ABSTRACT
The analysis in the preceding four chapters has identified Golkar’s most important institutional strengths and weaknesses. Significantly, and unsurprisingly, the party is not equally institutionalized in all four dimensions. Instead, the analysis has produced a rather mixed picture, revealing remarkably diverging results in the four dimensions. In order to contextualize the various findings appropriately, it is now imperative to compare Golkar’s institutional assets and liabilities with those of its electoral competitors. Only after such a comparative analysis will we be able to answer the question of whether Golkar’s enduring strength can actually be explained as a result of uneven party institutionalization. Moreover, a comparison of the institutional features of all major parties is necessary in order to draw meaningful conclusions about the interplay between party institutionalization and party system institutionalization as well as the impact of this interplay on Indonesia’s democratization process. These conclusions will be presented in Chapter 8.
