Democratic Consolidation In Indonesia Research Articles

The Impact of Simultaneous Local Elections (Pilkada) for the Achievement of Democratic Consolidation in the Election of Governors and Deputy Governors of Central Sulawesi

Researchers' interest in studying the quality of democracy in Indonesia has been developed since the reform era. Although there was a pessimistic view on Indonesian democracy's achievement, the quality of Indonesian democracy has experienced significant development in a proper political perspective. The dynamics of the first wave of regional head elections in 2015 feature the face of Indonesian democracy nationally. Democratization at the national level is awakened by strengthening democracy at the local level. This paper aims to determine the impact of the Direct Regional Head Election (Pemilihan Langung Kepala Daerah - Pilkada) concurrent in Central Sulawesi to achieve Indonesia's democratic consolidation. This research was conducted by a qualitative method with a descriptive-analytical approach that explained, described, and analyzed the implementation of the election of Governors and Deputy Governors of Central Sulawesi in 2015 to achieve democratic consolidation. The results showed that simultaneous elections have achieved strengthening democratic consolidation. This condition is seen in several aspects. Namely the development of a free civil society, the development of an open political society; the right rule of law; government effectiveness; and democratic culture development.

Konsolidasi Demokrasi Melalui Liga Santri Nusantara

Penelitian ini mengulas relasi antara organisasi masyarakat sipil/civil society organization (CSO) dengan pemerintah dalam upaya memperkuat praktik demokrasi. Tujuan telaah itu untuk memperlihatkan bahwa CSO dan pemerintah telah berkolaborasi dalam konsolidasi demokrasi melalui pembangunan olahraga. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan analisis wacana kritis. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa Liga Santri Nusantara (LSN) merupakan bentuk pembinaan potensi olahraga bagi para santri di Tanah Air. Selain itu, kompetisi sepak bola itu juga menjadi sarana bagi Rabithah Ma’ahid Islamiah Nahdlatul Ulama (RMI NU) dan Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) untuk berpartisipasi dalam konsolidasi demokrasi di Indonesia. Penyelenggaraan LSN menjadi bentuk dari konsolidasi demokrasi di Indonesia dalam tiga aspek penting. Pertama, konsolidasi itu berlangsung dalam aspek partisipasi terhadap perumusan kebijakan penyelenggaraan LSN, kedua dalam hal implementasi kebijakan penyelenggaraan LSN, dan ketiga dalam pembentukan saluran aspirasi bagi RMI NU dan NU. Konsolidasi demokrasi itu menyisakan hambatan dan tantangan setelah dalam pelaksanaan LSN terdapat miskoordinasi dan misadministrasi. Partisipasi CSO dalam program pembangunan pemerintah ternyata tidak serta-merta berperan penting bagi konsolidasi demokrasi. Partisipasi CSO yang sesuai dengan regulasi dan kewenangan justru menempati kedudukan lebih penting daripada sekadar keterlibatan yang malah melemahkan praktik demokrasi di Tanah Air.

