard the stability of a democracy in the sense of to what extent a democracy is free from forces which have the capacity in moving the country in a different, non-democratic way.

Transitional democracy

When Suharto was withdrawn from his power, there was evidently a transition period in Indonesia, in this case a shift from authoritarian rule towards a democracy. After this transition period it is claimed that Indonesia has gone into the process of democratic consolidation. To analyze these processes it is necessary to understand the way previous authoritarian regimes have experienced this process and the general assumptions which can be made of that. For a authoritarian regime which moves towards democracy there are four aspects essential; the start of the transition period, which will be discussed in several modes of transformation; the underlying conditions which can make a transition process successful; the phases a transition goes through in order to become democratic; and finally democratic consolidation where the strength of a democracy is aimed to improve. These four aspects will be explained, but also the weaknesses of some of the theories discussed will be dealt with. With this knowledge, one will be able to see how these theories will hold in the case of Indonesia.

In a response to the question on how an authoritarian political system transforms into a democratic one, Samuel Huntington introduced four modes of political change:[21] First the mode of transformation where the government liberalized its political system. In this form of political change democratization comes from above and happens when a state is strong and civil society is weak. Second, the replacement mode in which the government is forced to give up its power and will be replaced by opposition forces. Unlike the transformation model democratization occurs from below, the state was weak and civil society strong. The third form is a mixture of the first two and therefore named transplacement, here the government is still strong and the opposition forces are not strong enough to topple the existing rule. Therefore, a process of negotiation will occur between the government and the opposition on how to gradually transform the political system into a more democratic one. The fourth and last mode is intervention, where a transition to democracy is imposed by an external force.[22] We have to take under consideration that although these modes are good starting points in analyzing a change from authoritarian rule to a democracy these modes of transition do not exist in their pure forms so one must always keep in mind a mixture of these types.[23]

In addition to these modes of political change there have been some underlying conditions and structures in order to gain democratic success in these transitional situations. Thomas Carother pointed out five of the most important preconditions for this democratic success: First, the level of economic development, for the more wealthier the country, the better will be its chances of consolidating a democratic transition. The second precondition is the concentration of sources of national wealth, in some countries national wealth mainly comes from highly concentrated sources such as oil or mineral deposits, this can form difficulties for the democratization process. Third, the Identity-based divisions, the stronger the division of ethnic, religious, tribal, or clans, the harder the democratization process as opposed to a more homogeneous society. The historical experience with political pluralism is the fourth precondition where more experience with political pluralism will mean an easier democratization process;. The fifth and last precondition entails the democratic neighborhood a transition process takes place, it is harder to impose a successful democratic transition for a country with many non-democratic countries in its region.[24] Although these factors are likely to gain transitional success they are often not seen as pre-conditions, this because experiences from the past have shown that not all pre-conditions have to be encountered for a democratic transition to be successful. These conditions should therefore rather be seen as a stimulus, which could make the transitional phase run more smoothly and possibly quicker.

Another aspect we need to take into consideration is that a democracy is not made over night, it requires a long incubation period, and its values and norms need to be nurtured by both the elite and the masses.[25] Transition from an authoritarian regime to democracy is understood to take place within various phases. Bhakati identifies four phases Indonesia has gone through namely: pre-transition, liberalization, democratic transition, and democratic consolidation.[26] Rustow recognizes these phases but names them slightly different to address a general 'route' that all countries travel during democratization.[27] In his view the first phase is there to create a national unity within a given territory where the concept of a state is being formed. Secondly he identifies an inconclusive political struggle the country will go through, which can sometimes be so intense that it could tear national unity apart. Or on group in this struggle can become so powerful that it overwhelms the opposition, concludes the (inconclusive) political struggle, and closes off the route to democracy. If this second phase is overcome the third phase, which is named the first transition or decision phase, will come into being. This will be a historic moment in which the parties involved in the inconclusive political struggle decide to compromise and adopt democratic rules which gives each some share in the polity. Finally, there is the second transition or habituation phase where the rules of democracy gradually become a custom.[28]

According to Linz and Stepan this last transition phase will be complete when " sufficient agreement has been reached about political procedures to produce an elected government, when a government comes into power that is the direct result of a free and popular vote, when this government de facto has the authority to generate new policies, and when the executive, legislative and judicial power generated by the new democracy does not have to share power with other bodies de jure."[29] After this phase, the consolidation of democracy will come into place, here the overall quality of the democracy will be improved. The previous section on democracy spoke of a vague endpoint of democracy because it is an ideal type which can never be fully reached. Therefore this standards will not be used in determining whether Indonesia can be considered fully democratic, for no country could be accorded as such by these standards. Rather the full consolidation of democracy will determine the pledge whether a country can be determined as a full and stable democracy. A democracy is considered to be consolidated when "a strong majority of public opinion, even in the midst of major economic problems and deep dissatisfaction with incumbents, holds the belief that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way to govern collective life, and when support for anti-system alternatives is quite small or is more or less isolated from pro-democratic forces."[30]

Chapter 2.

Democracy in the case of Indonesia

Using the previous theoretical framework in analyzing the democratic process Indonesia will help to answer the question: To what extent can Indonesia be seen as a democracy today and in which way has democratic transition taken place within the past? The required political institutions set out by Dahl will be discussed, followed by a analysis of the democratic rate in Indonesia. After this, the democratization process will be discussed, explaining the mode of transition, the preconditions which can be found in Indonesia, the phases the country has gone through to establish democratization and finally democratic consolidation.

