Andrikus, Thomas - Changes to the Political Systems in Indonesia and Singapore Since Their Respective Independence

Introduction Politics is never constant, since it mainly pertains to humans and their [activities] of making public and authoritative decisions (Caramani, p.2). Thus, one should never assume that if a certain country is ruled by an iron-fisted dictator today, it will never change, and vice versa. Although there are some countries which have always been authoritarian since its conception such as North Korea or those which have always been democratic since its conception such as USA, those cases are unique in the sense that the citizens or the governments of their respective country find that adopting a political system of the opposite spectrum would not benefit the country in any way whatsoever. Usually, independent countries start out as either a democracy or authoritarianism, and at a certain point of time the citizens of those countries would decide whether they are ready to switch to the other system or stick with the one they have had since independence. Therefore, the research question to be addressed in this paper would mainly pertain to what kind of regimes that both Indonesia and Singapore have had since their respective independence, what influenced those regime transitions, and whether or not each of the two states would experience another transition in their respective political systems in the foreseeable future. When discussing regime transitions, I will only touch lightly on the subject of what happened during those transitional years, such as whether or not they experience coups or civil wars. Rather, my focus will be on how much role internal and external influences played in

affecting their transitions. Such influences include things like economic instability or U.S. foreign policy. Definitions From the introduction above, there seems to be only two types of political systems in existence today: Democracy and Authoritarianism. Is it true? Not necessarily. As a matter of fact, countries today have their political systems comparable on a sliding scale from the most democratic governments to the most authoritarian ones. However, the clear cut between the two opposing spectrums of political systems is not always clear. Thus, the democracies can be further divided into a liberal democracy and illiberal democracy, while authoritarianism can be seen in its own respect (though it will be distinguished from totalitarianism later, just to avoid confusion of terms). As highlighted by Daniel Caramani in Comparative Politics (p.89-90, 94), there are democracies which lacks the provision of basic liberties for its citizens (i.e. illiberal democracy), and there are also authoritarian regimes which have been working its way towards gradually becoming more democratic. First to be tackled is the definition of liberal democracy. For the ease of defining where a certain country lies in terms of its democratic-authoritarian scale, the term liberal democracy and ideal/full-fledged democracy will be interchangeable throughout the paper. According to Robert A. Dahl, ideal democracies are the ones which provide basic political opportunities for

the countrys citizens, such as in matters pertaining to effective participation, equality in voting, or inclusion of adults (Dahl, p.126-127). Then, Dahl goes on to explain that there are six criteria of an ideal (i.e. liberal) democracy, namely: elected officials; free, fair and frequent elections; freedom of expression; freedom of press; freedom to assemble; and inclusive citizenship (Dahl, p.221-222). The countries which can be called illiberal democracies today are the ones that have failed to fulfill at least one of Dahls six criteria outlined above. Fareed Zakaria has described how illiberal democracies came by. According to his article The Rise of Illiberal Democracies, it was initially difficult to recognize illiberal democracy as being distinct from liberal democracy, because back then, liberal democracy was the one and only type of democracy that ever existed. However, as the idea of basic ideas of democracy such as free & fair elections started spreading to regions where monarchies and dictatorships previously proliferated (especially in Asia & Africa), the conversion towards becoming a liberal democracy has not always been instant. In most cases, the regime/government still feel the need to retain or even reintroduce certain restrictions and limits on individual freedoms, resulting in the country being an illiberal democracy. The next to be defined are the terms totalitarianism and authoritarianism. The two terms have can be mistaken as synonymous, hence there is a need to elaborate on the distinguishing features between the two. The concept of totalitarianism was first popularized in the 1920s, when Mussolini used the term to describe a system where a citizens life is to be dedicated just for the State alone (Brooker, p.8). This means that every citizen has been indoctrinated to live his/her life just for