Judicial Reform and Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia

AbstractConstitutional Reform after fall of Soeharto’s New Order bring favorable direction for judiciary. Constitutional guarantee of judicial independence as regulated in Art 24 (1) of the 1945 Constitution, closing dark memories in the past. In addition, in Art 24 (2) of the 1945 Constitution decide the Judiciary is held by the Supreme Court and the judicial bodies below and a Constitutional Court. Such a strict direction of regulation plus the transformation of the political system in a democratic direction should bring about the implementation of the independent and autonomous judiciary. But in reality, even though in a democratic political system and constitutional arrangement affirms the guarantee of independence, but it doesn’t represent the actual situation. There some problem which still remains, such as (i) the absence of a permanent format regarding the institutional relationship between the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission, and (ii) still many efforts to weaken judiciary through many ways such criminalization of judge. Referring to the problem above, then there are gaps between what “is” and what “ought”, among others, First, by changes political configuration that tend to be more democratic, the judiciary should be more autonomous. But in reality, various problems arise such as (i) disharmony in regulating the pattern of relations between judicial power actors, (ii) various attempts to criminalize judges over their decisions, (iii) judicial corruption. Second, by the constitutional guarantee of the independence of the judiciary, there will be no legislation which reduced constitutional guarantee. But in reality, many legislation or regulations that still not in line with a constitutional guarantee concerning judicial independence. This paper reviews and describes in-depth about how to implement constitutional guarantees of judicial independence under democratic consolidation after fall of new order and conceptualize its order to strengthening rule of law in IndonesiaKeyword: Judicial Reform, Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability, Democratic Consolidation AbstrakPerubahan UUD 1945 membawa arah yang menguntungkan bagi cabang kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia. Penjaminan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 24 (1) UUD 1945 seperti menutup ingatan kelam di masa lalu. Selain itu, dalam Pasal 24 (2) UUD 1945 yang menentukan kekuasaan kehakiman dipegang oleh Mahkamah Agung dan badan-badan peradilan di bawahnya dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dengan dasar ini, tidak ada landasan hukum sedikitpun bagi Presiden atau DPR untuk mengintervensi cabang kekuasaan kehakiman. Tetapi dalam kenyataannya, meskipun dalam sistem politik yang demokratis dan pengaturan konstitusional menegaskan jaminan kemerdekaan namun kenyataannya tidak mewakili situasi aktual. Terdapat beberapa masalah yang masih tersisa, seperti (i) tidak adanya format permanen mengenai hubungan kelembagaan antara Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Yudisial, (ii) masih banyak upaya untuk melemahkan peradilan melalui banyak cara kriminalisasi hakim. Mengacu pada masalah di atas, maka ada kesenjangan antara apa yang senyatanya dan apa yang seharusnya antara lain, Pertama, perubahan konfigurasi politik yang cenderung lebih demokratis, kekuasaan kehakiman harus lebih otonom. Namun dalam kenyataannya, berbagai masalah muncul seperti (i) ketidakharmonisan dalam mengatur pola hubungan antara aktor kekuasaan Kehakiman, (ii) berbagai upaya untuk mengkriminalkan hakim atas keputusan mereka, (iii) berkembangnya praktek mafia peradilan. Kedua, dengan jaminan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman, seharusnya tidak akan ada undang-undang yang mengurangi jaminan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman. Namun pada kenyataannya, banyak peraturan perundang-undangan yang masih belum sejalan dengan jaminan konstitusional mengenai kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman. Makalah ini bermaksud menguraikan secara mendalam tentang bagaimana menerapkan jaminan konstitusional atas kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman dalam masa konsolidasi demokrasi pasca jatuhnya orde baru dan mengkonseptualisasikan agenda reformasi peradilan untuk memperkuat supremasi hukum di IndonesiaKeyword: Reformasi peradilan, kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman, reformasi peradilan, konsolidasi reformasi АннотацияКонституционная реформа после падения Нового Порядка (New Order) Сухарто дала благоприятное направление для судебной власти. Конституционная гарантия на независимость судебной власти, регулируемая статьей 24 (1) Конституции 1945 года, позволяет оставить мрачные воспоминания в прошлом. Кроме того, в статье 24 (2) Конституции 1945 года определено, что судебная власть находится в ведении Верховного Суда, нижестоящих судебных органов и Конституционного Суда. Такие строгие нормативные директивы в сочетании с трансформацией политической системы в демократическом направлении должны привести к созданию независимой и автономной судебной власти. Но на самом деле, хотя в демократической политической системе и конституционных механизмах закрепляется гарантия независимости, онa не отражает реальную ситуацию. Существует ряд нерешенных вопросов, таких как (i) отсутствие постоянного формата об институциональных отношениях между Верховным Судом, Конституционным Судом и Судебной Комиссией, и (ii) по-прежнему предпринимаются многочисленные попытки ослабить судебную власть многими средствами, такими как криминализация судей. Ссылаясь на вышеупомянутую проблему, существует разрыв между тем, что «есть» и что «должно быть», среди прочего: во-первых, изменяя политические конфигурации, которые имеют тенденцию быть более демократичными, судебная власть должна быть более автономной. Во-вторых, с конституционной гарантией на независимость судебной власти не будет закона, который ограничивал бы конституционные гарантии. В этой статье рассматривается и подробно объясняется, как реализовать конституционные гарантии независимости судебной власти после политического преобразования и концептуализировать его порядок для укрепления верховенства закона в Индонезии.Ключевые слова: независимость судебной власти, судебная ответственность, судебная реформа

Indonesia. Indonesia's ascent: Power, leadership, and the regional order Edited by Christopher B. Roberts , Ahmad D. Habir and Leonard C. Sebastian Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Pp. xxiv + 372. Figures, Tables, Index.

Indonesia. Indonesia's ascent: Power, leadership, and the regional order Edited by Christopher B. Roberts , Ahmad D. Habir and Leonard C. Sebastian Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Pp. xxiv + 372. Figures, Tables, Index. - Volume 48 Issue 1

Political Conflict Resolution and Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia: The Role of the Constitutional Court

This article argues that Indonesia's Constitutional Court has played a significant role in that country's transformation fro m a violence-prone polity into Southeast Asia's most stable democracy. The Court has advanced institutional conflict resolution mechanisms and expanded democratic rights—two achievements identified by Linz and Stepan as major indicators of a consolidating democracy. Building on models developed by Ginsburg and Horowitz, my analysis also illustrates why the Court has been able to defend its autonomy and become an agent of democratization. While sharing Ginsburg's emphasis on high levels of power diffusion as a key reason for the Court's success, this article moves beyond such an approach. Most importantly, it suggests that the judges' judicial activism—as expressed in a number of controversial but popular decision—increased Indonesian society's support for the Court to such an extent that is has now become largely invulnerable to attempts of external intervention.

