Indonesian Democracy Under Threat

journalofdemocracy.org

Indonesia represents one of the few functioning democracies in Southeast Asia. While its neighbors have languished under military rule, with little representation in government, Indonesia has built a sturdy democratic system that serves its citizens better than it hurts them. According to Freedom House, elections are free and fair, with alleged irregularities in the recent 2019 election being dismissed by the country’s top court. The elections themselves are competitive, with multiple parties representing a variety of interests running in elections and receiving votes in the national parliament. A free and independent press has flourished under a relaxed set of regulations, allowing proper scrutiny of the government and access to high-quality information. While there have been reports of intimidation of journalists, the country has largely allowed for a free press, much to the benefit of the country’s democracy. Peaceful protests have been allowed, albeit with limited outbreaks of violence leading to the use of force by security forces. This was exemplified in 2019, as protesters rallied against new government policy.  Simultaneously, the country faces several challenges, including rampant corruption from businesses, an underrepresentation of minorities in government, excess military involvement in politics, and a judiciary too prone to making decisions informed by religious beliefs.

However, as this paper will argue, the biggest challenge facing Indonesian democracy is that of its reckless President Joko Widodo. While initially a marker of continuous democratic elections with his election in 2014 and reelection in 2019, he has shown himself to be incredibly power hungry, pushing for electoral reform that would allow him to seek a third term as President. This is specifically barred by the constitution and would represent a massive setback in the country’s democracy.  As such This paper will argue that Joko Widodo represents the biggest threat to Indonesian democracy and should be barred from seeking a third term. Though he has been a monumental force for the country, pushing through massive investment in infrastructure, serving to bolster the country’s economy and making it a regional power, his power-craven ambitions have stained his legacy, and more concerningly, threaten to upend a flawed, yet massive democracy.

Indonesian sovereignty, like much of the developing world, was born out of a long history of colonial rule and exploitation. The British and Dutch arrived in the 16th century, establishing trading ports, and representing colonial expansion into Southeast Asia. The Dutch then obtained full control over the region, suppressing the local population, often brutally. Fraught relations between the colonizers and colonized people of Indonesia sparked frequent rebellion throughout the course of Dutch rule, particularly on the island of Java. The outbreak of World War II served to upend Dutch control of the region. While initially falling under the occupation of the Japanese as they moved to conquer Asia, their loss in the war prompted calls for formal independence from the Dutch. The rich ethnic diversity of Indonesia that had long divided the island along ethnic lines united in their opposition to colonial control and advocated for their freedom. Under mounting international pressure, the Dutch chose to relinquish control of the island, giving the island it’s freedom for the first time in nearly 400 years.  

In the aftermath of World War II, Sukarno emerged as the country’s leader, inciting nationalist rhetoric that inspired the islands people to resist Dutch attempts to reestablish their control. As such, he was proclaimed President in 1945. Democratic aspirations were strengthened when the constitution was drafted that same year, establishing a formal separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This mirrored other major democracies and inspired hope for a free Indonesia. However, this hope dwindled as the years progressed. Sukrarno, a once democrat that united the various ethnic groups of Indonesia, slowly evolved into an authoritarian, working to consolidate power in the executive branch and aligned himself with Islamist forces as well as the military. Despite term limits being imposed by a Constitution Sukarno helped to draft, he held office for more than 22 years. Sukrarno resisted calls for parliamentary elections until 10 years after the country’s constitution had been written. In 1955, when election finally occurred, split results amongst voters for the parliament gave way for Sukarno to dissolve parliament, further concentrating the power of the Presidency. This furthered popular disapproval of Sukrano’s rule, and delegitimized the democracy he had promised to his people. However, his main challenge came from an alliance he had bounded between a host of opposing forces. The main two factions he had aligned himself with were the Communist Party of Indonesia, or PKI, and the military, both of whom felt threatened by the other. Increasing Sukarno allegiances with the PKI threatened the military’s power, causing an attempted coup in 1965. With Sukarno’s power weakened, he ceded power to General Suharto, who let the armed forces. Under his rule, he undertook an anti-communist purge, which was aimed at rooting out all communist presence in Indonesia. 

During the purge, it’s estimated that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed, in a horribly brutal display of authoritarian force. Under Suharto’s rule, opposition parties were delegitimized in elections, with the army playing a pivotal role in all forms of government. Backed by the United States, Suharto made Indonesia a hub for foreign direct investment, which led to increased urbanization and modernization of the country’s economy. While political representation was stifled and limited, Indonesians remained supportive of Suharto because of the economic prosperity that occurred over the course of his rule. However, his tenure was indeed marred by the brutality of opposition parties and figures, as well as increased military involvement in the political system, as well as heavy corruption from outside business interests. The 1997 Asian financial crisis brought Indonesia’s spiraling economic growth to a halt, and forced Suharto to leave power after 32 years as President.  In the aftermath of the Suharto presidency, a number of Constitutional reforms were undertaken, aimed at increasing the separations of power between the three branches of government. It cemented regular elections with term limited presidents into the constitution. It also increased regional autonomy throughout the country, which was virtually non-existent under the dictatorships of the 20th century. Following the 1998 reforms, regular elections commenced in 2004, and have occurred every 5 years since then. Though the system has been critiqued for a lack of representation of minorities and persistent corruption from outside forces, the system has guaranteed electoral rights to hundreds of millions and have facilitated regular competitive elections, both of which are informed by a free press. Economic prosperity over the same democratic period has flourished, serving to further legitimize the political system.

