39-152-1-PB

207

Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu PolitikVolume 15, Nomor 3, Maret 2012 (207-219)

ISSN 1410-4946

Democratic Transition in Local Indonesia:An Overview of Ten Years Democracy

Cornelis LayUniversitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Yustisia Yogyakarta

e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This article attempts to map out the current situation of democracy in Indonesia, espe-cially at local levels. This map is based on a simple question: the extent to which 10 yearsof the democratization process in Indonesia has led the country closer towards effectivedemocratic governance. It concludes that an effective democratic government is far frombeing realized. Moreover, this article shows a paradox in the development of local politicsin Indonesia, on the one hand there has been political liberalization which is assumed asa prerequisite for the realization of democratic governance, but on the other hand, thedevelopment of local democracy in Indonesia seemed to stop at its infancy stage. Thereasons behind this failure are vary, but in principle related to the symptoms that somescientists called as a “broken linkage” a syndrome in which the forces of modern interme-diary fails to perform its functions in linking demos with public affairs.

Key Words:democracy; democratic governance; local politics; Indonesia.

Abstraksi

Artikel ini berusaha memetakan situasi terkini perkembangan demokrasi, terutama ditingkat lokal Indonesia. Peta ini disusun berdasarkan pertanyaan sederhanasejauhmanakah perjalanan lebih dari 10 tahun proses demokratisasi di Indonesia telahmengantarkan negeri ini semakin mendekat ke arah pemerintahan demokratis yang efektif.Artikel ini berkesimpulan bahwa pemerintahan demokratis yang efektif masih jauh dariterwujud di tingkat lokal. Lebih lagi, artikel ini menunjukan adanya paradoks dalamperkembangan politik lokal Indonesia yakni di satu sisi telah terjadi liberalisasi politikyang diasumsikan sebagai prasyarat bagi terwujudnya tata kelola pemerintahandemokratis, tapi di sisi lain, perkembangan demokrasi lokal Indonesia seakan berhentipada fase infantnya. Alasan-alasan di balik kegagalan ini bervariasi, akan tetapi secaraprinsipil terkait dengan gejala yang oleh sejumlah ilmuwan sebagai “broken linkage”,sindrom dimana kekuatan-kekuatan intermediary modern gagal menjalankan fungsinyadalam menghubungkan demos dengan pubik affairs.

Kata Kunci:demokrasi; democratic governance; politik lokal; Indonesia.

208

Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Vol. 15, Nomor 3, Maret 2012

Prolog: The OptimismThe fall Soeharto in 1998 has paved the

way for Indonesia to re-entering an era ofwhat might be called re-democratization.1This optimistic view has its solid ground.Political development of the country duringthe last decade has strongly suggested thatthe prerequisite for democratic governanceto take place has been fulfilled by Indonesia.First is the massive installation of moderndemocratic institutions into Indonesian po-litical system. Re-designing of political insti-tutions both at the national and local levelthroughout constitutional change and theintroduction of new regulations has changeddramatically the very nature of political in-stitutions of the country. The presumablySchumpeterian (Schumpeter, 1972; Dahl,1971, 1989, 1998) type of modern democraticinstitutions such as party, parliament, andelection for instances, are not only boostingbut also enjoying a very strong constitutionalstatus following the constitutional change.

Four times constitutional amendmentstaking place between 1999 and 2002 bringsIndonesia into a phase of party-based politi-cal system. This change has paved the wayfor the establishment of hundreds of newpolitical parties, spreading out to the wholeareas of the nation, and the creation of newrepresentative bodies, including almost onehundred thousands of new representativebodies at the village level. All of these bringabout high level of political competitivenessamong parties, high level of density of inter-mediary power, as well as deeper penetra-tion and wider spread of intermediary power

(party and parliament) ever experience bypeople of Indonesia.

Second is the massive dispersion ofpower. Locus of power is dramatically mul-tiply. Political power has migrated in mas-sive scale from old political agencies and lo-cus into new agencies and locus. Migrationof power has two folds. First is migration ofpower exclusively within the various levelsof state structures; it is an intra-bureaucratictype of transfer of power. This was facilitatedthrough decentralization policy starting inthe very early stage of reformasi.

Following the implementation of thepolitics of decentralization, locus of power isno longer mono in character as Jakarta as itsCentrum, but disperse to local areas. Morethan 500 districts and cities, and 33 provincesin the country now enjoy a substantialamount of power to run their local affairs,something that the country had been suffer-ing for more than 30 years. While Jakarta asthe center, retains only strategic power re-lated to defense, foreign policy, fiscal andmonetary, religious, and law affairs. This hasshied a new light in the debate of local poli-tics in Indonesia, either in position as agency,locus, or in its symbolic manner.