When we look at the six minimal required political institutions necessary for a large scale democracy, we can see that Indonesia knows most of these requirements if not all. Good examples of the first requirement, elected officials, are the three chosen presidents Kiai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid (1999), Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001) and Dr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004 and 2009). Not only the president but also the vice-president are now directly elected during free fair and frequent elections in Indonesia, fulfilling the second institutional requirement. The third and fourth requirement encounter freedom of expression and alternative sources of information. Nowadays, the restrictions on press, speech and association have been lifted and the Indonesians are able to benefit from more individual freedom, a free and vibrant press and the newly required power of the parliament and the exposure of the office of the President to public scrutiny.[31] Furthermore, the freedom to form political parties has been made available for all and with the constitutional amendments and the adjustment of the size and composition of the legislature the last two requirements, associational autonomy and inclusive citizenship, have been accomplished. Additional to these changes, the highly centralized government during authoritarian rule has been decentralized and devolved into local-level governments. Plus, the role of the military has been scaled down significantly losing its assured political position.

These institutional changes have meant a great step in the way to democracy in Indonesia, achieving the required political institutions of a large scale democracy set out by Dahl. However, these institutions still face some serious legitimacy issues holding them from being truly democratic. Matters like corruption and the role of the military have brought down the believe in their democratic institutions. Still, the elections of 1999 can be regarded as a turning point in Indonesia's history, bringing a set of democratic choices and real change in leadership for the Indonesians. [32] For now, I will therefore leave this matter by stating that the required political institutions have been reached in Indonesia, discussing the problems of legitimacy and other challenges to it's democratic process in the next chapter.

The previous table, made by people of the Colorado State University and the University of Maryland, gives a clear overview of the development of democracy in Indonesia from the era of the 'new order' regime of Suharto till 2007. The democratic score is rated by how the government responds to people's interests, going from -10 for being the least democratic till a score of 10 for being fully democratic.[34] Although this rating system might seem a little subjective, for it is almost impossible to calculate governments responses objectively, these measurements have been made very carefully and will give at least an image of how the outside world looks at Indonesia's democracy. The democratic score is shown at the y-axis whereas the time element is shown on the x-axis. The Suharto regime which lasted from 1967 till 1998 was characterized by a very low, -7 score on the democracy rate. In 1999, the turning point in Indonesia's history, this democracy score went up from -5 in 1998 to a score of 6 on democracy. And with the election of 2004 in Indonesia this score even went up till a very high 8 on the democracy rate. This shows Indonesia has made significant steps in the process towards democracy and seems to be only a small step away from becoming a full democratic system.

The mode in which the authoritarian rule moved towards democracy occurred in a form closest to the mode of transplacement, the reforms toward democratic transition was mostly shaped through negotiation and coalition between the government and interest groups.[35] For Indonesia, the image of the state started to crumble when from the various anti-New Order groups which had emerged people sporadically where put in detention and disappearances by the state apparatus against anti-New Order political activist occurred. Meanwhile the ongoing economic crisis further worsened the image of the state.[36] The credibility of Suharto's regime declined everywhere, which resulted in mass movements and social unrest in several provinces. After three days of social unrest, due to the shooting of four students on May 12, 1998, the student demonstrations and the occupation of the parliament led to the fall of Suharto on May 21 1998.[37] Although the parliament was occupied, the government's influence was still strong and the opposition forces were not strong enough to topple the existing rulers. Therefore, Suharto was able to transfer his presidency to B.J. Habibie, his former vice-president.[38] So the new government was a result of both influences from anti- New Order groups and the old authoritarian regime.

Moving on to the question of preconditions for successfully adopting democratization, here Indonesia has appeared to be an interesting case. In the previous chapter we see that Thomas Carother pointed out the level of economic development, the concentration of sources, identity based division, historical experience with political pluralism and the democratic neighborhood as the five preconditions for democratic success. Fascinating here is that, although experience has shown that Indonesia is moving steadily towards democracy, there was an absence of these preconditions. The economic situation had experienced a major setback due to the Asian economic crisis, Indonesia society has always been highly divided and its former experiences with democracy were all unsuccessful, already leaving out three out of five pre-conditions. The fact that Indonesia had almost no experience with political pluralism, due to the long lasting authoritarian regime and the reality that its neighboring countries were either governed by authoritarian rule or struggling with democratic transition did not bring any more hope for successful transformation. One of the possible reasons why the democratization process could be regarded successful can be explained by the argument of Diamond who states that: "there are no preconditions to democracy, other than the willingness on the part of a nation's elite in an attempt to govern by democratic means', insisting that 'neither culture nor history nor poverty are insurmountable obstacles.'[39] I agree on the matter that pre-conditions should not be seen as absolute conditions from which a country can move towards a democracy, but rather a stimulus which will help the transition move more successfully. Therefore, it is understandable that Indonesia could go through with its democratic transition, still, it stays very remarkable it did this in a rather progressive and peaceful manner.

As mentioned in the part on transitions towards democracy, Indonesia has gone through the four phases of the general 'route' that all countries travel during democratization. The first pre-transition period began during the economic crisis of 1997, when opposition against Suharto's 'New Order' regime grew more and more. [40]------------ first phase is there to create a national unity within a given territory where the concept of a state is being formed.

The second phase followed quickly where a political struggle led to the downfall of Suharto and the election of president Habibie. This transition in leadership opened the next stage of political liberalization from authoritarianism, with the embracement of many new democratic procedures, such as provisions for press freedom, free and fair elections, the decentralization of regional government and the release of political prisoners.[41] The transitions made by the government of Habibie were helpful in the struggle for democracies, however he could not remain in power because people identified him too much with the former authoritarian regime, in which he was vice president.[42] This early transition period in Indonesia is labeled as 'a gray area of democracy' by Larry Diamond, meaning an area which is neither clearly democratic nor clearly undemocratic. He argued this by the example of the 1999 general elections which were largely free and fair, but still some incidents of fraud and dubious conduct could be noted.[43] Therefore, even the institutions which looked democratic at this time, were in reality not always as democratic as they might seem.