the State, whether it is in education, marriage, or career. Today, totalitarianism have ceased to exist, with the notable exception of North Korea. Juan Linz (p.159) described authoritarianism as something less extreme than totalitarianism, wherein there is the presence of limited political pluralism, the absence of elaborate ideology, the absence ofpolitical mobilization and a predictably limited rather than arbitrary or discretionary leadership by a small group or individual. Historical Influences on Regime Change A typical example of how a country goes back and forth from a democracy to authoritarianism would be like in the case of Brazil, where the country had a democracy until it experienced a coup in 1964 (Wallerstein, p.153-154). Then, it experienced a decade of militaryruled authoritarian regime until 1974, when the military elites felt the need to have a controlled liberalization or redemocratization (Hagopian, p.351). Thus from 1974 onwards, Brazil became a democracy. There are different influences that can play a role in catalyzing a regime transition from democracy to authoritarianism and vice versa. In Brazils case in 1974, the influences of democratization were mostly internal (i.e. originating from domestic sources). There was a broad mass and elite support for political pluralism and the strengthening of civil society (Hagopian, p.349-351). In Chiles case in 1986, the political shift of Alianza Democratica (Democratic Alliance, or AD) which challenged the legitimacy of Pinochets authoritarian regime was irrevocably linked to pressure exerted by the U.S. State Department (Petras, 309311).

Indonesia To examine Indonesia from any aspect, it is important to remember that with a population of 230 million people living in 17,508 islands, Indonesia is both vast in size and population (Akkoyunlu, p.45). Therefore, it is vast in both size and population. Before the recent reform in 1998 towards a true, ideal democracy, most of Indonesias political past had been ridden with authoritarianism. It started off as a short-lived parliamentary democracy from its independence in 1949. Then, from 1958 onwards, the first President Sukarno started formalizing the system of Guided Democracy where Sukarnos PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia) played a vast role in influencing politics (Alagappa, p.243). Guided Democracy was, however, a bogus term. It was not democratic at all between 1949 to 1965, because it was fully authoritarian. Instead of focusing on providing free & fair elections or legalizing alternative sources of information (freedom of press), the government was preoccupied primarily with making grand gestures such as building national monuments or annexing West New Guinea from the Netherlands (Huxley, p.41-42). In 1965, the PKI regime was toppled by General Suharto, who held the highest position in the Army. After being installed as the second President, he started his New Order regime by virtually annihilating the Communist Party by sponsoring military massacre of hundreds of thousands of suspected communists between 1965 and 1966 (McDougall, p.236). President Suharto ruled Indonesia until 1998. He used several tactics to keep his regime appear legitimately democratic, such as conducting elections every five years. His government forced the existing political parties to merge into the United Development Party (PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI). These were the only parties allowed to contest general

elections together with the state-run party of Golkar (Alagappa, p.226). Predictably, both PPP and PDI were given a lot of barriers so that they would never win any elections, such as by forbidding them from criticizing the government or coercing civil servants to vote for Golkar under the threat of termination (Liddle). During this 32-year period, Suhartos authoritarian New Order regime provided the political stability which reversed the economic deterioration of Sukarnos Guided Democracy into a fast-paced economic growth (Vaughn, p.11; Alagappa, p.226). Despite the economic growth of Indonesia under Suhartos regime, he was still guilty of the things most authoritarian rulers do. He restricted the press from criticizing the government (Kovach), annexed East Timor forcefully into Indonesia in 1975 (Huxley, p.9), while his children and cronies amassed an alleged US$15-35 billion during his rule (McDougall, p.237). After the Asian economic crisis in 1997-98, Suharto finally lost support from his last bastion of hope, which was the Army. In May 1998, Suharto was forced to resign after several weeks of riots and public unrest in the capital city of Jakarta (Huxley, p.9; Akkoyunlu, p.47). It took two transitional Presidents and six years of democratization before Indonesia finally became a genuine (i.e. liberal) democracy in 2004 (Huxley, p.9-10). During President Megawatis reign, she completed institutions necessary to provide direct election of the President by popular vote. In 2004, Yudhoyono became the first democratically-elected President. In the legislative election in 2009, there were at least 38 political parties contesting for seats (Indonesias Election), while Dahls other criteria for liberal democracy including alternative sources of information and freedom of expression have also been guaranteed since there is no longer any barrier to criticize the incumbent government today (Kovach).

