Debating Indonesia’s Reformasi: Bridging “Parallel Universes”

Abstract

Fifteen years after the fall of Suharto in Indonesia, scholars still continue to disagree over why he fell and what the subsequent process of political transition has actually entailed. A review of the literature reveals two competing interpretations. In the liberal camp, scholars draw on transition theories and argue that the fall of Suharto was caused by a “people power” mobilisation. Other scholars in the oligarchy literature who adopt theories of political economy, however, question this interpretation and argue that the fall of Suharto entailed a reorganisation of patrimonialism. The latter has been criticised by liberals for underestimating the significance of changes in post-Suharto Indonesia, though little engagement has taken place between these camps, which now constitute two “parallel universes.” This article argues that while the oligarchy camp tends to emphasise continuity, it still provides us with important insights into changes in post-Suharto Indonesia which are not adequately recognised by liberals. This is largely because their different theoretical roots prevent meaningful conversations. By reframing the oligarchy literature using the language of transition theories, this article clarifies the difference in the nature of change these two camps are respectively concerned with in the hopes of stimulating more constructive engagements between them.

Key Words:

• Indonesia
• reformasi
• democratisation
• patrimonialism
• oligarchy

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (24830092 and 25780101) and Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects (2012A-923). The author would like to thank the reviewers of Journal of Contemporary Asia for comments, questions and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.

Notes

¹ For a recent attempt to consider the contributions of the oligarchy literature and its applications, see the recent feature issue of this journal (Hadiz 2013; Aspinall 2013; Rosser 2013; Sudibyo and Patria 2013; Achwan 2013).

² This section draws on my prior work, Fukuoka (2013).

³ Liberals argue that democratisation enabled civil society actors to penetrate the political arena to pursue democratic reforms, though they too acknowledge that these civil society actors continue to face formidable challenges (see Mietzner 2013). Much more needs to be done to illuminate the composition, motivations and interests of new political elites, particularly those in parliament.