Day 3: Presentation of Individual Mid-term Paper

Reinventing Indonesia

Day 3
ay

Presentation of Individual
Mid-term Paper
Mid-

Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies
Waseda University, 15 February 2007
y, y


Constitutional Reform

Democratic Consolidation
In previous discussions, it was highlighted that electoral
processes and procedures are b i elements i a d
d d basic l t in democracy
and the institutionalization of democratic norms is an
important task of democratic consolidation.
In a constitutional democracy, the constitution is how the
democratic norms, processes and procedures are to be
instituted.
instituted
Although a democratic constitution by itself does not
guarantee the survival of a democracy, the mere existence of
the constitution may inhibit any attempt to reverse the
democratization process, to impose an alternative system of
government or to stray from democratic norms of governance.
In that light, we will discuss the amendments to the
constitution that have just been completed in Indonesia.

GSAPS-2007-Day3 www.ginandjar.com 3

The Constitution: A Sacred Document?

The Reformasi (reform movement) spurred widespread
introspection on the failings of the New Order,
specifically of the Indonesian democracy.
Many intellectual circles laid part of the blame on the
1945 Constitution.
Academicians,
Academicians university students political parties
students, parties,
NGOs and the press were quick to point out weaknesses
in the constitution that contributed heavily to the lack of
law and order, shallow citizen representation opacity of
order representation,
governance, and the high incidence of human rights
abuses, all antithetical to the shared tenets of reform.


Th Constitution: A Sacred Document? . . .
The C tit ti S dD t?

Due to common regard of the 1945 Constitution as a
sacred document, suggestions to change or even
q
question any of its p
y provisions had always been seen as
y
betraying the ideals of the founding of the republic.
Those who dared to suggest a review of the Constitution
were regarded as subversive elements or worse could
worse,
be accused as enemies of the state.
The MPR resolution in1998 had removed the
requirement of national referendum for an amendment to
the 1945 Constitution.
Reformasi in post-Suharto Indonesia created more of the
p
right conditions for change.


The weaknesses
of the original UUD ‘45

The constitution was written in a very broad and general
way. It has only 37 articles and 6 transitory provisions.
y y yp
There is strength to the way it was written that makes the
constitution flexible and easily adaptable.
The weakness is that it is so broad, general and flexible
broad flexible,
that it can be—and has been—interpreted in different
ways.


Th weaknesses of th original UUD ’45
The k f the i i l ’45…

It gives a lot of room to the incumbent president to
i l t f t th i b t id t t
maneuver and concentrate power in his or her hands, as
history has shown with Indonesia’s first and second
y
presidents.
Despite the allowance of the tendency for the presidency
to hij k the legislature, many still f lt th t th MPR it lf
t hijack th l i l t till felt that the itself
was always endowed with too much power by the
o g a constitution.
original co s u o
Such an institutional imbalance led to the failure of
checks and balances and to a disconnect between the
wishes of th people and th MPR
i h f the l d the MPR.


The Evolving Political System

Period Constitution System of General Situation
Government
1945-1949 1945 Unitarian/ • The system of
Presidential government was
parliamentary
li t
• War for Independence
• Rebellion: Communist
(1948), Islamic
Extremist
1950 Federal
F d l Federal/
F d l/
Parliamentary


The Evolving Political System . . .
Government
1950-1959 Provisional Unitarian/ • Functioning parliamentary
Parliamentary
y democracy (1955 g
y( general
election)
• Political Instability
• Rebellion: Regional Islamic
Regional,
Extremist
1959-1966 1945 Unitarian/ • Guided Democracy
Presidential • Campaign to win back Irian
Jaya
• Confrontation with Malaysia
and its allies
• Deterioratering economy
• Coup attempt 1965
p p


The Evolving Political System . . .

Government
1966-1998 1945 Unitarian/ • New Order
Presidential • Stability
• Economic progress
• Restrained democracy
• Concentration of power
• Dominant role of military in
politics and governance
1998-Now
1998 Now 1945 Unitarian/ • Political reforms
(amended) Presidential • Democratization


Political Institutions: 1945 Constitution

People’s

Consultative Assembly (
y (MPR)
)

Supreme
Supreme Court Advisory Board
(MA)
( ) (DPA)
President

House of
Supreme A di
S Audit Representatives
Board (BPK) (DPR)


Political Institutions: 1945 Constitution
The People

People Consultative Assembly (MPR)

President House of Representatives
(DPR)

