QUESTION
Assignment one: 2500 words-deadline 24/05/2012 6 pm
Question: How democratic is Indonesia today? Outline what is democratic and what is not
SOLUTION
Introduction
Several nations of Southeast Asia face different levels of democracy varying from nations like Burma that under authoritarian regime has no or little democracy to nations having electoral democracies like Indonesia (Aspinall, 2010). Indonesia is a nation having a long account of authoritarian regime, although is currently viewed like a torchbearer for democracy within the area. However, since the period of mid 1990’s, the majority of nations throughout the world which have met the level of at least electoral democracy in the manner that they could select their leaders and substitute them in fair and free elections have stagnated. The globe is facing a democratic downturn. Several researchers hold the view that in spite of some advancement towards consolidated democracy, Indonesians still experience a number of challenges, both from outside and inside the nation (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008). These take in a deficiency of capacity amid political elites, issues prevailing at the political level, terrorism and lastly, values and community that is largely still patrimonial, paternalistic and emotional (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008). Moreover, Indonesia still faces the issues related to law enforcement and there could not be any democracy in the absence of supremacy of the law.
Further, taking the above discussion into consideration this particular paper provides an insight into the level of democracy in Indonesia. The paper examines the issues associated with this somewhat new democracy, taking in the historical economic and socio-political aspects which have led to democracy within Indonesia. The paper also highlights the present problems which risk the steadiness of a democratic framework in Indonesia chiefly in the spheres of corruption, religion freedom, press freedom, problems related to social divisions and separatism and also how long authoritarian-style government has influenced the Indonesian political culture in the resent day.
Democracy in Indonesia
Indonesia is currently regarded as a ‘free nation’, even though this is to some extent misleadingly wide category. However, Indonesia is doing better in contrast to any other democracies in the present day (Dayley and Neher, 2010). A troublesome drift is the current erosion not just of democracy but also of the level of freedom. During the last few years successive to the end of the Cold War the number of nations deteriorating in a particular year in their level of freedom surpassed the number of nations perking up their level of freedom. The actuality that Indonesia is maintaining its level of freedom at a comparatively good level of civil liberties and political rights is in itself a notable accomplishment (Dayley and Neher, 2010). While the civil liberties, levels of governance and political rights of Indonesia has improved ever since the year 2005, it even now has levels of governance, through several measures that are in few respects fall in the category of susceptibility. The drift lately has been to propose that the country has either strengthened democracy or is extremely far on path of doing so (Aspinall, 2010).
According to Griffiths et. al. (2008), democratisation is basically related to the expansion of democracy worldwide from its core within North America and Western Europe. Since attaining freedom from Dutch regime during the year 1945, Indonesia has gone through several phases of democratisation however eventually democracy hadn’t prospered within Indonesia till 1999. The foremost effort to begin a democratic system within Indonesia continued from 1950 till 1957 and highlighted several political groups as well as a parliamentary government. Nevertheless, because of the unbalanced nature of Indonesia since it shifted to its own independence from reliance on the Dutch colonisers there was huge political disturbance (Aspinall, 2010). Moreover, it was democratic framework itself which was responsible for the failed economy of Indonesia and also for the downfall of the nation’s structure. Indonesia’s foremost president namely; Sukarno, presented a new view of democracy one that he thought was more appropriate for the traditional Indonesian beliefs termed guided democracy. Eventually, Sukarno’s idea of an exceptional, indigenous model of guided democracy was speedily incorporated as more suitable for Indqonesia (Dayley and Neher, 2010). Conventionally, the political culture of Indonesia has been grounded on an authoritarian and hierarchical structure. Moreover, the chief authority figure doesn’t frequently tolerate the independent or individual collection of control as this would frighten the steadiness of state. Sukarno’s conception of democracy seemed to fit long-established Javanese value models wherein authority is bestowed on one individual, normally a sultan (Aspinall, 2010). The existence of Javanese hierarchical values could still be viewed within Indonesia in the present day particularly within the special areas, like Yogyakarta within Central Java that continues to be a sultanate and the sultan still has powerful assistance from the local populace (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008). Moving ahead, this notion of guided democracy during Sukarno’s period was observed in a different way by the people of Indonesia than it was through those residing within Western democracies. According to Dayley and Neher (2010), in Indonesian viewpoint, guided democracy was the best effective means to form policy. Nevertheless, from a Western viewpoint, guided democracy made sure the prolongation of Sukarno’s control at the cost of the openness and liberties presented under liberal democracy.
