ABSTRACT
One of the more interesting recent findings in the study of the relationship between economic development and democracy is that its relative robustness may be determined by the position a given country occupies in the world economic system (Burkhart and Lewis-Beck 1994). In a study involving 125 countries over a period of 25 years (1960-85) – and thus a total number of 3,125 observations – their statistical analysis shows that economic development and other social forces are indeed positively associated with democracy. A semi-peripheral or peripheral position in the world economy, however, takes away much of these positive effects. Although one can clearly offer different explanations for this, e.g. that the results are influenced by the timeframe used in the study, Burkhart and Lewis-Beck (1994: 907) are ready to conclude that economic development actually causes democracy. Theirs is a challenge to the study of democratisation in developing countries. It raises a number of intriguing questions. What are the main factors behind a transition to democracy in peripheral and semi-peripheral countries? Does the strategic importance of the country in global politics make a difference? Is the growing global integration at the economic and other levels redrawing the parameters for assessing the relationship between economic development and democracy? These are the questions that this chapter addresses with specific reference to Indonesia, the fourth largest country in the world as far as population goes and one that occupies a strategic military and economic role in Southeast Asia.