Cabinet

Provincial House of
Governor Representatives (DPRD I)

District House of
District Chief (Bupati) Representatives (DPRD II)


Political Institutions: 1959-1966
1959-

President

Supreme
(MA)
( ) (DPA)
MPR

House of
Supreme A di
S Audit Representatives
Board (BPK) (DPR)


Political Institutions: 1999-2004
1999-

People’s

Consultative Assembly (
y (MPR)
)

Supreme
(MA)
( ) (DPA)
President

House of
S
Supreme A di
Audit Representatives
Board (BPK) (DPR)


Goals of reform
Constitutional reform on a practical l
C tit ti l f ti l level meant creating
l t ti
mechanisms that ensured better governance.
Reforming the vaunted UUD ’45 reflected new national
45
aspirations which included:
the ending of the military “dual functions ,
dual functions”
the establishment of the supremacy of law, human
rights, good governance,
the increase in regional and local autonomy
(decentralization), and
the
th creation of a free press.
ti f f


Goals of reform . . .

On the level of governmental institutions, this meant:
c ec s and balances between the branches of
checks a d ba a ces bet ee t e b a c es o
government,
addressing the tendency for “executive heaviness”.


Goals of reform . . .

There was a consensus in the polity not to change the
preamble of the constitution which contains Pancasila
and other basic values laid down by the founding fathers.
It was also a consensus established at the onset of the
amendment process not to change the presidential
d t tt h th id ti l
system of government.


The methodological model
of constitutional reform
The
Th model of reform that ultimately settled upon was
d l f f th t lti t l ttl d
intended to minimize conflict and garner the most
cooperation from disparate interests, from ardent
p p ,
reformers to the most reluctant conservatives.
Two features stood out: The incremental amendment
process, which was i
hi h inspired more b th A
i d by the American
i
system rather than a rewriting that would mirror the
French s y e o co s u o a reform, a d to a o d
e c style of constitutional e o , and o avoid
settling conflict over the most crucial clauses and
language by voting as far as possible.


The methodological model of
constitutional reform . . .
Reform by addendum allowed especially the more
conservative and nationalist legislators to feel that a part
of resistance-era history had been honored and
y
preserved for future generations
Incremental reform on an existing constitution would also
mean that future generations could more easily trace its
evolution
Change would be slow but gradual, and carefully and
collectively considered and implemented


The mechanics of reform
and public participation

Public Participation Public TV and Media

Comparative Studies
Regional Visits • Germany,
• England,
MPR Working Group • th U it d St t
the United States,
Public Meetings • Sweden,
Amendment Process • Denmark,
• China,
• Japan,
J
Seminars • Russia, and
Constitutional Commissions • Malaysia
• Thailand,
Thailand
NGO
NGOs
• South Korea,
• Germany, and
• the United States (NGO’s)


The Amendment Process

The 1st Amendment 1999
The 2nd Amendment 2000
The 3rd Amendment 2001
The 4th Amendment 2002


The First Amendment 1999

A term limit of two consecutive five-year terms
Returned the power of legislation to p
p g parliament
Ambassadors to foreign countries and from foreign
countries to be confirmed by the parliament and not
simply appointed b th president
i l i t d by the id t


The Second Amendment 2000

Enhanced decentralization and regional autonomy.
Members of the parliament would have to be elected
through public elections. Thi provision sends th
th h bli l ti This i i d the
message that there should be no more appointed
members to the parliament.
parliament


The Second Amendment 2000 . . .

Enshrining the
E h i i th separation of th police f
ti f the li from th military.
the ilit
Through a separate decree that is not part of the
constitution,
constitution the appointment of the commander of the
armed forces and the chief of police have to be
confirmed by the parliament. This provision sent a clear
signal th t the military i subordinate t civilian authority.
i l that th ilit is b di t to i ili th it
A new section on human rights was constituted that
incorporated statements from the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.


The Third Amendment 2001

Provides for direct election by the people of the president
and the vice president as a ticket, which may be put
forward by one political party or a group of parties
parties.
To be elected, the candidate will have to get more than
50% of the popular vote with at least 20% of the vote in
at least half of all the provinces.


The Third Amendment 2001 . . .

Sets t l d d
S t out rules and procedures f th ifor the impeachment of
h t f
the president. The president can be impeached by the
assembly (MPR) at the recommendation of p
y( ) parliament, if
,
he is proven guilty of crime or is found no longer suitable
to hold the office of the presidency.
The li t
Th parliament can only propose th t th president b
l that the id t be
impeached after requesting that the Constitutional Court
e a
examine the c a ges aga s the p es de a d a e
e e charges against e president and after
receiving from the court a finding that the president is
guilty as charged.
This
Thi mechanism i i t d d t prevent abuse of
h i is intended to t b f
impeachment proceedings by the legislature.