In the third transition phase democratic governance was adopted with a desire to remove the repressive and debilitating authoritarian political and social systems. [44] It is important to understand the compromises that have been made during this period, the conscious adoption of democratic rules for the Indonesian elites was necessary rather than desirable due to the compromises which had to be made between authoritarian and democratic powers.[45] The end of this phase was marked by the 2004 election which started the phase of democratic consolidation.

This final, habituation phase, has not been fully completed and one can still speculate how and if the new generation of leaders adopt democratic rules and help in the consolidation of democracy. [46] Suspicion towards the government is still very high since many leading officials claiming to be democratic and supporting democratic reform really practice kinds of politics which lack democratic values and therefore form a threat for the development of democracy.[47]

This last mode of transition encounters many difficulties for Indonesia's democracy, it is not guaranteed that the transition will move forward into a democracy as such making that Indonesia's democracy cannot be regarded as stable yet. Many democratic procedures have taken place in Indonesia, still substantial democracy is ignored.[48] In the compromises which have been made during the transition period between the old authoritarian rule and the newly formed democratic governance, lies one of the main challenges towards democratic development in Indonesia, many problems can be traced back to the 'New Order' regime as a legacy of the authoritarian rule in the newly formed democracy.

Democratic consolidation!

These challenges towards democracy in Indonesia, of which many can be traced back from the legacy authoritarian rule, will be discussed in the following chapter.

In his view the

Secondly he identifies an inconclusive political struggle the country will go through, which can sometimes be so intense that it could tear national unity apart. Or on group in this struggle can become so powerful that it overwhelms the opposition, concludes the (inconclusive) political struggle, and closes off the route to democracy. If this second phase is overcome the third phase, which is named the first transition or decision phase, will come into being. This will be a historic moment in which the parties involved in the inconclusive political struggle decide to compromise and adopt democratic rules which gives each some share in the polity.

Finally, there is the second transition or habituation phase where the rules of democracy gradually become a custom.[49]

According to Linz and Stepan this last transition phase will be complete when " sufficient agreement has been reached about political procedures to produce an elected government, when a government comes into power that is the direct result of a free and popular vote, when this government de facto has the authority to generate new policies, and when the executive, legislative and judicial power generated by the new democracy does not have to share power with other bodies de jure."[50] After this phase, the consolidation of democracy will come into place, here the overall quality of the democracy will be improved. The previous section on democracy spoke of a vague endpoint of democracy because it is an ideal type which can never be fully reached. Therefore this standards will not be used in determining whether Indonesia can be considered fully democratic, for no country could be accorded as such by these standards. Rather the full consolidation of democracy will determine the pledge whether a country can be determined as a full and stable democracy. A democracy is considered to be consolidated when "a strong majority of public opinion, even in the midst of major economic problems and deep dissatisfaction with incumbents, holds the belief that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way to govern collective life, and when support for anti-system alternatives is quite small or is more or less isolated from pro-democratic forces."[51]

Chapter 3

Challenges to Indonesia's democratization process.

In order to obtain a strong and stable democracy in Indonesia, the country has to deal with many challenges facing the democratic system. According to Abdulbaki "in order for democracy to be considered consolidated or stable in a newly democratized country, authoritarian legacies and undemocratic alternatives must be totally eliminated and the principal political actors must demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the democratic process or 'the uncertain interplay of the institutions'" [52] Additionally, he mentions that "the occurrence of more than one democratic rotation of power, the institutionalization of democratic practices and the development of a majority of public support for upholding the democratic system are also necessary for democratic stability and for prevention of democratic breakdown."[53]

Many of the challenges Indonesia is facing result from the heritage of the authoritarian rule. Military interference, which derived from the authoritarian rule, is still a major problem since its influence to democracy in Indonesia still remains, together with the institutional reforms which were necessary after the fall of Suharto but whom still need further adjustment. Many citizens have been disappointed with the current political, economic and security situation in the country. Furthermore, the new administration is facing a serious legitimacy problem, ranging from the lack of domestic economic recovery, security problems, and international criticism to its efforts in stamping out terrorism.[54]

Even though these challenges to democracy are very real in Indonesia and therefore need a careful approach, one must not forget that democratic transition cannot be expected to be smooth and orderly, even the successful ones, always pass through a series of crises that threaten to disrupt the process.[55] The elections in 2004 declined many of the challenges and made it unlikely for the democracy to breakdown.[56] Despite this success military interference and institutional reforms stayed two of the major concerns regarding democratic stability.

In this chapter, the main challenges facing Indonesia's development to democracy since 1998 will be discussed, with special focus on the military situation and institutional reforms for these challenges are still very present within the country.

