Search

Carnegie's article (this volume) proposes a primarily actor-centred approach, clearly very much influenced by the well-known literature on "democratic transitions,"1 by which to assess the Indonesian trajectory since 1998. Such an approach is utilized as well to question the interpretations of analysts of a more "structuralist" persuasion. The latter is represented by authors such as Robison and Hadiz,2 who have suggested that a reorganization of social and political power has taken place in Indonesia, in which the forces of a predatory oligarchy have maintained their ascendancy in spite of a series of important institutional changes. Although Carnegie's article raises issues related to the specific Indonesian case, it also engages with problems pertinent to broader debates on democratization. The superiority of an actor-centred approach is said to lie in its ability to reveal the degree to which Indonesia has progressed toward democratization. The significance of that progress is said to be underappreciated by structuralist authors, who tend to emphasize issues of oligarchy in their analysis. Indeed, the series of institutional changes that have occurred in Indonesia in the last decade has been meticulously documented by a number of scholars, and has involved everything from the advent of free elections, vibrant political party life, press freedoms, and regional decentralization. All of these changes must be taken seriously and, in fact, the Indonesian people can rightly take great pride in them, given the preceding three decades of stifling authoritarianism. However, the crux of the matter, it is argued here, is not whether democratization has taken place, but what kind of democracy has now been entrenched, after a decade of the post-Soeharto era.