Affirms that judicial power lies with the Supreme Court
and the courts beneath it, as well as the newly
constituted Constitutional Court.
The C
Th Constitutional C t h th authority:
tit ti l Court has the th it
to preside over charges against the president in an impeachment
p
process; ;
to resolve the disputes between the various branches of the
state;
to order the dissolution of political p
p parties and to resolve disputes
p
concerning the results of an election.
to review the constitutionality of laws, while the Supreme Court
tests the legality of governmental rules and decrees to existing
laws.



Established that appointments of the members of the
Supreme Court by the president have to be proposed by
a newly constituted independent judicial commission
commission,
and approved by the parliament.
The Judicial Commission is a judicial watchdog
established by the constitution to uphold and safeguard
the honor, integrity and conduct of judges.



In a major structural change to the legislative body,
although Indonesia remains a unitarian state, the third
amendment constituted a bicameral system of
representation.
It established the House of Regional Representatives
(Dewan Perwakilan Daerah-DPD), representing each of
the provinces equally, similar to the US Senate.



Established the l
E t bli h d th rule on general election. G
l l ti General l
election is to be held once every five years.
It provides that the participants in the election for
members of parliament are political parties, while for the
Regional Council they are individuals.
The elections are carried out by an independent general
election commission.


The Fourth Amendment 2002
Defines that the MPR consists of the parliament (House
of Representatives or DPR) and the House of Regional
Representatives (DPD).
This provision also permanently barred non-elected
members of MPR, such as those representing the
functional groups including the military of p
g p g y past y years.
The MPR as the join session of DPR and DPD, although
no longer possesses the absolute power it had had
before the amendment, sill retains the authority to
amendment
amend the constitution and impeach the president and
elect president when both the president and vice
president are simultaneously permanently incapacitated
incapacitated.


The Fourth Amendment 2002 . . .

Specifies that in a presidential election, if no ticket can
achieve the 50-20% threshold, the two tickets with the
most votes will run in another direct election by the
people.


The Fourth Amendment 2002 . . .

Incorporation of clauses relating to social justice
justice.
Guaranteeing universal government-sponsored primary
education, minimum aggregate education spending of
gg g p g
20% from the national government and regional
government’s budget.
Strengthened language on social justice and
environmental friendliness.


Political Institutions (2003-Now)
(2003-
MPR

DPR DPD
550 4 x Number of Provinces

DPRD Province
35 s.d 100

DPRD Kab/Kota
20 s.d 45

Political Parties

General Election

The People
Source: Law No. 22/2003

Political Institutions (2003-Now)
(2003-

P
People’s
l ’

Consultative Assembly (MPR)
House of Regional
g
Representatives Representatives
(DPR) Council (DPD)

The People

General Election President


Closing
The main idea behind the reforms begun in 1999 was to
ensure that a newly revised constitution established an
effective system of checks and balances between the
various branches of the state, primarily by limiting the
power of the executive branch
branch.


Closing . . .

At the same time the reforms sought to ensure that the
sovereignty of the people was reflected in the way the
government was organized
The four amendments have successfully been able to
conclude and reached th
l d d h d those objectives th l i th
bj ti thus laying the
foundation for democracy to develop in Indonesia, as the
third largest democracy in the world



PRACTICING DEMOCRACY

The 2004 General Elections:
Significant Beginnings
Si ifi tB i i

Constitutional Reform
The 1945 Constitution was regarded as a near sacred
document
The 1998 MPR session passed a resolution,
VII/MPR/1998, removing the requirement that a national
referendum was needed to amend the 1945 Constitution
Among the amendments to the Constitution two stand
out as most significant:
the direct election of the President (and Vice
Vice-
President),
the establishment of a bicameral system of the
y
legislative branch of government.