Power is also shifted horizontally withinthe centers of local power. Power migratesfrom old center of politics — province, dis-trict, and city – to the previously remote po-litical areas of the local periphery as expressedand facilitated through the massive creationof new local government entity, known aspemekaran wilayah (or re-districting inAmerican terms) during the last ten years(Surya, 2006; Suaib, 2006; Djohan, 2006;Ratnawati and Jaweng, 2005; Ratnawati,2007; Hanif and Catur, 2007; Santoso andLay, 2006, Santoso and Mas’udi, 2008,Pratikno, et.al., 2008). Still in the state arena,power moves away from bureaucracy to newactors. The very long concentration and cen-tralization of power in the hands of statebureaucracy, including military is now

1 This concept has been widely used to describe themassive political changes of major Latin Ameri-can countries during eighties. Re-democratizationis used in this article since contemporary politicaldevelopment in Indonesian shown (a) the postSoeharto period is marked by the re-installation ina massive scale modern democratic institutions ofthe fifties, and (b) most of the political parties oftoday Indonesia are very much the revival of par-ties of the past, including their ideologies, patternof organization and type leadership.

209

ended. Power is now distributed to politicalparty, politician, market as well as businesscommunity, and organized civil society asnew local political actors. Apart from demo-cratic argument, the shifted of power fromstate to non-state actors has its academicground on the concept of (good) governance(Dwiyanto, Arfani, et.all., 2003; Pratikno,2005)

Second, in the area of civil society, thedispersion of power is not only attributed tomodern organized civil society such as CSOsbut also reaches the pre-modern structure ofcommunity, a structure that based on con-sensual authority rather than law as knownin the concept of modern-state. This “tradi-tional” structure is now understood politi-cally as part of stake-holders in managingpolitics and power in the country that usedto be monopolized by the state. This shift-ing, together with the decentralization pro-cesses, brings about local democracy both asa value system and procedure into the coreof the discussion, even among layman. Con-temporary researches on democracy at thelocal Indonesia are boosting during the lastten years; something that have never beenbefore.

The third is political liberalization. Therehas been significant political liberalization,such as the release of most political prisonersat the beginning of reform, toleration of op-position, less censorship of the press, andgreater space for autonomous organizationof the working class and other social groupsto voice their views publicly. It is also truethat suppression and strictly regulated par-ticipation as the rules of the game underSoeharto’s regime are over. Greater space forthe people to participate and express theirviews and opinion is guaranteed. Moreover,more access and chance are given for demosas politically active citizen to enter into pub-lic arena. Minority group, especially Chinese-decent Indonesian that used be in the side-line of politics are now entering politics, even

to the very local level. Some of them are noenjoying their new political status as bupati,head of district and mayor, while others areposted as members of parliament both atnational and local levels. Some even becomepart of national politics as minister. Even thepolitical prisoners of the past and their rela-tives that used to be banned from politicsduring New Order period are enjoying thesame chance and access to public and politi-cal positions. Their right to elect and beelected is now guaranteed by law.

However, since the very beginning, asubstantial number of scholars are aware thatit is possible for political liberalization to takeplace either in a democratic regime or in anauthoritarian one, and that political liberal-ization, though an important step towarddemocratization, is not a guarantee. Politi-cal liberalization is a prerequisite for democ-racy, but there is a need for both structuraland constitutional changes in order to enterinto the world of consolidated democracy. Forthem, therefore, the fall of Soeharto does notnecessarily pave the way for democracy totake place. It is still an up hill struggle(Tonrquist, 1998; Linz and Stepan, 1998;Dhakidae, 1998).

Despite all the aforementioned develop-ment, as past experiences of 1950s demon-strated, the massive installment of moderndemocratic institutions, the massive disper-sion of power, and political liberalization,assuming to be the pre-conditions for an ef-fective democratic governance to take place,failed to meet public expectation. For mostresearchers, the ten years of re-democratiza-tion has understood as a kind of chaotic-in-volution at both implementation and ideaslevels. This, the argument goes, provides thereasons for the syndrome of dead-lockeddemocracy to take place, failed to establisheffective democratic governance which iscapable enough in producing and deliveringpolitical goods (Wanandi, 2002; Emmerson,2000; Dibb and Prince, 2001).

Cornelis Lay, Democratic Transition in Local Indonesia: An Overview of Ten Years Democracy

210


This article is aimed to get a clearer pic-ture on the debate of democratization on thecountry, especially at the local level. To whatextend the more than 10 years of democrati-zation has ended up with the emerging ofeffective democratic governance. What is thebasic challenge for effective democratic gov-ernance to take place in the country? In do-ing so, I will elaborate in more detail someunpublished researches and publications,and make use of them as basic of analysis.

Focus on local democracy is very impor-tant since, in my opinion, most of the debateon this subject suffered from ambivalence.In one hand, there is a wide range of supportto the installation of supposed to be aSchumpeterian-type of procedure democ-racy in the local area together with the basicidea of dispersion of power and political lib-eralization. But in the other, there is a strongopposition to such idea, especially in relationto its limitations and negative implication tothe local people.