In 2014, the country elected Joko Widodo, who has been the country’s longest serving President in the democratic period. He ran for and won re-election in 2019, with his fresh five-year term due to be up in 2024. However, Widodo has expressed interest in extended his term past the constitutionally mandated period of two five-year terms, culminating in a 10-year term in office if fulfilled, as Widodo is likely to do. There has been discussion amongst political leaders of either delaying the scheduled 2024 election or removing the two-year term limit in the constitution. Either scenario is equally as dangerous for Indonesian democracy. What is more concerning is that the idea is being propagated by political leaders other than Widodo and has tentative support from the Indonesian population given Widodo’s popularity. The rationale given for such a dramatic move is economic – the country wanned under the COVID-19 pandemic and Widodo is viewed as the best person to lead the recovery effort. Democracy has already stagnated under Widodo – the military has increased their role in politics, reminiscent of past dictatorial trends, and individual freedoms have been limited via legislation he has signed into law, such as giving the military more power in his government and drastically limiting the freedoms of the LGBTQIA+ community. Allowing Widodo to seek a third term in office sets a dangerous precedent in a country with a deep authoritarian past. Increasing their dependency on Widodo only furthers his grip on the political system, and could legitimize him to seek further years of the Presidency. Others in his circle have also raised the idea of having the legislature elect the President in the future, rolling back a key tenant of the 1998 reforms that allowed the populace to directly vote for the executive. Widodo has overseen a country that has backslid massively and has the chance to further erode its democracy should he try to extend his term.

In conclusion, Widodo’s efforts to lengthen his stay in office follow a string of actions that have weakened Indonesian democracy. He must be barred from seeking a third term if the country is to stay free.

Regional Cooperation Prospects: The Case of ASEAN

  In spite of border closures and efforts to isolate during the pandemic, we continue to live in an interdependent and connected world. Supply chains are globally intertwined, families transcend borders - even continents - and it remains the global imperative to continue communicating and collaborating in order to address the concerns of the pandemic. This is why regional organizations remain an important way to ensure cooperation and integration across borders. One such organization, ASEAN, was established on August 8th of 1967 in Bangkok by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these countries were joined by Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia. As with most regional bodies, ASEAN’s formation was principally motivated by trade, but the mission goals of the group soon expanded to include regional integration, promotion of social growth, regional security, and sustainable development. The organization steadily grew to develop partnerships throughout East Asia, Oceania, as well as Western countries such as the EU, Canada, and the US through the ASEAN Regional Forum. 

            Overall, the organization has enjoyed a continuous and relatively stable existence ever since its formation and has come a long way since having a 5-article proclamation of its formation. Its terms of membership, mission statements, goals, and spheres of interest are increasingly complex and ever-expanding. However, this does not come without its limitations. The organization has also been criticized for being too loosely connected and not sufficiently involved in promoting equal growth, peace, and stability as it claims to be doing. These challenges to its mission are strong to this day. The pandemic and recent political developments throughout the world calling for a rise in authoritarianism and a halt in international cooperation only threaten to further destabilize and discredit ASEAN in spite of its great potential as a regional body. In order to maintain its credibility and success, as well as improve its future prospects, ASEAN should focus on political and socio-cultural collaboration more intensely, which it already has a basis for in its Charter as of 2008. Additionally, the body should look up to uphold the ASEAN Community ideals, and it should strive to increase and diversify its economic collaboration to include countries in other world regions, such as those in Africa and Latin America. Emphasizing the political and socio-cultural aspects of its mission will strengthen the currently fragile regional feelings of unity and trust in ASEAN as a regional organization and even an authority, while its expansion of economic interests to include those of other state actors and regional organizations throughout the Northern and Southern hemispheres would increase its trade and collaboration prospects, as well as help increase ASEAN’s independence from its traditional trading partners, allowing it more agency and choice.

Current Challenges

            ASEAN has enjoyed more than half a century of existence as an organization and a regional economic and somewhat socio-political body. Major challenges accompanied it throughout this period. After all, virtually all of its members are facing the complicated consequences of colonialism and have to operate within the post-colonial context in which they are left to struggle to model largely western model of a nation state. The region has suffered intrusion from the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, and later on Imperial Japan. The Philippines also found itself under US occupation. The great socio-cultural diversity in the region was largely left unaccounted for in the colonial era and following decolonization efforts after WWII. This colonial heritage leaves Southeast Asian states to simultaneously navigate processes of state formation and regional cooperation through ASEAN. This is a very unique context and a unique situation; and given these postcolonial circumstances under which ASEAN was formed, it is a grand success that it remains as operational and effective as it is today. On one hand, colonial experience, as well as the threat and presence of foreign influence during the Cold War, can be attributed as major factors in the decision of original members to finally unite in 1967 and then also work towards regional security cooperation on top of economic collaboration. However, these very circumstances also raise many uncertainties and questions. 

