Search

What role do moderate Islamic organizations play in promoting democratization in Malaysia and Indonesia? What is the difference between large, grassroots organizations and newer more urban-based NGO's? Is one type of organization more effective than the other? This paper looks at the changing dynamics of moderate or progressive Islamic organizations in Malaysia and Indonesia. Some of these groups receive funding and assistance from US sources like the Asia Foundation or USAID. Moderate, progressive, or "liberal" Islamic groups suffer from being perceived as "good" Muslims by US policy makers. Given this inadvertent association, can these organizations effectively promote democracy and human rights to the larger population when that population is so critical and angry at the United States? In other words, are Indonesians and Malaysians more likely to turn away from moderate and progressive Islamic ideas because they may seem to be linked to a US agenda of building liberalism? This paper looks at organizations such as the Liberal Islam Network in Indonesia and Sisters in Islam in Malaysia, as well as others to try and understand the conflict between moderate or progressive Islamic groups and more conservative Islamic forces and to evaluate the role such moderate organizations play in advocating for greater protection of rights and liberties. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Democracy assistance programs have always been notoriously difficult to measure in terms of outcome, but the need to show their impact (or lack of it) remains critical, even as the Managing for Results era of the 1990s has passed. This paper continues an effort to develop a tool for measuring civil society program impact in the form of an advocacy ladder encompassing democracy’s critical components of participation, accountability and contestation. The ladder is tested in the context of USAID-assisted initiatives in the Philippines and Indonesia, where it demonstrates a capacity both to monitor donor assistance outcomes and to suggest future program initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite enjoying a relatively high level of economic development and other apparent advantages, democratization was quickly reversed in Russia. In contrast, in Indonesia, which has a much lower level of economic development as well as myriad other liabilities, open government is surviving and even thriving. This paper will investigate the causes for this divergence in Russia and Indonesia, which, along with Brazil, are the largest and most socially heterogeneous of all countries that participated in the "third wave" of democratization. We hypothesize that high levels of public support for democracy, confidence in state institutions, and the strength of autonomous political associations in Indonesia, and the weakness of these variables in Russia, help explain the success of democratization in the former and the failure of it in the latter. This argument is formed by comparing several indicators in Indonesia, Russia, and other third-wave democratizers using data from the World Values Survey as well as published results from Keio University's Research Survey of Political Society in a Multi-cultural and Pluri-generational World, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) National Public Opinion Surveys in Indonesia, the Asian Barometer, and the Russian National Election Study (RNES). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines a number of contemporary debates concerning gender, democracy and civil society in Indonesia and the relative significance of both gender and civil society for an emerging democratic state. Issues raised regarding the dangdut dancing of a young entertainer called Inul Daratista; Role of women's organizations before and after the transition to democracy in Indonesia; Reason for the fall of the dictatorial New Order on May 21, 1998.