Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Vedi R. Hadiz is Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore. Most recently, he is the editor of Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia (2006).

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia

Stanford University Press

Contents

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................xiIntroduction: Localisation and Globalisation.......................................................................11. Decentralisation, Development And Democracy: Theoretical Issues and Debates.....................................172. The Post-Authoritarian Context: Technocratic Ambitions and the Challenge of Predatory Power.....................403. The Localisation of Power and Institutional Change..............................................................634. A Political Sociology of Local Elites...........................................................................885. Money Politics and Thuggery in New Local Democracies............................................................1196. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion.........................................................................143Conclusion: Decentralisation, Recentralisation and Globalisation...................................................171Notes..............................................................................................................185Bibliography.......................................................................................................205Index..............................................................................................................231

Chapter One

The main objective of this chapter is to examine the way in which the localisation of power has been understood in the contemporary literature on the developing world, especially as it pertains to Indonesia and other post-authoritarian Southeast Asian cases. The focus is particularly on the contradiction-laden relationship among decentralisation, economic development and democracy. As mentioned previously, decentralisation policy has been the institutional form in which the localisation of power has taken place (Harriss, Stokke and Tornquist 2004: 3).

This chapter questions why a particular kind of understanding, mainly associated with neo-liberal and neo-institutionalist schools of thought-and primarily originating from within the discipline of economics-has come to predominate in both the academic literature and that produced by international development agencies, while also appealing to many civil society organisations in the region.

The intention is not to suggest a process by which developing societies merely swallow whole the framework of thinking predominantly advanced by technocrats perched in the offices of international development organisations. In fact, the agenda of neo-liberal governance reform, including the aspect of decentralisation can be appropriated by a range of local interests with little regard for upholding 'good governance' principles. These interests may even be strenuously opposed to the incursion of demands for accountability and transparency while fighting for greater local autonomy over a range of social, economic and political fields. At the same time, such interests seek to negotiate the terms of local engagement with the forces of economic globalisation, as the expansion of markets potentially produces new rent-seeking opportunities. Thus the neo-liberal reform agenda can morph into something completely different when the aspect of concrete political struggle is inserted into it.

Central Themes

ADVANCING DECENTRALISATION

In agreement with Bardhan and Mookherjee (2006), the World Bank has observed that decentralisation is 'a global and regional phenomenon', and that 'most developing and transitional countries have experimented with it to varying degrees' (World Bank n.d. a). Writing before the end of the twentieth century, Crook and Manor (1998: 83) specify in a highly influential work that 'more than sixty governments, mainly in developing countries' have experimented with decentralisation in some form since the mid-1980s. observing Latin America in the late 1990s after a decade of decentralisation policy, Willis, Garman and Haggard (1999:7) noted that decentralisation has been 'championed' as the 'route to greater accountability and transparency in governance', as well as to other objectives like 'increased participation by ethnic minorities and social groups excluded under semidemocratic and authoritarian rule'. Writing on China, Montinola, Qian and Weingast (1995) argue that decentralisation protects pro-market reforms undertaken by local governments from central government intervention, and induces healthy economic competition within countries that leads to economic efficiency. Concomitantly, the link between decentralisation and corruption eradication is also often proposed.

Authors writing for the World Bank have put forward the case for decentralisation most confidently in relation to Asia. White and smoke (2005: 1) thus declare:

A fundamental transformation in the structure of government has been taking place across East Asia. Before 1990 most East Asian countries were highly centralized; today subnational governments have emerged as the fulcrum for much of the region's development ... Though East Asia's decentralization has come later than in some other parts of the world, it is now here to stay.

Since 2001, Indonesia too has been pursuing policies of decentralisation that have profoundly transformed the institutional framework of governance in a country that was ruled for more than three decades in a highly authoritarian and centralised fashion, to the extent that Indonesia's decentralisation approach has been described as a 'Big Bang' (World Bank 2003b; Bunte 2004). Thus, according to a document produced by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2000:17), 'Indonesia is moving rapidly from years of tight central control to a far more decentralized and autonomous system of local government', which will help 'create the basis for national and local democratic governance' (USAID 2000: 17).

Moreover, in 'opting for a decentralised model of government', Indonesia appeared to be sensibly 'following a global trend' (Turner and Podger 2003: 2), which was in any case 'well suited to the particular geography of Indonesia' (Turner and Podger 2003: 1; also see Bunte 2004: 379). The observation about Indonesia's geography is unsurprising given the sprawling, archipelagic form of the country, which is inhabited by hundreds of ethnic groups with distinct languages and customs.

Geographical and ethno-linguistic factors notwithstanding, Indonesia's abrupt decentralisation turn would not have been possible without the fall from power of Soeharto in may 1998 and the consequent demise of the New Order. This occurred amidst a deep economic crisis that led to a harrowing political one-eventually leaving the entire institutional framework of the new order largely unviable. The fall of Soeharto thus in many ways truly marked the beginning of a new chapter in the social and political history of Indonesia. This vast country-with over 220 million people of diverse ethnicity and belief systems, spread irregularly across an archipelago comprising some 17,000 islands-was to embark on a massive experiment in forging new, more democratic, transparent and participatory political and...