The first view is reflected on the massiveefforts from many parts of the society, sup-ported by international donor agencies tohelp party, parliament and politician, espe-cially at the local level to deal with their tech-nocratic problem. Unaccounted capacitybuilding programs to strengthen the techno-cratic capacity of individual local parliamenthave taken place during the last decade inalmost every single district and city in Indo-nesia. All of the programs based on the as-sumption that the bottom line problem ofIndonesia in consolidating its democraticprocesses is in the lacking of technocraticskills in the part of key democratic actors.So as, the argument goes, a systematic ef-fort to fill this gap will certainly lead to a bet-ter performance of the new modern demo-cratic institutions.

While the second is reflected on, amongother things the strong criticisms on perfor-mance of political party, parliament and poli-ticians and the persisting problems in the

election processes, including in the direct elec-tion of local government leader. In betweenthe two opposite views, recently there hasbeen a growing research on genuine localpolitical order; an order of substantive de-mocracy that believes to exist in local Indo-nesia, but has been systematically victimizedand marginalized by the introduction of pre-viously a type of authoritarian political sys-tem of the New Order of Soeharto, and nowof liberal model of procedural democracy ofReformasi. The clash between local politicalorder for demos by given and stereotypeunderstanding of local politics of no democ-racy in Indonesia is now being one of themost controversial debates in Indonesia to-day. So it is important to outline the debateso as a clearer understanding can be drawn.

Mapping-out the DebatesA decade of Indonesian re-democratiza-

tion process has demonstrated a paradox re-sults. In one hand, the massive installmentof modern democratic institutions hasreached its saturated point, but on the other,the process of democratic consolidation re-mains at its very early step. It is also true thatthe massive dispersion of power throughoutamong other thing, politics of decentraliza-tion has multiplied the political agencies andlocus of power in the country, but on theother, political representation remains thecore problem. Finally, despite political liber-alization has been enjoyed by most Indone-sian, political engagement, control, and ac-cess of demos to public affairs remain prob-lematic.

The latest researches and publications oncontemporary Indonesian politics reveal theabove paradoxes. National survey conductedby Demos (Priyono, et.al, 2005) demon-strates the phenomenon of deficit democracyin the midst of massive instalation of mod-ern democratic institutions. Latest reasearch-based publication by Demos (2009), whileurges for the building of political block as an

211

alternative to face the current tendency, re-confirms the persistent of the problem of rep-resentation within which the old oligarchyforces remain the central player in mediat-ing demos and public affairs. This oligarchypower not only survives during the demo-cratic era, but also through democraticmechanisms and means. Robison and Hadiz(2006) have spoken about phenomenon of“hijacking” the process of reformasi by oldpolitical forces. They argued that institutionalredesigning through neo-liberal scheme tak-ing place in Indonesia has not paved a betterway for demos to have better access to pub-lic affairs. In the contrary, this new politicaland power structure has functioned more foroligarchy powers of the past to remain at thecenter of Indonesian politics. Reformasi,therefore, failed to create new political insti-tution and power structure in favor of demo-cratic order; it also failed to consolidate newdemocratic forces. It, tragically, has ended upas a process of consolidation of old politicalpower, leading to tragedy of hijacking de-mocracy.

The phenomenon of “hijacking” democ-racy is also taking place in the very locallevel. A study by Hari M (2004) on new-es-tablished village legislative body in Wiladeg,district of Gunung Kidul, Yogyakarta dem-onstrates that despite more and more politi-cal agencies and actors come to play roles inthe village political scene, the continuingdomination of old political forces in determin-ing politics of the village remain intact. Mem-berships of the new established representa-tive body of the village, Village Representa-tive Board, are in the hands of new politicalactors. However, the real political decisionremains in the hands of the old political ac-tors, mostly from local bureaucracy.Pambudi’s study (2004) for his master thesisin Graduate Studies of Local Politics andAutonomy, University of Gadjah Mada iden-tifies the same tendency. He found that localKyai (Islamic traditional teacher) in Kebumen

District of Central Java has been able to main-tain their political influence in society despitethe growing numbers of political parties andparty’s activists in that area. While a studyby Mella (2004) in former Dutch sub-districtof Mollo, district of Timor Tengah Selatan,East Nusa Tenggara Province testifies therevival of Usif, a traditional blood-based lo-cal leader as a new strong man during theperiod of reformasi. The political role of Usifis so essential both as intermediary powerbetween demos (or most precisely, ethnos)and public afairs, and as patron for localpeople, determining the political preferentialof demos so as puts the role of party as newdemocratic institution into the sideline ofpolitical process. It is also true for the role ofKetemenggungan in sub-distric Manday, dis-trict of Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan asRupinus’s study (2003) shown. Still in thearea of Timor Tengah Selatan, a study byHermawanti (2004) pointed out the superi-ority of marga, kinship, mechanism overmodern institution mechanism, i.e., party inthe promotion and demotion within party.The massive presence of party structures aswell as other modern institutions at these re-spected areas has a very limited implicationin creating alternative intermediary politicalpower for demos. The old political actors orinstitutions remain the most powerfull politi-cal forces in performing intermediary func-tion between demos and public affairs.