Economic challenges

(Even thought the economic situation was absent as a precondition and Indonesia still moved towards a democratic system. This Economic situation can still hold down further democratic transition)

It should be understood as an understatement that Indonesia was not in the best economic position during its start of the democratic process. Even though, most of the Indonesian citizens were not aware of the devastating effect of the authoritarian regime on their economy, it was this administration which created economic dependency on foreign debt, nepotism and eventually the economic collapse in 1998.[57] Authoritarian regimes have a tendency to be economically incompetent and to lack knowledge of market mechanisms and the international economy.[58] Since the crisis, the Indonesian per capita income has fallen from US$1,300 to US$650, leading to a great downturn in social stability and an increase in political violence resulting from anger, frustration, and primordial fears.[59]

The process of democratization did little to fix the economic problems of the ordinary people in Indonesia; even though their expectations grew, they felt little or no improvement in their economic conditions.[60] This is not particularly strange, since liberal democracy has a task to achieve the capitalist view of free market competition, and does not necessarily solve the unjust economic exploitation of the poor by the economically rich.[61] Although, democracy might not be able to fix the economic problems Indonesia is facing, these same problems could undermine the development of democracy by creating an atmosphere where people loose there trust in democracy and get frustrated towards the new democratic government.

To overcome these problems in a democratic way, collective action for institutional reforms and political party building are necessary.[62] Unfortunately, the political parties formed after 1998 have not yet been able to tackle the shortcomings of the old party system. Sudarsono, Indonesia's minister of defense argued that "for a 'substantive democracy' to take off, Indonesia needs at least 20 per cent of the middle class to achieve GDP per capita around US$3,000."[63] Whereas Diamond even argues that "a sound and functioning democracy at GDP per capita of US$6,000 faces no danger of backsliding or return to authoritarianism."[64]

A constant annual growth of GDP per capita is therefore necessary to ensure stability for democracy in Indonesia, because without economic recovery there will be no political stability. Even though the GDP per capita grew up to US$950 in 2004 and is growing ever since, it still needs many years to reach the level where stability is ensured.[65]. The question rises whether the Indonesian population is patient enough to wait for this growth. Thereby comes the recent economic crisis for which its consequences for Indonesia seem not too harmful but are still uncertain.

Security challenges


The role of the military has been one of the major challenges to democracy Indonesia is facing today. Although this challenge is nor merely a security issue but also a political issue it will be described under security challenges for the reason that other security challenges, terrorism and violence, are linked to this issue. Historically, the Indonesian military, renamed the Tentare Nesional Indonesia (TNI) have been the main instrument in keeping the various forces under control and had therefore a central position in political and social life.[66] Now, however, it is no longer a solution to stability problems within the country but rather than that the TNI actually became one of the problems to Indonesia's stability.[67] The political role of the armed forces in politics has to be scaled down in order to make the democratic process more credible.

This will be a long and complicated process, and therefore a test to Indonesia's democracy. One of the difficulties of democracy is the institutional structure within the government, here the influence of the TNI is hard to tackle. Under the Suharto regime, the military officers held key ministerial and bureaucratic positions, about 20% of the seats in the legislature were allocated by them and they were able to maintain control of local government through the use of its command structure, which is organized on a territorial basis throughout the entire country providing a parallel to governmental structures.[68] Recently this has changed with the election of 2004, from this point on the military could no longer hold appointed seats in parliament.[69] Another complicity relates to the budget of the TNI, and is slowing down the process of democracy considerably. The official defense budget covers, according to recent estimations, less than half of the total expenses of TNI operations.[70] In order to balance its expenses the TNI gets money elsewhere mainly from profits from its own businesses, payments from private-sector allies, income from black market activities, and money skimmed from corrupt dealing.[71] All in all, not very helpful for democratic development and hard to undermine by the new government.

The governments after 1998 are facing a dilemma, on the one hand it is in their interest to have a strong and effective military to deal with the security problems facing the country, on the other hand public distrust towards the military and the police is very high so the fear of politicization of the military needs to be suppressed.[72] The return of the military has been promoted with the civilian supremacy and control over it, and although positive steps have been taken in this direction this progress is hampered with difficulties. The TNI did formally withdrew from its political role, police force is no longer controlled by the military and representation in parliament has been eliminated, however, efforts to dismantle the TNI's territorial structure have been far from successful , and the military has been able to maintain its business activities that are largely beyond the control of the democratically elected government.[73]

Reform efforts have been taken with positive note by government officials and the military leaderships but the efforts to dismantle military's businesses and its territorial structure have largely failed and progress has been slow, highly selective and incomplete.[74] However ,through these slow paces of civil-military reforms eventually the deepening of democratic practices will be facilitated.[75] For now the TNI will continue to be an important actor even though their political and civilian roles have been reduced considerably.[76]


The 9/11 attacks on the world trade centers in the US changed the world and the war on terrorism suddenly grew high on the political agenda. However, not only the US has been confronted with a terrorist attack, on October 12 2002 a nightclub in Bali was attacked by terrorist bombings, an occurrence better known as the Bali Bombings.[77] Although this attack did not have the same impact on the world as did the 9/11 attacks, it suddenly had a major impact on Indonesia. It made the government negotiate over a counter terrorist law, a government which months before did not even acknowledge the existence of one of the major terrorist groups in the country.[78] This new law has given new powers to the police to monitor, arrest and detain suspected terrorists.

But not everything is going according to plan, the struggle against terrorism has shown many of the weaknesses in the Indonesian governmental system. The minister of defense, the police and the intelligence service all give a different analysis about the outcome of the investigating of the Bali Bombings.[79] Furthermore, due to the failure of the police many evidence concerning this matter has unnecessarily been destroyed and other terrorist cases have also been dealt with little success.[80] Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world, a therefore seen, especially by the Arab world, as a breading ground for Muslim extremism.[81] The role of the Islam in politics, although never regarded as strong, is therefore a sensitive subject which needs a careful approach in order to prevent the growth of extremism.

