The State and the People

In every nation a social contract exists between the leaders of government and the populace. As a nation born through revolution one basic, unsettled macro issue facing Indonesia is the role of the state vis-à-vis the people. Indonesia’s first President, Sukarno, frequently drew on the revolutionary spirit to bolster his legitimacy and power for two decades up to the mid-1960s. The second President, Soeharto drew from Javanese symbols of princely authority to govern, while at the same time promoting pembangunan (development) that in turn fostered institutions of a centralist and regulatory “developmental state.” In the brief seven years since the end of the Soeharto presidency in May 1998, four Presidents with markedly different styles and priorities have led the Indonesian state.

The enduring influence of Sukarno and Soeharto presidential legacies (Booth 2005) leads many to argue that the social contract in Indonesia has often been strongly influenced by patron-client relationships. Many of the strongest patrons in Indonesia have derived their power and influence through access to state-controlled resources (e.g. Sukarno and the nationalized Dutch enterprises in the late 1950s, and that of Soeharto and the oil industry in the 1970s). These relationships have fueled expectations that the Indonesian state would play a paternal role in protecting the wong cilik (small people) and would ensure that patrons dispensed state resources in a beneficent way. This post-Independence viewpoint still influences attitudes about the appropriate role of the state in Indonesia. Renewed debate on this issue would be a step towards better national governance in Indonesia (World Bank, 1997).

Comment(s)

There are [2] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Peter McCawley, author of this paper
   (posted 30 March 2007 / 11:47:39 AM)
   
   Peter McCawley, author of this policy brief responds to the comment below:
   
   
   
   There seem to be at least two important points which arise from these observations. The first is that while it is certainly true that the three constitutional arms of government are the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive, it is also true that relationship between these three arms of government in Indonesia is as yet rather uncertain. In many areas, the true relationship (that is, the true balance of power) between these three arms in Indonesia is still vague. The relationship between the three arms has varied dramatically in the six decades since Independence in 1945. At times, the executive (in the shape of the President) has been very strong while the other two arms have been weak. More recently, since President Soeharto resigned in 1998, the legislature and the judiciary appear to have expanded their real powers. In short, the definition of the relative powers of real influence and authority in Indonesia between these three arms of government is still, more than is that case in many other countries, a 'work in progress'. The relationships are evolving, and are likely to continue to evolve in the coming decades.
   
   
   
   Second, in practice, other parts of society are important players in the process of governance in Indonesia as well. These other parts of society are generally not specifically mentioned in the Indonesian Constitution but in practice they exercise (to a greater or lesser extent) influence in the broad governance of Indonesian. These groups include the military, the media, and broader parts of civil society (religious organisations, professional groups, trade unions, producer organisations, universities, non-government organisations, think tanks, and so on). Any discussion of governance in Indonesia needs to allow for the role that these other organisations, some of which may be called "non-state actors", play in Indonesian society.
   
   
   
2. golding imoh
   (posted 23 March 2007 / 12:08:30 AM)
   
   The government legislature, judiciary and the executive are the three arms of government we have. The executive that we refer as the president in a country, while the legislature they are the people who enforce the law. Take for instance, if the executive enforces law on the people without passing it to the legislature to confirm it, will it be law? If the legislature makes law and passes it to the executive to sign it, if the executive refuses to sign after 30 days in his office it becomes a law. If the legislature enforces law on the people they want the people to benefit from it and also for the satisfaction of the country.