Studies that reveals the centrality of oldinstitutions in determining local politics hasbeen conducted in many areas by shoolars.Study of Wikrama (2003) in local politics inBali shows there is a kind of “dual politics”in the village of Bali. Traditional village andinstitution, Pakraman live side-by-side withmodern village and institution in dictatingpolitics of Bali’s villages. However, Pakramanwhich has its root dated back to 9 centuryremains the most important institution forBalinese in managing public affairs. Withinthe structure of Pakraman, Meniarta’s study


212


on Banjar (2007) also in Bali demonstratesthere are number of autonomous institutionsperforming specific function that have a verystrong influence among Balinese villagers.His study concludes that Banjar is the onewith its very specific function limited to itsgiven territory. Banjar performs functionsrelated to spatial planning (pelemahan), reli-gious matters (parahyangan), and society asa whole (pawongan). Another study on ruralBali by Riyadi (2003) found the centrality ofSaba Kreta Desa, a law-making institutionwithin Pakraman consists of representativesfrom Banjar responsible in producing bind-ing regulations (awig-awig) for the sake ofharmony. While a study by Arimbawa (2005)on Subak in Mendoyo Dangin Tukad village,district of Jembrana, Bali demonstrates thecentrality of Subak, an automous traditionalinstitution dedicated to water managementfunction in maintaining the sustainability oftheir very effective agrarian system. A func-tion similar to what has been performed bytraditional institution, Sasi, of centralMaluccas and Lubuk Larangan in Pulau Arovillage, subdistrict of Tabir Ulu, district ofMarangin, Jambi province (Saleh, 2007). Allof these the above institutions are playing aprinciple role as intermediary power betweenboth individual and public affairs, andamong citizens of the community.

Another study in Aceh by Wahyuning-sih (2003) on Gampong, traditional village ofAceh shows the revival of Menunasah, an in-stitution within Gampong in providing basicservices to the people; a function that has beenabonden for years during Soeharto era.While a study by Rahmad (2003) in the cityof Padang, West Sumatra demonatrates therevivals of traditional institution of TungkuTigo Sejarangan, consisted of religious lead-ers, traditional leaders (ninik mamak), andsenior bureacrats in determining the policyprocesses in the city, by passing the role ofpolitical party.

In a broader picture, a study byNorholdt (2004) has come to the conclusionabout the contituation of the old politicalpractices in today’s Indonesia. A practice thatdeeply rooted in the past Indonesia. Norholdtsays that reform era in Indonesia is markedby “strong continuities of patrimonial pat-terns” or, to put into Harris, Stokke danTurnquist (2004) words, “changing counti-nuites”. This patronage type of politicalpractices has frequently reapeared indefferent kind of symbolic manner but withthe same essence in phases of Indonesianpolitical development.

In the context of decentralization as awhole, Robison and Hadiz concluded thatdecentralization has been an arena for newpower holders to imitate the dirty politicalpractices of the past: phenomenon which alsohas been identified by scholars in a bookedited by Aspinall and Faley (2002). In thisbook, most of the writers argued that despitepolitical actors of the local have to make aradical adjustment to the new political cli-mate of decentralization in fact they still canmanage to make the system work for theirown benefit. In many local areas, as arguedby Pradjna. R. (2002), these politicians haveable to organize their political and economicinterest to such a level within which they canmanipulate formal regulation and utilize theweakness of the regulation to lift-up theirpower. In this situation, the old power, dueto their long standing experiences, retaintheir monopoly over local politics.

So it is not surprising to see that schol-ars like Priyambudi dan Foucher (2005) whoare compiling papers from various shoolarsstarting to question the validity of decentra-lisation as the solution for the country as ar-gued by proponents of decentralizationpolicy. The simple fact that decentralisationhas ended up with widespread of corruptionin the local area, violence conflict (vanKlinken, 2007; Tomagola, 2006, Hadi,Widjajanto, et. all., 2007) and repression to

213

local community is more than enough forthem to doubt the very notion of decentra-lisation.

Another research conducted by Depart-ment of Government Studies, Gadjah MadaUniversity (2002) undertaken just before andduring the early stage of reformasi period,1988 – 2000, in 14 sub-districts across 7 prov-inces in the country speels out the phenom-enon of what we called “floating state”. Thisresearch found that despite modern institu-tions have been long introduced to local so-ciety, they have never been able to penetrateto and work effectively in the very local levelof society. Instead, these modern institutionssuch as bureaucracy, political institutions(party, parliament), even social instituionssuch as NGOs have been functioning mostlyas principle arenas for the working of deeply-rooted informal networkings of tribes, ex-tended family, oligarchy, kinship, etc. Eth-nic capture and hijacking of modern institu-tions and mechanism by old institutions andforces are the main features of local Indone-sia ever since. However, a more detail studyin the case of sub-district of Amarasi in dis-trict of Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara, sug-gested that in regards to democracy, the per-sistent role of traditional power, the Fetor, istwo folds: in one hand a Fetor is enemy ofdemocracy, but on the other he is a friend ofdemocracy (Lay, 2006).