The authoritarian rule of Suharto was very effective in suppressing the increase of extremism, during his rule, close taps were kept on the extremist groups by intelligence service and the armed forces. With the new liberal standards in Indonesia's democracy and the declining budget of the armed forces and the intelligence service this is no longer possible. Still, the military uses these attacks to regain power over the governments' policy through the new Law on Terrorism.[82] And even though domination of the military might mean a declined chance in a following terrorist attack this dominance can be regarded as threat to democracy and endanger the democratic process in Indonesia. The initiative form the US the reintroduce a military-to military relationship is also not helping the democracy.[83] So dominant military involvement may not be the answer to terrorism, however, other measures have to become effective because no matter how small the terrorist group might be in number, the threat to security for Indonesia and its neighbors can be rather crucial.[84]


Indonesia is known for its high diversity in religion and its multi-ethnic society. With the fall of the authoritarian regime, long suppressed feelings and differences between various groups within the country could finally be expressed. This did unfortunately not only have positive effects but also resulted in ethnic, religious and sectarian violence which in the resent past have shown no sign of ebbing.[85] Not only is their a threat of radicalism which can result in terrorism, multifarious conflicts like previously mentioned are very present in Indonesia. For some, the prospects for democratization were not always welcome and therefore society becomes prone toward inter-communal violence, even among the Muslims themselves.[86]

In most of the conflicts, the roost can be traced back to the New Order authoritarian style of governance and the arbitrariness on the part of a central authority that imposed its will on the outlying regions or peripheries and the lack of space for expression of people's means through dialogue, consultations and empowerment of civil society[87] Additionally, when previous authorities, read the Suharto's rule, have used violence to extort control of resources, the victims of this violence are often prone to use violence themselves for they feel its justified in order to enforce their new claims.[88] The government reform and its decentralization causes new forms of territorial governance and therefore shift in conflict situations and resolutions, violence in this case is either been a cause, an effect, or a characteristic of the decentralization process. [89] Where violence already existed the decentralization of resource management could lead to further violence. [90] Indonesia's test for democracy will, therefore, lie in the extent to which it can strengthen and empower civil society institutions capable of mediating and managing conflict within society. [91]

Political challenges

Institutional reforms

The government's credibility lies highly upon the way it deals with and implies new political reforms. Its political challenge is to build stable, democratic state structures in conditions of a rising tide of expectations for a better life and greater liberty.[92] The governments after 1998, had creating a whole range of new institutions, aiming to fight corruption, resist violence and work for human rights.[93] Their presidential alternations all occurred peacefully as a result of democratic elections, the first in 1999 where Abdurrahman Wahid gained power, then Megawati Sukarnoputri in 2001 and in 2004 by direct presidential elections Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who was reelected in 2009.[94] Many of these and other prominent leaders played an important role in creating political reform and stabilizing the democratic transition.[95]

Authoritarian political institutions had broken down after the fall of Suharto and have been replaced with new democratic institutions. Decentralization of government powers has become one of the main aspects of change during the democratic transition. For Suharto's rule was highly centralized where government institutions where large centralized and strong, now new institutions have been build to make policy more transparent, decentralized, and therefore more democratic. The trouble of these new institutions is that they are still weak and not sufficient in establishing order and legitimacy. Besides this, many of the leaders come from the old regime and have now chosen to join the democratic movements, so the old elites have been able to secure their position. [96] Causing a leadership crisis, in which leaders are more concerned with their future political position than the people's interests.[97] Within Indonesia's political parties this same trend can be observed, where party interests seems more important than the people's or the nation's interest. [98]

Although student movements where very influential during the fall of the authoritarian regime, their lack of a cohesive ideology and lack of organizational qualities and leadership made them weak and not able to influence Indonesian politics much further 157. And even the Indonesian political parties do not so much rely on a solid political party program of policies but mainly on charismatic leaders or social organizations, making it unable for public grievances to be fully expresses and therefore undermining democratic consolidation. The candidates selected for the 2004 elections followed mostly through the old method of nominating those who were close to the party leadership and their cronies. Instead of giving priority to local aspirations and to candidates with grassroots support.[99] This weakness of institutionalization of democratic practices is especially found in, however not only, in Islamic parties who should create greater party platforms in elections campaign. Mainly the lack of focus form legitimacy problems, since no one really knows what each of the parties stand for. An exception to this is the PKS, who managed to develop a clear political program with a consistent anti-corrupt approach, excluding leaders and activist who might take advantage of their position and blemish the party's good image. Its success in the elections of 2004 is promising for Indonesian consolidation of democracy where policy-oriented electoral competition will become the main focus for political parties and not personal loyalties.[100]

Not only the party characteristics have been subject to change, the election system has also gone through the necessary adjustments. For a party to be able to contest in the elections, it must have at least a certain percentage of support from all the parts of Indonesia, preventing parties with only one strong regional focus to enter into the elections. But also the complexity of the election process was a problem; there had been a total of 11 million invalid votes which represent 9 per cent of the ballots cast in the 2004 elections524-. These elections did however create the opportunity direct election of the Indonesian president, making the government's legitimacy stronger. The credibility of the elections was therefore no longer regarded as a concern among the Indonesians whereas more focus was being put on the consolidation of democracy.