State Institutions Under the Amended Constitution

Legislative Executive Judiciary

MPR

DPD DPR BPK President MA MK

KPU KPK KY

MPR : Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat People’s Consultative Assembly
DPR : Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Lower House
DPD : Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Upper House
BPK : Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Supreme Audit Board
MA : Mahkamah Agung Supreme Court
MK : Mahkamah Konstitusi Constitutional Court
KPU : Komisi Pemilihan Umum General Election Commission
KPK : Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Corruption Eradication Commission

GSAPS-2007-Day3 Komisi Yudisial
KY : www.ginandjar.com Commission
Judicial 40

Remaking the political institutions
The new laws for the 2004 elections of the DPR DPD
DPR, DPD,
DPRD, and the President and Vice-President.
The new election laws strengthen the role of p
g political
parties as the main democratic institutions and lowers
barriers to entry.
The parliamentary elections (DPR and DPRD) are based
on the proportional system with open lists of candidates
submitted by the participating political parties.
A candidate has to be a certified member of the
participating political party and at least 30 percent of the
candidates from each political party must be women.


Remaking the political institutions . .
institutions.
The candidates in the election of DPD are individuals
individuals.
To become a candidate one has to collect the signatures
of a minimum number of eligible voters, the number
depending on the number of voters in each province.
A candidate for the DPD may not have served as board
y
member of any political party for four years prior to
becoming a candidate.
Members of the civil service, the military (TNI) and the
police cannot run for a seat in DPD and anyone from
those services wishing to run for a seat in the DPD has
to resign before becoming a candidate.


Remaking the political institutions . . .
The number of members of DPR is 550 (an increase of
50 from its previous size) distributed among the
provinces in proportion to the population.
All members of DPR are elected, eliminating the
previously reserved places for military and police.
The number of members of the DPD should not exceed
one-third of the number of members of DPR.
The Constitution does not give the DPD legislative
g g
power.
Ironically, though they have less power, it is much more
difficult t b l t d
diffi lt to be elected a member of DPD th t b
b f than to become
a member of the Parliament.


Remaking the political institutions . . .
The President and Vice-President are directly elected on
one ticket.
Only a party or a coalition of parties that holds at least 15
percent of the seats in DPR or receives 20 percent of
popular votes in the election of DPR can nominate
candidates for president and Vice-President.
For the 2004 presidential election the threshold is
lowered t 3 percent of th seats in DPR or 5 percent of
l d to t f the t i t f
popular votes.
The election is implemented and supervised by the
Commission for General Election.


Legislative election
Electoral process
42 political parties participated in the legislative
election for the DPR and DPRD on April 5 20045,
The DPD election featured candidates who
contested for seats to represent their respective
province in their individual capacities.
In general, the entire electoral process p
g , p proceeded in
a smooth, orderly, secure, and democratic manner,
as witnessed by national and foreign election
monitoring agencies.


Legislative election
DPR election
The results of the legislative election for members of
both the DPR and DPRDs were unforeseen and
changed significantly the configuration of the p
g g y g political
map.
The Golkar Party regained a plurality with a 24.5
million votes (21 6%) with PDI-P as the first runner-
(21.6%),
up with approximately 21 million votes (18.5%).
PKB, which came in third, gained close to 12 million
votes (10.6%).
t (10 6%)
Other parties with significant support included The
Prosperous Justice Party (
p y (PKS), which drew around
),
8 million votes (7.3%), and the newly founded
Democratic Party, which secured almost 8.5 million
votes (7.4%).

DPR election
Only 17 parties won seats in the national parliament.
Indonesian Law permits all participating political
parties to file court challenges with the Constit tional
co rt ith Constitutional
Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi), if they can provide
evidence of material errors in the ballot counting
process.
Out of the 24 participating parties, 23 filed lawsuits
with the Court, contested the vote count.
,
Following a series of brief court hearings, the Court
reached a final verdict on the election results.
The verdict altered the KPU’s allocation of
parliamentary seats.


DPR election
The legislative election results changed the
configuration of political power within the DPR.
According to the prevailing DPR R les and
pre ailing Rules
Regulations, all members of the DPR are obliged to
register as faction members. A faction must consist
of at least 13 members.
f tl t b
Factions within DPR may be formed by a single
political p y This is the model used by the Golkar
p party. y
Party Faction and the PDI-P Faction.
Factions can also be established by a coalition of
two or more political parties Such coalitions are
parties.
generally formed when a party fails to meet the 13-
seat requirement to establish an independent
faction.
faction


DPR election
The coalition factions: the Democratic Party Faction,
which includes The Democratic Party and The
Indonesia United and Justice Party (PKPI); and The
Democratic Pioneer Faction, which merges The
Crescent and Star Party (PBB), The Nationalist
United Democratic Party (PDK) The Pioneer Party
(PDK),
(PP), The Indonesia Democratic Supremacy Party
(PPDI), and PNI Marhaenisme.