There is no doubt that in relation to elec-tion, the Fetor play a very negative role (Lay,2006). It so because a Fetor always dictates,even force people to vote for governmentparty, Golkar, jeopardizing the notion of afree and fair election as the core concept inprocedural democracy. However, in perform-ing their mediating function, Fetor has a verycrusial role in managing and preventing con-flict among conflicting parties. There werenumber of cases especially in regards to landconflicts involving different villages that onlycan be solved after a Fetor come to play hisrole. A critical role that also performed well

by Keteui Adat of Rejang community inNorth Bengkulu (Nurfaizal, 2003) andDayak Simpang community in Ketapang,West kalimantan as Repalianto’s study (2004)reveals.

If we agree that a democratic order is asystem that has capacity to manage and pre-vent conflict, then we would agree that aFetor is a vauable ingredient of this order.Furthermore, a Fetor is also an effective agen-cy in chanelling demos demand to publicaffairs. For example, after years of fighting— using all modern means available, start-ing from lobby to members of parliamentand bureacracy up to set up a street parlia-ment — to have their own senior high shool,people of Amarasi finally get what they wantonly after Fetor of Amarasi used his positionas traditional leader to speak on behalf of hispeople to the head of the district. He hassubtituted the intermediary role of party’sactivists and member of parliament to chanellhis people aspiration.

Apart from studies that revealed the su-periority of old institution over modern oneas discussed obove, there are some impor-tant studies showing that both traditionaland modern institutions are not always incompeting situation. They infact, haveworked together to serve their own intereststhrough a kind of “hybrid institution andpractices”. They, therefore, are far fromdemocratic.

The “dark side” of political practicesstemming from the meeting between old in-stitutions and modern one in regards todemocratic development in Indonesia hasbeen one of the most important studies inIndonesia. Samuel & Nordholt argued thatpower structure in Indonesia has been char-acterized by the working of formal institu-tions mechanism together with various typeof informal networkings. As in the case ofThailand and India, both seen that politicaldomain and formal economy have alwaysconnected to illegal economic activities and


214


criminal where bureaucracy, politicians, mili-tary people, police and criminal have built akind of mutual relationship. Consequently,there is no clear cut difference in characterof these actors based on their profession. Fur-thermore, They argued that type of democ-racy built is a kind of disjunctive democracycharacterised by electoral democratic processtogether with political violence andcriminalization of political institutions and thestate. As in the case of the Philippines, thepersistent of the problems of law enforce-ment, corruption, and organised criminalshas paved the way for local strongman totake charge and the increasing of using vio-lence against society of lower class.

The latest point has been study byArmuji (2004). He study speels out the riseof Jawara, a local organised criminal societrythat has a very long history in the area ofBanten, in city of Cilegon, province of Bantenas new coersive forces in the face of declin-ing state legitimacy in the local area and eco-nomic crisis. This study reveals that theJawara has taken over the coersive roles ofthe New Order’s military function during theearly period of reformasi before the local stateof Cilegon retained its role once again. Abroader study by Hidayat (2007) for thewhole area of Banten even said that Jawarahas transformed itself into a kind of localshadow state, undermining the function oflocal state. Jawara, due its ability and mo-nopoly over coercive force, in fact is the mostimportant political forces in decision mak-ing process in Banten province, including inbudget allocation for projects.

The strong tendency to use violent forcein political processes in Indonesia makesIndonesianist like Hefner (2005) seen the fu-ture of Indonesian democracy throughpesimistic lense. According to Hefner, com-munity as well as social associations in localIndonesia not only non democratic in nature,but also has a strong tendency to sectarian-

ism. This kind of society is far from potentialto be a democratic one.

Epilog: The Problem of DemocraticLinkage

Questioning the whole process ofredemocratisation is not monopoly ofschoolars in Indonesia. It is also the mainconcern of ordinary Indonesian as reflectedfrom the results of all surveys and polling inIndonesia. Most of surveys and polling ex-pressed the high level of disatisfaction on elec-toral process amongst Indonesian. Some sur-veys and polling shown the high level ofdisatisfaction to the figures resulting from theelection both for parliament and local execu-tive (governor, bupati or head of district, andmayor. In every single survey and polling,the result is very consitent: political party andparliament have seen as the most corruptedand the least trusted institutions in the coun-try. The level of confidence to political party,parliament, politician and member of par-liament is lowest in in comparison with otherinstitutions and actors, such police, militarypeople, and bureaucracy.

Our discussion so far clearly demon-strate that despite there is no clear cut clueon the question of why and how, the basicpolitical problem faced by the country isclear: the problem of democratic linkage. Toput into optimistic view, the massiveinstalation of democratic institutions have notyet followed by the uplifting of intermedi-ary function of such institutions in mediat-ing demos and public affairs. Even worse, inthe middle of multiplying processes of demo-cratic institutions, some researches haveshown there is a tendency of “dis-connect-ing” between demos and their representativebody and state in policy processes. A phe-nomenon of “broken lingakes” as Andersendan Torpe quoted in Clark (2003) describedit. What is happening is that the presence ofthese institutions almost solely endep up increating a more dense and complex demo-

215

cratic institutions with no impact on the pro-cess of democratic consolidation. This highlevel of institutional density and complexityhas further implication: it pushes Indonesianpolitics to an even higher level of politicalcompetitiveness, not only among modernpolitical institutions themselves, but also be-tween modern democratic institutions andverious type of traditional institutions. Andit creates an even complex power relation andlonger process for demos in order to get intopublic affairs. This has led the country into aprocess that might be called bureau-cratisation of democracy. Massive installmentof democratic institutions, do not makedemos become more autonomous and havemore alternative chanells to public affairs. Butin the contrary, it makes public affairs be-come a far-away institutions to be reached.

