Suchergebnisse

Hadiz reviews OPPOSING SUHARTO: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in Indonesia by Edward Aspinall.

AbstractThis article assesses some of the major premises of neo‐institutionalist explanations of decentralization policy and practices, but focuses especially on the relationship between decentralization and democracy, in the context of the recent and ongoing Indonesian experience with decentralization. In the last two decades 'decentralization' has become, along with 'civil society', 'social capital' and 'good governance', an integral part of the contemporary neo‐institutionalist lexicon, especially that part which is intended to draw greater attention to 'social' development. The concern of this article is to demystify how, as a policy objective, decentralization has come to embody a barely acknowledged political, not just theoretical, agenda. It also suggests alternative ways of understanding why decentralization has often failed to achieve its stated aims in terms of promoting democracy, 'good governance', and the like. What is offered is an understanding of decentralization processes that more fully incorporates the factors of power, struggle and interests, which tend to be overlooked by neo‐institutionalist perspectives. The current Indonesian experience clearly illustrates the way in which institutions can be hijacked by a wide range of interests that may sideline those that champion the worldview of 'technocratic rationality'.

The fall of Soeharto's long-entrenched authoritarian New Order regime in 1998 raised hopes among many about a transition in Indonesia to a liberal democratic system of politics. However, Indonesia's new democratic institutions have been captured and appropriated by predatory interests, many of which were nurtured and incubated in the New Order. These have merely now reconstituted and reinvented themselves in Indonesia's new democracy. The article assesses these developments in the light of many of the assumptions of the still influential and growing "democratic transitions" literature and on the basis of case studies in two Indonesian provinces, Yogyakarta and North Sumatra. These show that gradual reform since the fall of Soeharto has allowed the rise in political fortunes of those formerly entrenched in the lower levels of the New Order's formerly vast system of patronage, including its political entrepreneurs and henchmen. On the other hand, those social forces that were marginalized under the New Order, for example organized labour, remain politically excluded. (Pac Rev/DÜI)

Hadiz reviews 'THE POLITICS OF ECONOMIC LIBERALISATION IN INDONESIA: State, Market and Power' by Andrew Rosser.

The nature of Indonesia's contemporary political economy after the fall of Soeharto's New Order regime is studied, emphasizing the role of the Indonesian state in supporting capitalist development approaches. An overview of contemporary scholarship on Indonesia's political economy is presented, emphasizing scholars' use of modernization & dependency theory perspectives. An additional overview of the historical context in which oligarchic interests arose in Indonesia prior to Soeharto's New Order & the strategies used by this oligarchy to acquire state power during the late 20th century is provided. The subsequent political insulation of the nation's oligarchy, the state's restrictions upon labor movements during Soeharto's regime, & the nature of labor mobilization after Soeharto's downfall in 1998 are then considered. Although political processes have become more democratic in post-Soeharto Indonesia, it is suggested that the nation's money-elite will attempt to gain state power again in order to further private interests; consequently, the need to determine whether current political actors represent the same interests possessed by the former oligarchy is stressed. 84 References. J. W. Parker