The retreat to past authoritarian rule seems more and more unlikely and would be extremely costly. This does not exclude the fact that democratic processes and new institutions should quickly take root and deliver result. Economic recovery is necessary to gain political stability; otherwise some of the provinces might become more restless. Unity is also a necessity in order to prevent instability with huge economic costs which may disturb the democratic reform526. There are still some very important challenges which lie ahead to Indonesia's consolidation process, especially regarding the deepening and institutionalization of democratic practice.161 In the near future it is likely that more policy-orientated political parties will emerge and Indonesia's democracy will most likely survive and the consolidation process is likely to proceed into a deeper and higher quality.[101]

Public opinion

Public opinion regarding the newly formed democracy varies widely from cautious optimism to apathy and fatalism to utter cynism and to belief that a great opportunity to bring about social, economic and political transformation of their society has been wasted.[102] There is a longing for the era of Suharto, were according to some Indonesian security was the top priority, their daily income was higher than today and the price of daily necessities was quite low and certainly affordable for ordinary people.[103] With the democratic transition people's expectations grew, however for ordinary citizens these changes could not be realized. Many are frustrated that the reform process has been too slow and limited and therefore lose their patience and faint in democracy.[104]

In the years after the fall of the authoritarian rule, the political culture was that of mixed feeling towards the government, most did not want a reversal of the existing democratic transition but some of the frustrated people felt nostalgic and longed for the predictable days of Suharto. [105] This feeling of frustration and resentment against the democratic rule declined as years past, and a few months before the elections in 2004 an opinion poll proved that 'democracy has begun to take root in Indonesia'.[106] With these elections, people could directly elect their president, which had a huge psychological impact and an increase of legitimacy towards the government. Though, legitimacy and believe in the government still needs a lot of improvement, for one the many corruption scandals and lack of effective measures, dealt with in the next section, disturb the faith in democracy.


Even in the elections in 2009, the fight against corruption was still high on the political agenda. With this corruption the use of public office to obtain unauthorized emoluments is meant.[107] The problem with corruption is that it is hard to detect and may be even more difficult to prove for it is unique in its secrecy, leaving no direct victims only harming to the public good. It affects the believe in democracy, for the reason that corruption is a term used only as referring to the government service and its officials who are often highly protected and not easily discharged, leaving the public with a feeling of unfairness and betrayal.[108]

In Indonesia corruption in public life and arbitrariness on the part of the government are still common this plus with the lack of tracking down old corruption cases undermine democratic development. The high scale of corruption resulted from the breakdown of Suharto's regime and the weak capacity of the government which give rise to regional separatism and made even ordinary people vulnerable to money politics and corruption.[109]

When criticizing on the level of corruption in Indonesia one must bear in mind that there is probably no country in the world where you cannot find corruption.[110] Indonesia has done a great effort in fighting corruption by creating a whole range of new democratic institutions. Still the commission to combat corruption in Indonesia declared that during the first six months of 2004 almost half of the state development funds were misappropriate.[111] Megawati's response to this nature of corruption in the country was "I only have ten fingers. How can I handle those cases involving thousands of people?" [112] We can easily draw from these facts that Indonesia still has a long way to go to combat the large-scale corruption in the country.

Judicial system

Even as the political system in Indonesia, its judiciary and legal system have been notoriously corrupt.[113] A democracy is characterized by a 'Trias Politica', or separation of powers, however, with the new legal order in 1999 the separation of powers between legislature, the executive and the judiciary with proper check and balances did not immediately take shape.[114] Although constitutional reforms were already demanded in 1999, it lasted several years till they where implemented which gave free space to the culture of corruption which was so interwoven within the system that it is presumed that no one is entirely clean or innocent. Still, few Indonesian believe that their court will totally be free from interference by people with either money or power or both.

The difficulty to prove bribery in court plus several cases with the suspicion of obvious favoritism in the recent past have net helped to restore public's confidence in the judiciary. This existence of a corrupt judiciary has major consequences for Indonesia's economy, in a democracy a Supreme Court and a legal system can be scrutinized on the basis of public demand accountability. A corrupt system, however, is holding back foreign investors who do not want to risk the lack of proper protection for their operations in Indonesia.[115] Gladly, the constitutional reforms initiated in 1999 were adopted in 2002 and soon finalized this process.[116]


Indonesia has made tremendous developments towards a stable liberal democracy, as a start, most, if not all, minimal required political institutions of a liberal democracy have taking its root in Indonesia. The elections of 1999 mark a turning point in Indonesia's history, creating the first democratic elections since many years of authoritarian rule. A transition caused by transplacement made Indonesia followed the path of four general phases of transition from authoritarian rule towards democracy. Although the thirst three phases, pre-transition, liberalization and democratic transition have all been accomplished, the last consolidation phase which started at the election of 2004 is still in process. This consolidation process faces some challenges that could effect the democratic development in Indonesia. However, Indonesia managed to reach an eight on the democratic score, coming from a minus seven in 1998 this seems like a major achievement.

The main economic, political and security challenges Indonesia is facing are those of institutional reform and the role of the military. With the elections of 2004 other challenges to democratic consolidation became less pronent; however the military influence and institutional reform in Indonesia have not yet gotten its desired shape and are therefore now the main aspects which are holding back of the democratization process in Indonesia. The dilemma of choosing between a strong and effective military which can deal with Indonesia's security problems and the fear of politicization of the military is a difficult one. Reforms of the military are necessary on this matter, but although some reforms have taken place, the deeper necessary reforms are out of the government competences. For the institutional reforms, it is difficult to built strong and effective decentralized institutions. Political parties suffer from the legacy of the authoritarian rule where party loyalties and leadership where more important than a clear policy significant in a democratic system.

As the democratic process has shown, Indonesia definitely has the potential in becoming a stable liberal democracy. Even though the process knows some difficulties this does not mean these challenges will cause the democratic process to turn the other way. Every transitional country knows a series of crises that threaten to disrupt the process, and Indonesia has been pretty successful in keeping these threats from disturbing the democratic development. For a former authoritarian rule, it has a very good perspective in proceeding to deepen and higher the quality of its democracy. The problems it facing today could be overcome by new reforms, however, these last processes in creating a full and stable democracy might be the toughest and longest lasting ones.