The failure of democratic institutions,especially party and parliament to performtheir hidden or meta function as democraticlinkage would have a far reaching implica-tion for Indonesian democracy in the future.Study of Lawson, et.all., (Lawson and Merkl,1988) in various countries has demonstratedthere is a strong tendency of the roles andsignificance of established political parties todecline over time, and the rise of political sig-nificance of alternative institutions, i.e., sixenvironmental groups, three supplementarygroups, four communitarian organizations,and three anti-authoritarian organizations.The main explanation to the above oppositedevelopment lies in the failure of politicalparty to perform its intermediary functionas it suppose to. As Wright (1971) argued,despite model of democracy developed, link-age remains the central function of party.

To some extends, the above tendency isstarting to take place in Indonesia. As Gradu-ate Program of Local Politics and Autonomyof Gadjah Mada University research con-formed (PLOD, 2006), numbers of non-po-litical (party) organizations are growing tre-mendously during the last ten years, and

they are starting to take over political link-age functions of party. But unlike Lawson’s,et.all., cases, the challenge to political partyin Indonesia is even bigger. They not onlyhave to compete with each other and withnew established social institutions in order towin the heart of the people, but also with thelong-established traditional institutionswhose have traditional monopoly over inter-mediary role. And, as our discussion sug-gested, in this polycentrism situation, it seemsthat political parties are lacking behind.

From the perspective of democratic con-solidation, the above development is not apromising sign for the future of Indonesiandemocracy. The reason is simple. As arguedby Lawson (Lawson and Merkl, 1988: 36),“(w)e can have linkage without such organi-zations, but we cannot have democratic link-age”. This even worse for Indonesia, since“well educated, well informed, and above allwell equipped with electronic means to con-vey his or her opinion on any subject at anytime to any one, can play the role of the truedemocratic as never before” (ibid) are hardlyfound in today’s (local) Indonesia.

References

Arimbawa, Ida Ketut. (2005). PengelolaanKonflik Dalam Subak (Studi Kasus diSubak Pecelengan Pedukuhan, DesaMendoyo Dangin Tukad, KecamatanMendoyo, Kabupaten Jembrana, ProvinsiBali. MA Thesis, Local Politics and Re-gional Autonomy Program. Yogya-karta: Gadjah Mada University.

Armuji, Oji. (2004). Konfigurasi KekuasaanElit Lokal: Dinamika Ulama, Jawara, danPengusaha di Kota Cilegon (Masa OrdeBaru, Masa Transisi, dan Pasca 2000). MAThesis, Local Politics and Regional Au-


216


tonomy Program, Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University.

Aspinall, Edward and Greg Fealy. (2003).Local Power and Politics in Indonesia:Decentralization and Democratization.Singapore: ISEAS.

Bresnan, John. (ed). (2005). Indonesia: TheGreat Transition. New York: Rowman &Littlefield Publisher Inc.

Clark, Alistair. (2003, 15-17 April). Parties andPolitical Linkage: Towards a Comprehen-sive Framework for Analysis. Paper pre-sented for SPA Annual Conference, Uni-versity of Leicester.

Dahl, Robert. (1998). On Democracy. NewHaven: Yale University Press

——————————. (1989). Democracyand Its Critics. New Haven: Yale Uni-versity Press.

——————————. (1971). Polyarchy,Participation and Opposition. New Ha-ven: Yale University Press.

Dhakidae, Daniel. (1998, 12-14 Agustus). TheLong and Winding Road: Constraints toDemocracy in Indonesian Politics. Paperpresented before International Confer-ence Toward Structural Reforms For De-mocratization in Indonesia: Problemsand Prospects, held by LIPI and FordFoundation, Jakarta.

Dibb, Paul and Peter Prince. (2001).Indonesia’s Grim Outlook. Orbis, Fall.

Djohan, Djohermansyah. (2006). MengkajiKembali Konsep Pemekaran DaerahOtonom in Indra J. Piliang, dkk., (eds.).Blue Print of Indonesian Local Autonomy.Jakarta: Yayasan Hark at Bangsa-Part-nership.

Emmerson, Donald K. (2000). Will Indone-sia Survive?. Foreign Affairs.

Fung, Archon Fung and Erick Olin Wright.(2003). Deepening Democracy: Institu-

tional Innovations in Empowered Partici-patory Governance. London: Verso Press.

