Organizer and Chair: Karl G. Heider, University of South Carolina
Discussant: Donald K. Emmerson, University of Wisconsin, Madison
In May 1998, Suharto stepped down as ruler of Indonesia after more than three decades as President. Out of the chaos of the moment one slogan was heard clearly: "reformasi." For Indonesians, it is a foreign word with ambiguous meaning. The papers and the discussants on this panel will trace the fate of reformasi during the last ten months and try to give an idea of what it may mean for the future of Indonesia, bearing in mind what William Faulkner said in a quite different context: "The past is not dead; it is not even past."
The Debate over the Electoral System in Comparative Perspective
Dwight Y. King, Northern Illinois University
The future of transitions to democracy depends to a large extent on events related to the electoral process, because elections are the one political institution that both leads and reflects many of the social, political, and economic trends underway in a country. Selecting an electoral system—the rules that govern how votes are cast and seats allocated—is far from being a purely technical decision, and it has important consequences for the operation of the political system. At the same time, we need to be cognizant of the great diversity of electoral systems presently existing among democracies. This paper will review the debate that occurred in the last half of 1988. It will identify the various participants and positions in the debate, how proposals evolved through the various stages of the policy process (e.g., task forces to Cabinet to DPR and MPR) and suggest what the process and outcomes (new laws and regulations) tell us about the political bases and character of new President Habibie’s regime relative to Suharto’s, i.e., has the (old) New Order come to an end? Finally, the paper will place the new electoral reforms in comparative perspective and speculate about their likely consequences for the coming 1999 General Election.
Reform and Regional Politics in Indonesia
I Ketut Erawan, Northern Illinois University
This paper is an effort to understand regional variation in regional actors’ (politicians) responses to the reform process. Preliminary observations from regional newspapers or other media indicate significant variations in the content (agenda) and scope of the responses. Some regions strive to act progressively; for example, they demand the resignation of ministers/governors/mayors/representatives who are perceived as remnants of the previous regime. In some regions, candidates for public office are under pressure to debate their programs publicly, there is open criticism of central government intervention in regional politics and economy, and they ask for significant regional fiscal autonomy. But other regions act slowly and conservatively. As in the previous era, they wait for guidance from the central government in every matter. And, finally, there are some other regions which compartmentalize; they are progressive in some respects but conservative in others.
I will describe and attempt to explain variation in regional actors’ views on the events. Regional actors include members of the legislature (DPRD) and the executive (Director of Social and Public Affairs). Three factors will be carefully analyzed as effecting their perceptions and views: (1) the severity of the regional economic crises; (2) the degree of regional financial dependency on the central government, and (3) the strength and militancy of social forces (e.g., student movements, NGOs, political parties). Attention will also be given to recent changes in central government policies towards the regions.
Indonesian Reformasi in a Global Context
Annette Marie Clear, Columbia University
This paper considers the global context of the Indonesian reformasi. Even the word "reformasi" is foreign, and the Indonesian word "perubahan" has been nearly absent in the local discourse. So, arguably some kind of international influence is discernable. In the same way that observers identify internal and external causes of the economic crisis, some balance needs to be struck in the analysis of domestic and international factors of the political situation. This paper does not intend to belittle the critical role of domestic actors in Indonesia’s reformasi, but explores how global pressures helped or, more importantly, hindered these domestic dynamics. Does the experience of Indonesia demonstrate that there has been a globalization of political development and political reform? Have international factors facilitated Indonesia’s reformasi despite the presence of a strong state? This paper investigates how external factors have affected the Indonesian state and Indonesian society, where the state includes Soeharto and his family, the military, and the bureaucrats, while society refers to civil society, the students, and the mass media. The primary external actors are multilateral donors, the international NGOs, and bilateral donors, with particular emphasis on the Japanese since so little is known about Indonesia’s largest donor.