The origins of regional autonomy in Indonesia: Experts and the marketing of political interests (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cogent Arts & Humanities
This article explores the conduct of local governance in the decentralization era in Indonesia using new institutionalist framework. It departs from the argument that Indonesia's democratization and decentralization created new political actors in local sphere, as suggested by the rising numbers of new autonomous regions after decentralization policy started in 1999. This article argues that, first, informal institutions can be a substitute to formal arrangement in local governance. Second, local governance and local political conduct are elite biased that utilize formal democratic institutions appropriately for the elite's interests. To explore this phenomenenon, a case study method that focuses on Gorontalo Province as one of the products of decentralization policy in Indonesia is used Data were collected through in-depth interviews, FGD, historical sources, and Internet-based news outlets. This article concludes that the model of local governance in Gorontalo is an arena for contending social forces. It can be seen from the shared interests between indigenous elites and the interests of formal leaders, who are elected through the mechanism of direct local elections (pilkada). The mutual interests within formal dan informal procedures were utilized in ABOUT THE AUTHOR
INDONESIA'S DIRECT LOCAL ELECTIONS: Background and Institutional Framework
The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) was established in January 2007 as an autonomous School within the Nanyang Technological University. RSIS's mission is to be a leading research and graduate teaching institution in strategic and international affairs in the Asia Pacific. To accomplish this mission, it will:
Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalist Perspectives
This 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 neoinstitutionalist 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 neoinstitutionalist 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'.
Decentralization and Regional Autonomy in Indonesia
2009
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
2014
We argue that Indonesia’s path to democracy was borne out of necessity brought about by a state of extreme precariousness and then molded by its lack thereof. Its lack thereof precisely reflected the internal power struggle and elite competition between remnant groups of the New Order vying under a different set of circumstances. Notwithstanding the given peculiarities of Indonesia’s transition, the current state of democracy in Indonesia is clearly one that is also shaped by the patrimonial character of the New Order. While imminent necessity acts as a temporary stop to ensure that these predatory tendencies of Indonesia’s political system do not come to the fore, its dissolution subsequently opened up the avenues for them to remerge. For even necessity has its limitations and these limitations lie in its eventual demise. Such a pattern inevitably contributed to perceptions of Indonesia’s reform process as being perceived as a vacillating “two steps forward, one step back.” The stu...