Hadi, Syamsul., Andi Widjajanto, et.all.(2007) Disintegrasi Pasca Orde Baru.Negara, Konflik Lokal dan DinamikaInternasional, Jakarta: CIRwS-UI-Obor.

Hanif, Hanif dan Oktafiani Catur. (2007, 14-15 Agustus). Dilema Formasi PolitikTeritori Baru: Pemekaran Daerah, PolitikIndentitas dan Integrasi Nasional. Paperpresented before the 21st AIPI NationalSeminar, Manado.

Harriss, John., Kristian Stokke, dan OlleTornquist (ed.). (2004). Politicising De-mocracy: The New Local Politics ofDemocratisation. New York: Palgrave.

Hermawanti, Mefi. (2004). Politik Adat(Sebuah Dinamika Modal Sosial diKabupaten Timor Tengah Selatan, NusaTenggara Timur). MA Thesis, Local Poli-tics and Regional Autonomy Program,Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University.

Hidayat, Syarif. (2007, 14-15 Agustus).Kinerja Pemerintahan Daerah PascaPilkada: Perspektif Ekonomi Politik. Pa-per presented before the 21st AIPI Na-tional Seminar, Menado.

Lawson, Kay and Peter H. Merkl, (eds.).(1998). When Parties Fail. New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Lay, Cornelis. (2006). “Democracy in a Di-vided Society: A Study on Amarasi Sub-district”, Jurnal Masyarakat Indonesia,LIPI, 2006.

Lay, Corneli, et.all. (2002). Decenytralizationand Democracy: A Study on Sub-Districtas Arena for Developing Democracy, Pub-lic Services, Economic Development andIntermediary Power, Final Report.Yogyakarta: Fisipol UGM and the FordFoundation.

Linz, Juan and Alfred Stepan. (1998, 12-14Agustus). Defining and Crafting Demo-

217

cratic Transition, Constitutions and Con-solidation. Paper presented before theInternational Conference Toward Struc-tural Reform For Democratization inIndonesia: Problems and Prospects, heldby LIPI and The Ford Foundation,Jakarta.

M, Widyo Hari. (2004). Dinamika DemokrasiDesa Dalam Rangka Membangun GoodGovernance di Tingkat Lokal (SuatuPenelitian Tentang Dinamika DemokrasiDesa di Desa Wiladeg KecamatanKarangmojo, Kabupaten Gunungkidul,DIY). MA Thesis, Local Politics and Re-gional Autonomy Programme.Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University.

Mella, George D. (2004). Peranan Orang KuatDalam Politik Lokal (Studi KasusMengenai Peran Usif Dalam Politik Lokaldi Eks Swapraja Mollo, Kabupaten TimorTengah Selatan). MA Thesis, Local Poli-tics and Regional Autonomy Program.Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University.

Meniarta, I Ketut. (2003). Dinamika SistemKesejahteraan Masyarakat BanjarPakraman (Studi Tentang Modal SosialMasyarakat di Banjar PakramanBatannyuh, Kecamatan Marga,Kabupaten Tabaanan, Provinsi Bali. MAThesis, Local Politics and Regional Au-tonomy Program. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University.

Nurfaizal, Gusti. (2003). Pengelolaan KonflikSosial Melalui Lembaga Adat (StudiKasus Konflik Etnis Jawa-Rejang dalamKomunitas Petani Plasma Karet PTPerkebunan Nusantara VII di KecamatanBatik Nau Kabupaten Bengkulu Utara.MA Thesis, Local Politics and RegionalAutonomy Program. Yogyakarta:Gadjah Mada University.

Nordholt, Henk Schulte. (2004). Decentrali-zation in Indonesia: Less State: MoreDemocracy? in John Harris, et.all.,

Politicising Democracy. The New LocalPolitics of Democracy. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

PLOD. (2006). Keterlibatan Publik DalamDesentralisasi Tata Pemerintahan (Studitentang Problem, Dinamika, dan ProspekCivil Society Organization in Indonesia),tidak dipublikasikan, KerjasamaPLOD, Bridge, Bappenas, dan UNDP,2006.

Pambudi, R. Agung. (2004). Kiai DanKekuasaan (Studi Peran dan StrategiPolitik Kiai di Kabupaten Kebumen). MAThesis, Local Politics and Regional Au-tonomy Program. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University.

Philpot, Simon. (2000). Rethinking Indone-sia: Postcolonial Theory,Authoritarianism and Identity. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pratikno. (2008). Kajian Pemekaran WilayahBiak Numfor. Yogyakarta: PLOD-JIP.

Pratikno. (2005). Democratik Governance.Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Vol-ume 8, No. 3, Maret, UGM, Yogyakarta.

Priyono, A.E. et.all (eds.). (2007). MenjadikanDemokrasi Bermakna. Masalah danPilihan di Indonesia, (rev. ed). Jakarta:Demos.

Rahmad, Noviar. (2003). Tungku TigoSajarangan Dalam Ranah Politik Lokal(Studi tentang Partisipasi Tungku TigoSajarangan dalam Penyusunan RencanaPembangunan Daerah di Kota Padang).MA Thesis, Local Politics and RegionalAutonomy Program. Yogyakarta:Gadjah Mada University.