DPR election
DPR membership is divided into the following factions:

No Faction Seats %
1. The Golkar Party 127 23.22
2. PDI-P 109 19.93
3. The United Development Party (PPP) 57 10.42
4. The Democratic Party (PD) 57 10.42
5. The National Mandate Party (PAN) 53 9.69
6. The National Awakening Party (PKB) 52 9.51
7
7. The P J ti Party
Th Prosperous Justice P t (PKS) 45 8.23
8 23
8. The Democratic Pioneer Star (BPD) 20 3.66
9.
9 The Reform Star Party (PBR) 14 2.56
2 56
10. The Prosperous Peace Party (PDS) 13 2.38
547

DPD election
The legislative election also allowed Indonesians to
vote for their representatives in the House of
Regional Representatives (
g p (DPD).)
For the first time in Indonesian political history,
voters held the right to directly elect members of a
national legislative body
body.
The DPD consists of 128 members representing 32
provinces. Each province, irrespective of the size, is
represented by four members, i.e. individuals who
members i e
are restricted from holding positions in a political
party structure.


DPD election
The DPD’s membership features a blend of
p
prominent public figures originating from various
backgrounds, some best known for their roles in
religious, cultural, or educational domains.
g , ,
Other DPD members are former government
officials, including former ministers and governors ,
lawyers and businessmen, religious scholars and
businessmen
leaders, and prominent NGO activists.


Presidential election
Nomination of the candidates
The legislative election marked the beginning of a
new chapter in Indonesian politics as the country
politics,
entered a historic new phase of democracy.
For the first time ever in modern Indonesian politics,
p
the President and Vice-President were directly
elected by the people.
This development reflected the maturing of
Indonesia’s citizenry and civil society.
The direct presidential election was also considered
as a significant democratic reform.


N
i ti f th did t
The results of the legislative election, combined with
a threshold requirement established by the relevant
election law, left only seven parties eligible to
independently nominate a ticket with presidential
and vice-presidential candidates.
These parties were: The Golkar Party (21.58%),
PDI-P (18.53%), PKB (10.57%), PPP (8.15%), The
Democratic Party (7.45%), PKS (7.34%) and PAN
(6.44%).
(6 44%)


N
i ti f th did t
In the run-up to the p
p presidential election, six tickets
,
of presidential and vice-presidential candidates
emerged:
1. Megawati – Hasyim Muzadi, nominated by PDI-P.
2. Wiranto – Salahuddin Wahid, proposed by the Golkar
Party.
Party
3. Amien Rais – Siswono Yudho Husodo, backed by PAN.
4. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono – M. Jusuf Kalla, representing
the Democratic Party.
5. Hamzah Haz – Agum Gumelar, proposed by PPP.
6 Abdurrahman Wahid – Marwah Daud, nominated by PKB
6. Daud PKB.


N
i ti f th did t
Five of these six tickets were determined through
the political parties’ internal decision.
Only the Golkar Party conducted an open election
to select its presidential nominee through a
convention, which involved the party’s
organizational structure from the grassroots level up
to the provincial and national level.
For Indonesia, this was a first.


First round presidential election
Following a series of verification procedures, KPU
officially confirmed five out of the six tickets mentioned
y
above were eligible for the presidential and vice
presidential election.
The five tickets comprised the official candidates for the
p
July 5, 2004 Presidential Election.
Abdurrahman Wahid and Marwah Daud Ibrahim fell short
in the KPU’s verification process due to health
p
requirements which disqualified PKB presidential
candidate Abdurrahman Wahid, in accordance to the
Presidential Election Rules and Regulations.
The KPU later confirmed that this decision was based on
health test results approved by the appointed medical
team from the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI).( )


First round presidential election
p
The first round of the presidential election took place on
July 5, 2004.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla received a
plurality of the vote. The official results are as follows:
1. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono-Jusuf Kalla gained 39,838,184
votes (33 5 %),
o es (33.574%),
2. Megawati Soekarnoputri-Hasyim Muzadi obtained
31,569,104 votes (26.605%),
3. Wiranto-Salahuddin Wahid gained 26,286,788 votes
g , ,
(22.154%),
4. Amien Rais- Siswono Yudo Husodo received 17,392,931
votes (14.658%),
5. Hamzah Haz-Agum Gumelar won 3,569,861 votes
(3.009%).
From the above vote tally, none of the tickets surpassed
y p
the designated threshold of fifty percent of the total votes.
The two top-presidential and vice presidential tickets
proceeded to the runoff election.