The region has experienced increasing turmoil in the last century. Vietnam and Cambodia have seen major political upheaval during and after the Cold War, Indonesia has faced numerous man-made uncontrolled forest fires and other environmental catastrophes, and Myanmar remains in a contentious political situation following a coup in early February of this year. ASEAN has been criticized internationally for failing to address these concerns beyond merely mentioning or acknowledging them in its committee sessions throughout the years. This is due in part to its emphasis on respect for sovereignty and fear of disturbing the forces of nationalism that came out as a logical response to the state formation process in the post-colonial world. Disturbance of this delicate balance ASEAN is currently maintaining with sovereign and national governments would inevitably lead to its destruction. ASEAN did, however, manage to more comprehensively address the issues affecting the region through its Charter signed in 2007 that went into effect in 2008. The Charter is now emphasizing the organization’s commitment towards accountability, protection of human rights, and democratic freedoms throughout its member states. This is a legally binding agreement demanding the member states’ commitment to these ideals and there are serious repercussions were these not to be abided by, including suspension of member privileges, sanctions, and even expulsion from the organization. However, more serious advances have been criticized and largely opposed by some member states. As such, ASEAN remains limited in its ability to actually act on its stature and appropriately address deviation from the unanimous charter. Addressing nationalist concerns means the organization must be heavily dependent on consensus and consultation on every major decision. 

ASEAN Community 2015 is another way in which ASEAN is looking to increase its legitimacy. The idea of ASEAN Community is grounded in the foundational ideal of ASEAN to increase regional cooperation and a sense of community among Southeast Asian states. It contains three pillars being in order: Political-Security Community, Economic Community, and Socio-Cultural Community. The member states have agreed to increase its cooperation across the three sectors for the purpose of greater cooperation, but it is no coincidence that the pillars are listed in that order. The organization prioritized addressing mutual concern for sovereignty of the region and, most importantly, each nation state as the primary goal, with traditionally accepted economic or trade interests as the second goal, and the idea for a socio-cultural pillar was thrown in briefly afterwards at a suggestion by the Philippines. This illustrates a major organizational flaw which is a lack of concern for actual socio-cultural community building, even though precisely this pillar may have unique potential to address the nationalist sentiments and bring the change from bottom up instead of from top down, resulting in a more sustainable socio-political makeup of the region in the future. 

Prospects for the Future

            The organization remains exposed to various challenges. Just over the first few weeks of February, following the military coup in Myanmar on February 1st of 2021, there have been multiple calls to call emergency sessions to address the crisis and appropriately handle those in violation of the Charter in order to ensure bloc members abide by the principles of the ASEAN Charter “including the rule of law, good governance, democracy, human rights and constitutional government.” Concerns over environmental issues as well some trade questions, such as protections on the palm oil industry, remain important questions generating distrust and fueling the nationalist cause. 

However, ASEAN is not without any way to address these challenges. The Charter and the ideals of the ASEAN Community contain legally binding principles and mechanisms to ensure accountability, rule of law, and ultimately more cooperation and integration in the region. The idea to include more socio-cultural initiatives to go along with the plans for regional integration is also there, and only needs to be more acknowledged and given more attention and significance. After all, it must be seen as paramount to promote appreciation for diversity, but also recognition of tolerance and regional unity on a socio-cultural level as a way to move towards creation of a more comprehensive ASEAN member state, and even potential future ASEAN citizen identity. In case of the European Union, as important as trade prospects were to found and maintain the core of the union, cultural initiatives such as Eurovision, and student exchange programs such as Erasmus, were quite necessary to ensure creation of a European identity, and Europe still has a long way to go. ASEAN could greatly benefit from creating similar region-wide outreach initiatives in order to move forward from the current situation of largely disjointed, self-interested members. This would also strengthen the civil society and thus improve prospects for democracy and regional stability. 

            Lastly, the region remains dependent on its traditional trading patterns. Its unity here is very important in order to allow it to take full advantage of the rivalry seen amongst Japan, China, and the United States looking for trade partners within the region. However, the region could also benefit from looking further outwards and establishing more substantial economic ties with like-minded regional blocs across the globe, such as ECOWAS and Mercosur. In fact, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore was to implement its free trade agreement with Mercosur. This would exponentially increase cooperation between ASEAN and Mercosur, and drastically increase the already present $3.5 billion in trade exchange between the two. COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down this progress and potential for a sort of interregional cooperation, but developments in this area are interesting and it will be exciting to see what effect increased collaboration across these particular regional groups will bring. 

ASEAN has seen its share of successes and challenges, but it is undeniable that it has decades of experience in norm-building and community promotion within the region, and it remains the most comprehensive example of cooperation in the region. Its charters and proclamations, as challenged as they may be through continued political turmoil throughout the region, still remain proud examples of hope and potential for greater regional integration in Southeast Asia. For this reason, it is instrumental to continue looking forward and ensure the organization takes advantage of its strengths and improves upon its shortcomings to provide for a more united and strengthened Southeast Asia.