Singapore Singapore is one of the smallest countries in Asia, with only 298 square miles area (Chen, p.30). It is a city-state located between the Malaysian Peninsula and Indonesia. It started off as a self-governing state of the British Empire in 1959, merged with Federation of Malaya in 1962, and gained independence as a country of its own in 1965 (Hill et al., p.12) From 1966 to 1981, the main political party of the first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Peoples Action Party (PAP), practically enjoyed parliamentary monopoly since there was ineffective opposition. Despite having elections on a regular basis, PAP had a total hegemony in the parliament due to the fact that it was able to exercise the governments extensive powers to place formidable obstacles in the path of political opponents (Hwee, p.21). Yeo Lay Hwee elaborated in Electoral Politics in Singapore that though it was authoritarian during the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore under PAP was only regarded as a moderate authoritarianism because of several things. First, PAP contributed a lot to Singapores rapid economic growth, transforming it from a Third-World economy in the 1960s into one of the most advanced economies in Asia by the 1980s. Then, the detention of political opponents did not include coercive measures or gross human rights violations. While the media and channels of expression were heavily regulated by the government, the citizens of Singapore had mostly been allowed access to any information available even from non-state endorsed sources (such as foreign media outlets). Hence, this tempered form of authoritarianism until 1980 was heavily beneficial to the country since it basically did not deprive too much of the citizens basic human rights (apart from electing PAPs opposition) and provided more room for economic growth under Lee Kuan Yews PAP government.

Since the 1980s, Singapore has been described as a hybrid democracy by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which means that it has equal amounts of democratic and authoritarian elements. Therefore, in the sliding scale of democracy to authoritarianism, Singapore is one of the countries that lie right in the middle. This is especially evident in the fact that though today PAP still has the most say in the government, it has started to concede more and more parliamentary seats to the opposition since the 1980s (as opposed to having conceded no seats at all prior to 1980) (Hwee, p.12). At best, Singapore has transformed into what can be dubbed as an illiberal democracy. Why cant it be called a liberal democracy yet? It is due to the fact that it still heavily restricts two of Dahls criteria for liberal democracy, which are freedom of expression and associational autonomy. In 2005, the government prevented the showing of a documentary about one of the opposition leaders in the Singapore International Film Festival, citing the reason that the Films Act effectively prohibits the viewing or distribution of party political films. Then, political activists were quick to point out that the government-linked Channel News Asia actually violated the Films Act by showing pro-PAP documentaries. The government did not give any response to activists concerns (Kluver, p.59). Since 2000, the government has opened a park called Speakers Corner where people can demonstrate and speak freely on most topics except race and religion. Though for some people this may be seen as liberalization by the government, the existence of a designated freespeech area should not mask the fact that the gathering or rallies of more than four people (outside of that park) still needs police approval (Berger).

Analysis of Indonesia and Singapore While on the surface it may seem easy to say that Indonesia and Singapore are highly similar in terms of having experienced both sides of the opposing political spectrums (of democracy and authoritarianism), these two Southeast Asian countries could not actually be more distinct. Indonesias transitions in political system went from Sukarnos short-lived democracy into his authoritarian rule which ended in 1965. It impacted negatively on the population since Sukarnos grand gestures led Indonesia to a deterioration of economy. When Suharto came into power in 1965, he started his regime by eliminating PKI supporters in the country numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Though the country did benefit from Suhartos economic reform, there was no denying the massacre of PKI supporters, plus the fact that his family and cronies committed corruption up to billions of US dollars, also made the country suffer. Singapore, on the other hand, only had to endure what was called soft authoritarianism. Lee Kuan Yews PAP dominance for almost two decades resulted in rapid economic growth. Coercive measures towards opposition, even if they existed, did not result in gross human rights violations (Hwee, p.11). Hence, the country enjoyed more benefits than they suffered. The last part of the research question addresses whether or not a regime change is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. The answer depends on whether each country is able to keep all the democratic institutions in place.