Indonesia. Money, power, and ideology: Political parties in post-authoritarian Indonesia By Marcus Mietzner Singapore: NUS Press, 2013. Pp. 301. Maps, Plates, Notes, Bibliography, Index.

Money, power, and ideology: Political parties in post-authoritarian Indonesia By MARCUS MIETZNER Singapore: NUS Press, 2013. Pp. 301. Maps, Plates, Notes, Bibliography, Index. doi: 10.1017/S0022463414000435 As Indonesia enters an important election year, this book provides a timely analysis of the evolution of political parties in the country since 1998. Drawing on comparative sources and unprecedented access to influential political figures, Money, power, and ideology challenges the characterisation of Indonesia's party system as one that is either de-institutionalised or cartelised. Instead, the book argues that political parties have played a largely positive role in the ongoing consolidation of Indonesian democracy. However, the dysfunctional party financing system is identified as an enduring problem that often leads to perverse outcomes. State-financing of parties is proposed as a solution. A major portion of the book problematises the application of Richard Katz and Peter Mair's cartelisation theory to Indonesia by Dan Slater and Kuskridho Ambardi. The Indonesian case is evaluated against all four dimensions of the cartelisation thesis to conclude that the Indonesian system does not meet these criteria. First, it is argued that political alliances between parties have been too 'anarchic' to be characterised as a cartel (p. 151) and President SBY has struggled to impose discipline among his contentious allies. Most significantly, PDI-P's consistent role as an opposition party, at the expense of lucrative ministerial positions, is cited to challenge the existence of a party cartel. Second, the decline in state subsidies to political parties since Reformasi is used to argue that parties in Indonesia have not fused with the state in a way that is predicted by the cartelisation paradigm. Here, the claim that Indonesia's bureaucracy, specifically the Ministry of the Interior, has systematically blocked political parties' access to state resources is an important one. The role of bureaucracies in democratic consolidation remains relatively under-theorised and this book provides useful insights on how this may be studied in the future. Third, the book claims that there is active engagement between civil society and political parties such as the PKB and PAN that have their roots in mass organisations, while party-society disconnect is a key outcome of cartelisation in Western Europe. Fourth, the cartelisation thesis predicts reduced influence of regional branches on the party's decision-making. The book contends that local level cadres in major Indonesian parties continue to play a role in deciding critical matters such as selection of the party's leadership. This systematic evaluation of the cartelisation thesis makes a significant contribution in advancing the study of Indonesia's democratic consolidation. …

Indonesia's democratic stagnation: anti-reformist elites and resilient civil society

As Egypt and Tunisia begin difficult democratic transitions, comparative political scientists have pointed to the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia, as a role model. Seen as a stand-out exception from the global recession of democracy in the pre-2011 period, Indonesia has been praised as an example of a stable post-authoritarian polity. But a closer look at Indonesia's record in recent years reveals that its democratization is stagnating. As this article demonstrates, there have been several attempts to roll back reforms introduced in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While not all of these attempts have been successful, Indonesia's democratic consolidation is now frozen at 2005–2006 levels. However, the reason for this democratic stasis, the article argues, is not related to Diamond's notion of societal dissatisfaction with bad post-authoritarian governance. Opinion polls clearly show continued support for democracy despite citizen disgruntlement over the effectiveness of governance. Instead, I contend that anti-reformist elites are the main forces behind the attempted roll back, with civil society emerging as democracy's most important defender. This insight, in turn, questions the wisdom of the decision by foreign development agencies – in Indonesia, but other countries as well – to reduce their support for non-governmental organizations and instead intensify their cooperation with government.

Political Conflict Resolution and Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia: The Role of the Constitutional Court

This article argues that Indonesia's Constitutional Court has played a significant role in that country's transformation from a violence-prone polity into Southeast Asia's most stable democracy. The Court has advanced institutional conflict resolution mechanisms and expanded democratic rights—two achievements identified by Linz and Stepan as major indicators of a consolidating democracy. Building on models developed by Ginsburg and Horowitz, my analysis also illustrateswhythe Court has been able to defend its autonomy and become an agent of democratization. While sharing Ginsburg's emphasis on high levels of power diffusion as a key reason for the Court's success, this article moves beyond such an approach. Most importantly, it suggests that the judges' “judicial activism”—as expressed in a number of controversial but popular decision—increased Indonesian society's support for the Court to such an extent that is has now become largely invulnerable to attempts of external intervention.