- Abdulbaki, Louay "Democratization in Indonesia: From transition to Consolidation" Asian Journal of Politcal Science 16-2 (2008) 151-172.

- "After Bali" economist 365-8296 (2002)

- Bhakati, N. Ikrar "The Transition to Democracy in Indonesia some Outstanding Problems" Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies (2003) 1-12 internet document:

- Bollen, Kenneth "Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures", American Journal of Political Science 37-4 (1993) 1207-1230.

- Budiman, Arief a.o. "Reformasi: Crisis and Change in Indonesia" Monash Asia Institute (1999) 1-402.

- Carothers, Thomas "the Sequencing Fallacy" Journal of Democracy 18-1 (2007) 12-27.

- Case, William "After the Crisis: Capital and Regime Resilience in the ASEAN Three", Journal of Contemporary Asia 39.4 (2009) 649-672.

- Dahl, Robert A. "What Political Institutions does Large-Scale Democracy Require?", Political Science Quarterly 120-2 (2005) 187-197.

- Ghoshal, Baladas "Democratic Transition and Political Development in Post-Soeharto Indonesia", Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs 26-3 (2004) 506-529

- Held, David "Models of Democracy", Polity Press (Cambridge, 2006).

- Houseman, L. Gerald "Researching Indonesia: A Guide to Political Analysis" The Edwin Mellen Press (2004) I-187

- Lui, Hong "Indonesia and the Third Wave of Democratization", Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 30-1 (1999) 184

- Mujani, Saiful and Liddle, R. William "Muslim Indonesia's Secular Democracy", Asian Survey 49.4 (2009): 575-590.

- Palmier, Leslie "Indonesia: Corruption. Ethnicity and the 'Pax Americana'" Asian Affairs 37-2 (2006)

- Peluso, L. Nancy " Violence, Decentralization, and Resource Access in Indonesia" Peace Review 19 () 23-32

- Stalker, Peter "A Guide to Countries in the World" Oxford University Press (2007)

- Wolfowitz, Paul "Indonesia is a Model Muslim Democracy" Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 254.14 (2009) A13

Poll Preview, business Asia April 6th 2009

Business Asia; 4/6/2009, Vol. 41 Issue 7, p2-3, 2p


Poll preview

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's Democratic Party is on track to consolidate its position in the Indonesian legislature at the April 9th general election

With just a few days to go before Indonesia's legislative elections on April 9th, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's Democratic Party (PD) has further extended its lead in opinion polls. If the PD performs as well as expected, it will be able to nominate Mr Yudhoyono as its presidential candidate without seeking coalition partners. Moreover, despite the worsening economic climate, Mr Yudhoyono is The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2009 Business Asia April 6th 2009 3

Indonesia/Afghanistan already firmly on track to win re-election later this year. The president will be pressed to defend the performance of his government during his campaign, but he lacks a credible challenger.

A recent survey by a local pollster, the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), found that 24% of voters intended to vote for the PD in April, compared with 17.3% for the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) and 15.9% for Golkar, which is currently the largest party in the legislature and has been a cornerstone of Mr Yudhoyono's first-term administration. The same poll found that 50.3% of respondents would vote for Mr Yudhoyono, compared with only 18.5% favouring the PDI-P leader, Megawati Soekarnoputri, who is Mr Yudhoyono's closest challenger. This level of support would be enough to prevent the presidential election scheduled in July from going to a second-round run-off between the two leading candidates in September.

Significant support

The level of support currently enjoyed by the PD is significant for a number of reasons. First, parties must win 20% of the national vote to nominate their own presidential candidates. Given its current popularity, the PD will be able to nominate Mr Yudhoyono without being forced into a coalition arrangement. The alliance forged between the PD and Golkar in 2004 hampered reforms during Mr Yudhoyono's first term in office, owing to Golkar's conservative stance and the vested interests within its ranks. Many PD members are now entertaining the prospect of forming a second-term government without Golkar. However, should the PD's election performance prove less impressive than its current poll numbers, the party would probably continue its alliance with Golkar.

Mr Yudhoyono's high levels of support also suggest a wider range of options for his vice-presidential candidate, raising the likelihood that he will part company with Jusuf Kalla, the current vice-president and Golkar chairman. The president would also have a strong base of support in the legislature during his second term in officean advantage that he consistently lacked in his first term. In the last legislative election the PD won just 10% of the seats.

Rumours that Mr Yudhoyono is considering alternative presidential candidates have placed pressure on Mr Kalla to stand as a candidate in his own right. Although the vice-president has stopped short of explicitly declaring his intentions, he has said repeatedly that he would be ready to accept the Golkar nomination, if it were offered to him. Mr Kalla does not enjoy the wide base of public support required to claim the presidency, and his best chance of prolonging his political career lies in maintaining his partnership with Mr Yudhoyono. However, pressure from within his party is currently such that the decision may be taken out of his hands.


The Economist Intelligence Unit expects Mr Yudhoyono to be re-elected, but he will be on the defensive in the coming months as the economy goes through a recession and unemployment rises. The president's critics will also become more vocal on other aspects of his performance, with reform groups expressing frustration at the continued prevalence of corruption. Popular resentment of foreign involvement in the economy, particularly in the resources sector, is also on the rise. Mr Yudhoyono, a champion of foreign investors, could become a target for nationalist anger as the economy slows.

