Stagnation as a Basis of Regionalism: A Lesson from Indonesia

Abstract

Regionalism can be defined simply as a strong sentiment of loyalty or attachment among the population of a geographical segment of a state to that particular territory. As such, regionalism inhibits national integration by hindering the emergence of widespread popular identity with the nation. What makes regionalism particularly significant is that, unlike other horizontal divisions, it is the only source of fragmentation which by itself can threaten the physical integrity of the state. The prevalence of regionalism in an acute form is without doubt one of the most serious and immediate problems facing many of the new states of Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, the hypotheses offered to explain the intensity of regionalist sentiment are still inadequate. The most widespread of the explanations is expressed in terms of what Geertz has called primordial attachment.' Along with kinship, race, religion, language and custom, region is also regarded as an independent focus of loyalty and identity. More often, regionalism is seen simply as the expression of sentiments based on one or more of the other primordial ties. Presumably, a region which is dissimilar from much of the rest of the country in terms of one characteristic is likely to be more regionalist than a region without such distinctiveness. Presumably, regionalism is even stronger where there are several peculiarities focused or overlapping in a particular region. Closely related to and often combined with this explanation is the hypothesis that strong regional loyalty reflects distinctive historical experience, derived perhaps from the memory of past glories or conflicts. A history of intermittent or prolonged conflict with and resistance against other regions has also been cited as the basis of intense regionalist sentiment, particularly when at least one of the other regions has become closely identified with the central government. Another common explanation takes regionalism to be the expression of rational economic or power considerations. Assertions of strong regionalist loyalty are often thus attributed to dissatisfaction with the region's prevailing or impending share of either material goods or political power. Each of these explanations suffers from obvious difficulties, but only the