Dilemmas of democratic consolidation in Indonesia

This article grapples with the tricky issue of democratic consolidation in post-Soeharto Indonesia. It recognizes the great strides the country has made toward establishing a rights-based democracy. This includes attempts to tackle the legacies of decades-long authoritarianism – for instance, those times when state elites have put self-interestedness aside to cooperate in the establishment of new institutions that promote genuine democratization. This article argues, however, that democratic consolidation in Indonesia will continue to be bedeviled due to the poor institutionalization of a democratic rule of law. Until state elites and government officials predictably can be relied upon to enforce democratic institutions, and are subject to the law themselves, then a meaningful deepening of Indonesia's elitist/electoral democracy will be unobtainable.

Indonesia in 2008: Democratic Consolidation in Soeharto´ s Shadow

Indonesia's political and socio-economic developments in 2008 were marked by two contradictory trends. On the one hand, the process of democratic consolidation continued, with Indonesia further strengthening its political institutions, making progress in its anti-corruption drive and generally maintaining healthy economic growth. Indeed, with very low levels of political and communal violence, Indonesia in 2008 appeared like a bulwark of stability in the Southeast Asian region, as Thailand was crippled by incessant mass demonstrations and the Philippines saw the Mindanao insurgency escalating once again. However, Indonesia's democratic consolidation was also challenged by a very divergent phenomenon: that is, the increasing proliferation of some form of nostalgia for the effectiveness of Soeharto's New Order, which had ruled the country with an iron fist between 1966 and 1998. Significantly, the year 2008 not only witnessed Soeharto's death after a long struggle with illness and the post-authoritarian judiciary, but also the tenth anniversary of the democratic regime change. Using both occasions to reflect on Soeharto's achievements, many Indonesians concluded that his regime had been superior to the existing polity in several important aspects, particularly health services, prices of basic goods and security. This sentiment was also reflected in the names that emerged as contenders for the 2009 presidential elections: several of Soeharto's former generals threw their hat into the ring, trying to profit from the growing sympathy for New Order policies. This chapter aims to take account of both developments: the remarkable stabilization of Indonesian democracy and the latent support in society for Soeharto's authoritative and tough leadership. Accordingly, it will discuss events,

The Quest for Hizbut Tahrir in Indonesia

AbstractThis article describes the nature of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) in the post-Suharto era and its views on the resurrection of the global Islamic caliphate, its opposition to the notions of democracy and nation-state. In the aftermath of Suharto's fall in 1998, HTI has seized the opportunity to promise the establishment of a fair society under a global Islamic caliphate. The rapid rise of HTI has, more so than most other Islamist groups, been accentuated by the growing public dissatisfaction with the post-Suharto or reformasi period. There is an increasing perception in larger society that political, economic, and law reforms introduced in the reformasi era has had no significant impact to improve people's daily lives. This deteriorating condition under post-Suharto regimes has successfully justified the HTI's claims that Indonesia needs a radical and comprehensive system, or what HTI coined as al-khalifah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic caliphate). Looking at HTI's grand narrative of the global Islamic caliphate and its refutation of the ideas of democracy and nation-state, it is clear that HTI has taken a number of negative steps in the direction of democratic consolidation in Indonesia.

Political party and party system institutionalization in Southeast Asia: lessons for democratic consolidation in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand

Is a higher degree of party and party system institutionalization positively correlated with the consolidation of democracy, defined here as the prevention of democratic breakdown? In order to answer this question, it is useful to compare different levels and types of institutionalization in three Southeast Asian electoral democracies. Institutionalized party systems are characterized, according to Mainwaring and Torcal, by ‘stability of interparty competition.’ Moreover, the distinction made by Levitsky (‘value infusion’ versus ‘behavioural routinization’) with reference to the institutionalization of individual parties will be employed. The empirical research of this paper finds that most Indonesian parties are better institutionalized than those in the Philippines and Thailand with reference to ‘value infusion.’ In addition, the interparty competition is more stable in Indonesia. Therefore, the probability of a collapse of the party system in the Philippines and Thailand is much higher. This, in turn, renders the democracies in these countries more fragile and prone to political crises or even sudden breakdowns. The early organizational consolidation of social cleavages, such as in Indonesia, enhances institutionalization. A few of the most important parties are socially rooted and have strong linkages to civil and/or religious organizations. Furthermore, the relationship between central and local elites appears to be essential: strong bosses or cliques undermine institutionalization in the Philippines and in Thailand, respectively. However, in recent years there has also been a tendency towards convergence. There are signs of regression in Indonesia, such that the future of the party system is open to question. This article calls for caution with respect to the stated causal relation between institutionalization and democratic consolidation, and it questions some aspects of the concept.