Ratnawati, Tri and Robert Endi Jaweng.(2005). Meninjau KebijaksanaanPemekaran Daerah. Jentera, Edisi 10Tahun III October 2005.

Ratnawati, Tri. (2007, 14-15 Agustus).Beberapa Permasalahan Pemekaran


218


Wilayah Era Reformasi dan AlternatifSolusi. Paper presented before the 21st

AIPI National Seminar, Manado.Repalianto. (2004). Resolusi Konflik yang

Demokratis Dalam Perspektif Masya-rakat Dayak Simpang. MA Thesis, LocalPolitics and Regional AutonomyProgramme, Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University.

Riyadi, I Gusti Ngurah Bagus Putra. (2003).Saba Kreta Desa Sebagai Basis DemokrasiDesa Pakraman Bali (Studi Kasus di DesaPakraman Pohgading KotamadyaDenpasar). MA Thesis, Local Politics andRegional Autonomy Program. Yogya-karta: Gadjah Mada University.

Robinson, Richard and Vedi R. Hadiz. (2004).Reorganizing Power in Indonesia: ThePolitic of oligarchy in the Age of Market.London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

Rupinus. (2003). Eksistensi LembagaPemerintahan Adat KetemenggunganDalam Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah(Studi Penelitian di Kecamatan MandayKabupaten Kapuas Hulu ProvinsiKalimantan Barat). MA Thesis, LocalPolitics and Regional AutonomyProgramme. Yogyakarta: GadjahMada University.

Saleh, Padli. (2005). “Lubuk Larangan”:Modal Sosial di Tingkat Lokal (StudiTentang Model Pengelolaan SumberdayaPerikanan di Desa Pulau Aro, KecamatanTabir Ulu, Kabupaten Merangin, ProvinsiJambi. MA Thesis, Local Politics and Re-gional Autonomy Program, Yogya-karta: Gadjah Mada University.

Samadhi, Willy Purna and Nicolas Warouw(eds.). (2009). Building Democracy on theSand. Advances and Setbacks in Indone-sia. Jakarta: PCD Press and Demos.

Samuel, Hanneman and Henk SchulteNordholt (eds.). (2004). Indonesia inTransition: Rethinking Civil Society,Region and Crisis. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar.

Santoso, Purwo and Cornelis Lay. (2007).Menuju Puncak. Kajian AkademikPemekaran Kabupaten Puncak JayaMenjadi Puncak. Yogyakarta: PLOD-JIP.

Santoso, Purwo and Wawan Mas’udi. (2008).Banyak Jalan Menuju Roma. KajianAkademik Pemekaran Kabupaten FloresTimur Menjadi Adonara. Yogyakarta:PLOD-JIP.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1972). Capitalism,Socialism and Democracy. New York:Harper.

Suaib, Eko. (2006, 11-14 Juli). Defisit PolitikPemekaran Wilayah. Paper presentedbefore the International Seminar on Lo-cal political dynamic in Indonesia,Salatiga.

Surya, R. Alam. (2006, 11-14 Juli). PemekaranDaerah Baru di Indonesia: Kasus diWilayah Penelitian IRDA. Paper pre-sented before the International Seminaron Local political dynamic in Indonesia,Salatiga.

Tamagola, Thamrin. (2006). RepublikKapling. Yogyakarta: Resist Book.

Tornquist, Olle. (1998, 12-14 Agustus). TheIndonesian Lesson. Paper presented be-fore International Conference “TowardStructural Reforms For Democratizationin Indonesia: Problems and Prospects”,held by LIPI and Ford Foundation,Jakarta.

van Klinken, Gerry. (2007). Small Town War:Communal Violence and Democratiza-tion in Indonesia. Jakarta: Obor-KITLV.

219

Wahyuningsih, Henny Sri. (2003). Refung-sionalisasi Meunasah Dalam Pemerintah-an Gampong di Provinsi Nanggroe AcehDarussalam. MA Thesis, Local Politicsand Regional Autonomy Program.Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University.

Wanandi, Jusuf. (2002). Indonesia: A FailedState?. The Washington Quarterly,Summer 2002. 25: 3 pp. 135-146.

Wikrama, I Gusti Agung Nyoman Alit.(2003). Desa Dinas dan Desa Pakraman(Dualisme Kepemimpinan dan Implikasi-nya terhadap Partisipasi Masyarakatdalam Program Pembangunan Peme-rintah Desa Dinas Pejeng Kawan

Kecamatan Tampak Siring KabupatenGianyar Provinsi Bali. MA Thesis, LocalPolitics and Regional Autonomy Pro-gram. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Uni-versity.

Widfeldt. (1999). Linking Parties withPeople: Party Membership in Sweden1960-1997. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Wright, W. E. (1971). Comparative PartyModels: Rational-Efficient and PartyDemocracy in W. E. Wright (ed.). AComparative Study of Party Organiza-tion., Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publish-ing.


Documents

39-152-1-PB