As of today, Indonesia has been a full democracy since 2004, which enables the people to have the highest amount of political freedom than they ever had under Suhartos regime. Therefore, as long as the Indonesian people is able to keep their democratic institutions in check, it is quite unlikely that a leader with a dictatorial tendency would spring up and lead Indonesia in the near future. Singapore, on the other hand, has been an illiberal democracy since the 1980s. This means that the people of the country actually enjoy having a mixture of democratic and authoritarian elements. Although there is less political freedom in Singapore than there is in Indonesia, it has been well-compensated with the rapid economic growth that the country has experienced since 1965 (Chen, p.30). Conclusion As I had stated earlier by taking an excerpt from Caramanis book, politics is never constant since it pertains to human activities and their penchant to change. It does not even matter whether a country is as tiny as Monaco or as large as Russia. Political changes, whether it is the abolishment of monarchy, the democratization of a communist regime, or the shift from a multiparty system into a two-party system, can occur at any country and any decade. I focused on the changes of political systems because I wanted to show that although both Indonesia and Singapore are located in Southeast Asia, they had very different political atmospheres that contributed to the different kinds of regimes that each country has experienced. Therefore, it is by understanding these tendencies for change in political systems that we can finally glean a better understanding of how politics work.

References "Indonesia's Election: Many Votes to Count." The Economist, Apr. 2009. Web. Akkoyunlu, Karabekir. "Indonesia." Military Reform and Democratisation: Turkish and Indonesian Experiences at the Turn of the Millennium. Abingdon, Oxon: New York, 2007. 45-47. Print. Alagappa, Muthiah. Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The Quest for Moral Authority. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Publication, 1995. Print. Berger, Sebastian. "Worldwide: Few Dare to Raise Their Voices at the Singapore Speakers' Corner." The Telegraph [London, UK] 28 Aug. 2004: n. pag. The Telegraph. 28 Aug. 2004. Web. Brooker, Paul. "Theories of Non-Democratic Government." Non-democratic Regimes: Theory, Government, and Politics. New York: St. Martin's, 2000. 8. Print. Caramani, Daniele. Comparative Politics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Publication, 2011. Print. Chen, Meng. "Divergent Paths." Harvard International Review 32.4 (2011): 28. MasterFILE Premier. Web. Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Publication, 1989. Print. Democracy Index 2011: Democracy under Stress. Rep. The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd., 2011. Web.

Hagopian, Frances. "Elites, Political Pacts, and Regime Transition in Brazil." Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes in Latin America. By Jorge I. Dominguez. New York: Garland Pub., 1994. 349-72. Print. Hill, Michael, and Kwen Fee Lian. The Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore. London: Routledge, 1995. Print. Huxley, Tim. "Indonesia's Multi-dimensional Crisis." Disintegrating Indonesia?: Implications for Regional Security. Oxford: Oxford University Publication, 2002. Print. Hwee, Yeo L.. Electoral Politics in Singapore Electoral Politics in Southeast And East Asia. Singapore, 2002. Web. Kluver, Randolph. "Singapore: Elections and the Internet - Onine Activism and Offline Consequence." Making a Difference: A Comparative View of the Role of the Internet in Election Politics. Ed. Stephen Ward, Diana Owen, Richard Davis, and David Taras. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2008. 57-59. Print. Kovach, Bill. "Elements of a Free Press in Indonesia." Nieman Reports (2004): n. pag.Nieman Reports. Harvard University, Spring 2004. Web. Liddle, R. William. "The 1977 Indonesian Election and New Order Legitimacy," Southeast Asian Affairs 1978, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1978.Web. (Note by student: Liddles article was found as an excerpt instead of in its entirety) Linz, Juan J. "Authoritarian Regimes." Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2000. 159. Print. McDougall, Derek. Asia Pacific in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2007. Print.

Petras, James, and Fernando I. Leiva. "Chile: The Authoritarian Transition to Electoral Politics." Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes in Latin America. By Jorge I. Dominguez. New York: Garland Pub., 1994. 309-11. Print. Vaughn, Bruce. Indonesia: Domestic Politics, Strategic Dynamics, and U.S. Interests. Rep. N.p.: Congressional Research Service, 2011. Print. Wallerstein, Michael. "The Collapse of Democracy in Brazil: Its Economic Determinants." Authoritarian and Democratic Regimes in Latin America. By Jorge I. Dominguez. New York: Garland Pub., 1994. 153-54. Print. Zakaria, Fareed. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy." Foreign Affairs. 1 Nov. 1997. Web.