Such deficiency of electoral and civil freedom became highly preventive in the following Suharto period that came to authority, with military assistance, during 1968. Authoritarian regime of Suharto is called the New Order (Aspinall, 2010). This particular rule was even less concentrated on democracy and rather emphasized on centralised control with a powerful military assistance. Suharto developed an authoritarian rule categorized by strongly centralized authority and personal power (Freedman, 2006). Moreover, he progressively proclaimed power over the military and offered the army substantial personnel, resources and tools. The armed forces performed vital parts in upholding social stability as well as political life (Freedman, 2006). The New Order period of Suharto has also been reviewed as a period of high exploitation and also, Suharto was indicted of having stolen around 25 billion dollars from Indonesia (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008). Further, by the period of around 1990s state privatisation had offered advantages to the Suharto’s close relatives and associates and had left remaining Indonesia in economic downturn. It was this which ultimately resulted in the collapse of Suharto.
Moving ahead, unemployment and rising inflation subsequent the financial disaster of 1997 impelled urban unrests during the year 1998 and Suharto was compelled to leave (Mietzner, 2009). Instantaneously, subsequent the collapse of Suharto, the country seemed like it wouldn’t be flourishing within its democratisation procedure. Besides the Asian Financial disaster of the year 1997-98, there existed three particular factors which appeared as if they would hamper new democracy of Indonesia. The foremost was the remaining facet of regime of Suharto and the legacy of a powerful military force. Moreover, this was military having a powerful political function and it was supposed by several individuals to be the innate inheritor to Suharto (Aspinall, 2010). Secondly, local performers imperilled the state of the Indonesian Republic summoning violence amid religious and ethnic groups located in Indonesian community. Lastly, the Islamist political forces endangered the future of democracy of Indonesia. Several of such Islamist groups had been crushed during Suharto’s period but had since then become highly assertive. Few groups were canvassing for Indonesia to develop into an Islamic area and to institute sharia Islamic law into constitution (Aspinall, 2010). Nevertheless, it now appears that still the country has managed to handle all these three issues to its democracy. Further, the military is not an obstructing political force anymore and the worst of fierceness amid distinct ethnic groups has diminished and the majority of Islamist forces have become appropriately integrated into mainstream politics of Indonesia now (Dayley and Neher, 2010).
Apart from handling these political issues the country has attained a great deal within its democratisation procedure. Indonesia has significantly extended its civil liberties, a pluralistic and eye-catching media marketplace has developed and there exist freely questioned multi-party elections (Dayley and Neher, 2010). Ever since the year 2004 the Indonesia’s president has been directly chosen through the individuals. It’s these facets that have observed Indonesia appear as democratic torchbearer of Southeast Asia area (Mietzner, 2009). Moving ahead, the type of democracy within Indonesia is distinct from the democracy within Australia, North America or Western Europe. Indonesia is regarded as an electoral democracy in comparison with the liberal democracy Western Europe and Australia. As a result, it is vital to properly comprehend what exactly is implied when utilizing such terms. The concept of liberal democracy implies to several situations. Further, the situations have been highlighted below:
- Significant and wide competition amongst organised groups and people for all efficient standings of government authority that to at regular time gaps and without the usage of power.
- An extremely comprehensive degree of political involvement in choosing leaders and guidelines, at least via fair and regular elections, in a way that no chief (adult) social set is left out.
- A degree of political and civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom to press, autonomy to join and forms corporations appropriate to make sure the uprightness of participation and political rivalry (Griffiths et. al., 2008).
Additionally, in terms of inclusiveness and civil liberties, Indonesia doesn’t presently satisfy the requirements of liberal democracy (Mietzner, 2009). Indonesia is currently a nation wherein elections happen and fundamentally, the government is selected by the people of Indonesia. Thus, Indonesia is regarded as an electoral democracy. Moreover, this political framework is still comparatively new for the country and for the foremost time during 2004, the people of Indonesia directly chose their president (Dayley and Neher, 2010). According to Griffiths and O’Callaghan (2002), Electoral democracies might hold regular elections and therefore highlight few measures of popular participation and political competition, but huge sections of the populace are frequently kept out of the political procedure. Likewise, the military as well as the other important parts of the state are frequently isolated from democratic control, the media might be expurgated and the courts might be ineffective and corrupt. In simple terms, elections occur but democracy hasn’t developed in the majority of other aspects (Dayley and Neher, 2010).
Regardless of the astounding shift into democracy during the last few decades, there still are several factors which are limiting the transition of Indonesia into a real liberal democracy (Dayley and Neher, 2010). There exist problems of political rights along with civil liberties which need to be handled before Indonesia could be regarded more than merely a low electoral democracy and rather become a nation which is free and just for its complete populace, satisfying the definition proposed by Griffiths et. al. (2008) of liberal democracy. Although, areas like corruption, separatism and radical Islam have been significantly developed over the last few years, there still exist several problems which have occurred.
