ABSTRACT
Indonesia went through a long history of political struggle, colonialism, ethnic conflicts and nationalism (Cribb and Brown 1995; Vickers 2012). The contested idea of a nation called Indonesia as we know it today has developed over time. The archipelago’s ethnic and religious diversity make it challenging to promote a sense of being Indonesian and develop a unifying identity. “Efforts to forge a single nation/state from an extremely heterogeneous society have been based on stressing the anti-colonial struggle against the Dutch” (Smith 2001, p. 82). Before the twentieth century, “localism remained the predominant motif of political and cultural identity” (Elson 2008, p. 1) in the area of today’s Indonesia. By bringing most of the archipelago under colonial control in 1870 (Netherlands East Indies), Dutch state-building activities set the basis for an Indonesian nation, but it took decades to bring together the “contending visions” (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, p. 2) of a nation state called Indonesia. Successive efforts were made “to delineate, define and implant a broadly accepted sense of what ‘being Indonesian’ might mean” (Elson 2008, p. 316). With Pancasila, the first president Soekarno established the five basic principles of the national ideology and the country’s constitution that should facilitate a common identity and the process of homogenization: the belief in one supreme God, just and civilized humanity, national unity, democracy led by wisdom and prudence through consultation and representation, and social justice (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, p. 24). These principles have since then shaped Indonesian politics and are still relevant – even for the energy sector, where the principle of social justice provides a strong justification for energy subsidies, rural electrification and a state-owned electricity supply. Pancasila and political Islam are the most dominant political cultures that are “intrinsic in Indonesian politics” (Suryadinata 1999, p. 29). They helped to create and protect a vibrant civil society “that made the transition to democracy possible” (Abuza 2007). The conflicting ideas about Indonesia need to be considered when dealing with the country’s current political situation. They shape the process of decentralization, lead to political cleavages and foster discussions about provincial
independence. Issues of coordination and conflicts between various jurisdictional levels also have a profound historical background. Political struggles have led to a number of regime changes in Indonesia since its independence in 1945 (Case 2002; Tamara 2009). The stable “pseudo-democracy” with “few civil liberties and regular, but rigged elections” (Case 2002, p. 79) under former president Haji Mohamed Suharto’s New Order stands out in Indonesia’s political development (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, pp. 95-274; Case 2002, pp. 29-80; SarDesai 1989, pp. 239-245; Suryadinata 1999, pp. 117-168). In reaction to Soekarno’s Guided Democracy (SarDesai 1989, pp. 234-239) and his communist policies, Suharto blamed his predecessor for ruining the economy (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, p. 10). The political program of New Order brought economic progress, but was also “marked by an increasing concentration of political power and an attenuation of civil and political rights” (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, p. 13). Political opponents were systematically oppressed. Since then, the army has played an important role in politics (Suryadinata 1999). A further important legacy was the massive state apparatus, which “grew enormously during the New Order period and came closely to reflect the regime’s patrimonial culture” (Bourchier and Hadiz 2003, p. 21), resulting in a large, but often ineffective, bureaucracy.