Nonetheless, there are a number of factors working in Mr Yudhoyono's favour. Most importantly, prices for a number of goods and services have fallen in recent months, which should ease much of the resentment created by increasing costs in 2008. Recent declines in global oil prices have permitted the president to lower subsidised fuel prices three times since December 1st. The disbursement of cash handouts to poor families as compensation for higher fuel prices has also boosted his popularity. Last but not least, Mr Yudhoyono will benefit from the absence of a strong opponent. Ms Megawati may just have sufficient support to prevent Mr Yudhoyono from winning the 50% of the popular vote that he requires to secure the presidency in the first round in July. However, the PDI-P leader remains discredited outside of her main centres of support on the islands of Java and Bali, owing to her poor performance as president in 2001-04.

Mr Yudhoyono's greatest asset is the lack of a convincing opponent In a busy week for multilateral meetingsfrom the G20 to NATOa conference in The Hague, in the Netherlands, on March 31st provided the US with its first opportunity

[1] Baladas Ghoshal "Democratic Transition and Political Development in Post-Soeharto Indonesia", Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs 26-3 (2004) 506

[2] Ibid, 506.

[3] Hannah Beech, "Indonesia Elections: A Win For Democracy" Time magazine (July 8 2009) which can be found at,8599,1909198,00.html

[4] Arief Budiman, Barbara Hatley and Damien Kingsbury, Reformasi: Crisis and Change in Indonesia (Monash Asia Institute 1999) 27.

[5] Ibid, iii.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Hannah Beech, "Indonesia Elections: A Win For Democracy".

[9] Louay Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia: From transition to Consolidation"Asian Journal of Politcal Science 16-2 (2008) 151.

[10] Ikrar N. Bhakati, "The Transition to Democracy in Indonesia some Outstanding Problems" Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies (2003) 1 internet document:

[11] Ghoshal "Democratic Transition and Political Development", 506

[12] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 159

[13] David Held "Models of Democracy", Polity Press (Cambridge, 2006) 1.

14] Ibidem, ?

[15] Budiman, "Reformasi: Crisis and Change in Indonesia" 41.

[16] Held, "Models of Democracy" 3.

[17] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 151.

[18] Dahl, Robert A. "What Political Institutions does Large-Scale Democracy Require?", Political Science Quarterly 120-2 (2005) 188.

[19] Dahl, "What Political Institutions does Large-Scale Democracy Require?" 188.

[20] Juan J Linz and Alfred C Stepan 'Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe

[21] Budiman, Arief a.o. "Reformasi: Crisis and Change in Indonesia" Monash Asia Institute (1999) 42.

[22] Ibid, 42.

[23] Ibid, 43.

[24] Thomas Carothers. Carothers, Thomas "the Sequencing Fallacy" Journal of Democracy 18-1 (2007) 12

[25] Ghoshal, "Democratic Transition and Political Development in Post-Soeharto Indonesiat", 508

[26] Bhakati

[27] Ghoshal

[28] ibid

[29] Juan J Linz and Alfred C Stepan 'Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, 3.

[30] (Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 160) Juan J Linz and Alfred C Stepan '

[31] Meredith L. Weiss "What a Little Democracy Can Do: Comparing Trajectories of Reform in Malaysia and Indonesia"Democratization 14-1 (2007) 35. 26-43

[32] Houseman, L. Gerald "Researching Indonesia: A Guide to Political Analysis" The Edwin Mellen Press (2004) 46



[35] Budiman, "Reformasi: Crisis and Change in Indonesia" 28.

[36] Bhakati,

[37] ibid

[38] Budiman,

[39] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 155

[40] Bhakati

[41] ibid, 7

[42] ibid, 7

[43] ibid, 7

[44] Ghoshal,

[45] ibid

[46] ibid

[47] Bhakati, 8

[48] ibid, 10

[49] ibid

[50] Juan J Linz and Alfred C Stepan 'Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, 3.

[51] (Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 160) Juan J Linz and Alfred C Stepan '

[52] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia"

[53] ibid

[54] Bhakati, 10

[55] Goshal 516

[56] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 167

[57] Bhakati 2

[58] Goshal 517

[59] ibid , 517

[60] ibid, 507

[61] Bhakati,2

[62] Goshal, 518

[63] ibid, 517

[64] ibid, 517

[65] ibid l 517

[66] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia"

[67] Goshal

[68] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 162

[69] ibid 163

[70] ibid, 162

[71] ibid 162

[72] Bhakati 11

[73] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 168

[74] ibid 162

[75] ibid 168

[76] Goshal 516

[77] "After Bali" economist 365-8296 (2002)

[78] ibid

[79] ibid

[80] ibid

[81] Military, 1

[82] Bhakati

[83] ibid 11

[84] Political guide , 3

[85] Goshal 507

[86] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 164

[87] Goshal 525

[88] Peluso, 24

[89] ibid 23

[90] ibid 23

[91] Goshal 525

[92] ibid 524

[93] ibid 524

[94] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 162

[95] ibid, 157

[96] Goshal 515

[97] Bhakati, 11

[98] ibid, 12

[99] goshal, 522

100] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia" 168

[101] ibid, 167

[102] Goshal, 514

[103] Bhakati, 1

[104] Goshal 507

[105] ibid 515

[106] Abdulbaki, "Democratization in Indonesia", 159

[107] Palmier, 147

[108] ibid, 148

[109] Goshal 516

[110] Palmier, 147

[111] ibid, 148

[112] ibid, 148

[113] Goshal 519

[114] ibid, 523

[115] Goshal, 520

[116] ibid 523

Please be aware that the free essay that you were just reading was not written by us. This essay, and all of the others available to view on the website, were provided to us by students in exchange for services that we offer. This relationship helps our students to get an even better deal while also contributing to the biggest free essay resource in the UK!