Going further, President Susilo was elected again in the year 2009 signifying the people’s gratification with his anticorruption efforts and economic administration. Nevertheless, in spite of his advancement in dealing with exploitation there have been latest holdups since the leaders of the CEC (Corruption Eradication Commission) were detained (Mietzner, 2009). Corruption is a vital concern, chiefly in evolving democracies and it influences nations politically, economically and lastly, socially. As a result, it’s reassuring to view civil community associations capable of participating in the abolition of corruption within Indonesia. According to Schütte (2009), it is not only the government that is undertaking actions to eradicate corruption but the ordinary people are also effective in this task. Apparently corruption is even now prevalent within Indonesia though, it’s obvious that the government and people of Indonesia are dedicated to its abolition (Aspinall, 2010). Further, this is a good indicator for higher level of freedom within the country and something which would have not been possible at the time of the Suharto’s era .
Besides this, freedom of press is also a significant facet of liberal democracy. Ever since the Suharto period, Indonesia has done huge advancement in permitting a free media atmosphere (Aspinall, 2010). This advancement started during 1999 with Habibie, the third President who eradicated several legal restrictions on the media segment. Currently, Indonesia holds a diverse and active media although, latest studies have discovered that the freedom of press remains hindered through several regulatory and legal restrictions (Dayley and Neher, 2010). Along with legal impediments, the reporters at times experience intimidation and violence. With the view to evade legal and other implications the journalists frequently supress themselves (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008). Therefore, this is one facet of the political system of Indonesia which would require changing to grow into a highly liberal democracy.
Taking a step ahead, Religion is also extremely vital within Indonesia. The nation is home of people having distinct beliefs and is considered as holding the globe’s highest Muslim populace where around 86.1% of its around 243 million population are Muslim (Aspinall, 2010). Nevertheless, in the good of liberal democracy, each and every religion needs to be supported and the individuals need to be permitted the liberty to obey whatever religion they decide or to obey no religion. Moreover, this is the area which Indonesia must concentrate on in case if it wants to continue its democratisation. Indonesia legitimately recognizes Protestantism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism (Aspinall, 2010). Additionally, associates of unidentified religions have problem attaining the national identity cards. Further, religion freedom becomes predominantly vital in such a varied nation as Indonesia wherein religious splits during the past have resulted in the issues of separatism, terrorism and violence.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be clearly stated from the above discussion that Indonesia has been highly successful in building up an electoral democracy and this success has made Indonesia a torchbearer for democracy within the Southeast Asian area (Aspinall, 2010). This is a chiefly exceptional attainment provided that the country has just lately emerged from a huge period of authoritarian regime. In spite of authoritarian governments, this procedure of democratisation has been taking place in several stages ever since independence of Indonesia from the Dutch (Dayley and Neher, 2010). Moreover, the democratisation persists to advance under the present democratically chosen president namely; Susilo Bambang. However, there exist various issues which are stopping Indonesia from being recognized as a real liberal democracy. It’s essential that the country handles problems like corruption, press freedom, religion freedom and problems associated with the freedom for entire diverse population of Indonesia (Aspinall, 2010). Both the government of Indonesia together with the other civil community associations have highlighted their purposes for the revolutionizing of few of these spheres, nevertheless still there are various regions which require reforming. Further, the future appears bright for the sustained democratisation of the country and its people could expect higher level of freedom since Indonesia moves towards a highly liberal and stable democratic framework (Griffiths et. al., 2008).
It is highly believed that during the conversion period to consolidated democracy from the authoritarian period of Suharto, a number of Indonesians have been dissatisfied with the existing political, security and economic state within the country (Dayley and Neher, 2010). It was believed that freeing the country from the authoritarian rule would enhance living standards. However, this is a challenge not just for the government entities, but also for supporters of pro-democracy trying to persuade the electorate that democratic government system is better as compared to an authoritarian rule. Indonesia even now has long way to go in order to become a developed democracy. As a result, the nation requires political strength to deal with the challenges.
References:
Aspinall, E. (2010) The Irony of Success, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 20-34.
Dayley, R. and Neher, C. D. (2010) Southeast Asia in the New International Era, Westview Press, Boulder.
Freedman, A. L. (2006) Political Change and Consolidation: Democracy’s Rocky Road in Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and Malaysia, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T. and Roach, S. (2008) International Relations: The Key Concepts (2nd ed.), Routledge Key Guides, New York.
Griffiths, M. and O’Callaghan, T. (2002) International Relations: The Key Concepts (1st ed.), Routledge Key Guides, New York.
Mansbach, R. W. and Rafferty, K. L. (2008) Introduction to Global Politics, Routledge, London.
Mietzner, M. (2009) Indonesia in 2008: Democratic Consolidation in Soeharto’s Shadow, Southeast Asian Affairs, Vol. 2009, pp. 105-123.
Schütte, S. A. (2009) Government policies and civil society initiatives against corruption In: Marco Bünte and Andreas Ufen (eds.) (2009) Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia, Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series, New York.
LE23
But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper. Our service offers Economics essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”