Runoff election
The second round election was held on September
20, 2004. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf
, g y
Kalla won the election with a final tally of 69,266,350
votes.
This figure far exceeded Megawati Soekarnoputri-
Hasyim Muzadi’s total of 44,990,704 votes.
The official KPU tally of 114,257,054 votes in the
presidential runoff election reflected a 60 62%
id ti l ff l ti fl t d 60.62%
majority for Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf
Kalla, while Megawati Soekarnoputri-Hasyim Muzadi
received th support of 39 38% of th electorate.
i d the t f 39.38% f the l t t


Runoff election
The parties that backed Megawati’s ticket later
formed a coalition under the name of Koalisi
Kebangsaan (The National Coalition).
The official results of the presidential and vice
p
presidential election were announced on October 4,
2004 by the KPU.
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla (also
known as SBY-JK) were officially declared as
President-elect
President elect and Vice President elect of the
Vice-President-elect
Republic of Indonesia for the period of 2004-2009.
They were officially sworn in on October 2004 in
2004,
front of a special plenary session of the MPR.


The Significance of the 2004 Election
The 2004 General Election has opened a new chapter
in Indonesia’s march towards democracy.
Many had expressed concern over whether the election
could take place in a peaceful manner characterized by
manner,
fairness and transparency. Many also expressed
concern over the possibility of clashes between groups
of political party supporters especially during the
supporters,
presidential election.
This concern was understandable, as at almost the
same titime that Indonesia held it election, I di and th
th t I d i h ld its l ti India d the
Philippines also carried out elections, but these were
tainted by physical violence which resulted in
y y
casualties.


The Significance of the 2004 Election . .
Election.

By contrast the Indonesian General Election took place
contrast,
peacefully, without conflicts or casualties.
Political observers –domestic as well as foreign–
unanimously acknowledged that the 2004 Elections,
both the legislative and presidential elections, had been
conducted in a fair and open manner without major
manner,
irregularities.
The elections marked a significant and positive step
toward a democratic future.


Direct Regional Elections
For decades, the idea of direct regional elections for
local leaders was unthinkable. But things change and
Indonesia embraced direct regional elections for
governor and district chief/mayors in 2005, which
promises to deepen and institutionalize democratic
traditions at the grassroots level.
The village chief however had been directly elected for
many years, the only democratically elected leaders for
a long time. The elections of the village chiefs,
however,
however have been marked by horizontal conflicts
which sometime are quite violence thus creating doubt
whether Indonesia was ready for direct election for its
political leaders
leaders.


Direct Regional Elections . . .
Direct regional elections --the first in the country's
country s
history-- are scheduled to be held in over 200
mayoralties, districts and provinces.
y p


The regional elections, which had their starting point in
the regional autonomy that was introduced in 2001, were
g y ,
held in the high spirit that followed the free and fair
general elections in 1999 and 2004, and marked a giant
leap of faith to embrace a system that had been
disregarded for over four decades.
Regional autonomy itself has long been criticized for
doing little for people at the lower levels of society
society,
serving only to transfer power from the hands of
unscrupulous politicians in the central government to
even more unscrupulous ones at the local level level.
There is now hope that the regional elections will
eventually bring a more democratic rule to the local level
and lead to the rise of local leaders who are more
f
accountable and qualified, and able to carry out the
wishes of the people.
p p

g

There were also some surprises in the elections. Golkar
p
Party, which had been widely tipped to win most of the seats
in the elections, and announced its goal of winning 60 percent
of the seats in the regional elections, did not do as well as
expected.d
After the regional elections, a new pattern of relationship
between the local and central governments will emerge. The
g g
locally elected leader will consider himself to be more
independent and more predisposed to oppose the central
government if its policies are considered to be against the
interests of his community.
i t t f hi it
With more elections to come, and despite some imperfections
in the polls that have been held, this undertaking -- a learning
experience i it early stages th t should b conducted with
i in its l t that h ld be d t d ith
patience and perseverance -- holds the dreams and ideals of
a democratic country.


どうもありがとうございました

Terima Kasih


Day 3: Presentation of Individual Mid-term Paper

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Day 3: Presentation of Individual Mid-term Paper

Ähnlich wie Day 3: Presentation of Individual Mid-term Paper (20)

Mehr von Ginandjar Kartasasmita

Mehr von Ginandjar Kartasasmita (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Day 3: Presentation of Individual Mid-term Paper