A recent article in the Economist dubbed Indonesia “South-East Asia’s only fully functioning democracy.” Considering the great strides the country has made towards democratic consolidation since the end of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998, this accolade is for the most part well-deserved. In fact, Indonesia is the only South-East Asian country to receive the “free” distinction in the Freedom in the World survey. The country’s reformasi, or reform movement, has given rise to an increasingly open political system characterized by respect for basic civil and political liberties. Indonesia’s democracy is certainly not beyond reproach. As the Economist notes, corruption continues to be prevalent, while the electoral process tends to be overcomplicated, chaotic, and at times overtly undemocratic. Nevertheless, the country’s political climate does boast a robust, competitive party system and a strong degree of pluralism – as befits such an ethnically and geographically diverse land – which has been regularly exemplified during the run-up to the country’s April 9 parliamentary elections and July 8 presidential elections.
The Economist described the campaign for Indonesia’s parliamentary election as a “carnival of democratic competition.” Over the past few months, candidates from a multitude of parties hit the campaign trail with a flurry of rallies featuring both political speeches and singing and dancing. There are currently 38 national parties registered in Indonesia. The assimilation of Islamist parties into this system, and more particularly their willingness to compromise and join forces with secular parties, is quite remarkable considering Indonesia’s past problems with Islamic extremism. During this election season, these parties were able to freely campaign without any restrictions on their activity by the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The Election Day proceedings also demonstrated how far Indonesia’s electoral institutions have come. On April 9, 100 million Indonesians headed to the polls. While all of the votes have not yet been tallied, it looks likely that Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party will win the most seats with roughly 20% of the national vote. Polls show that the parties of the Suharto era, the Golkar Party and the Democratic Party of Struggle, have both sustained a substantial decrease in popularity. In addition, several of the smaller Muslim parties took a hit. Regrettably, 5 were killed in Papua, a province in which a separatist movement remains strong. Nevertheless, this outbreak pales in comparison to the bloodshed that once dominated Indonesia’s political scene.
When Indonesia is compared to other Southeast Asian countries, its relative superiority in terms of accountability and public voice is obvious. Thailand’s recent political history has been plagued by military rule and mounting instability, which reached a peak in recent days with the failure of an ASEAN summit and significant violence in Bangkok caused by anti-government protesters. The situation in the Philippines is equally troubling. Supposed coup attempts against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo have abounded, while recent elections have been extremely violent. Generally, Malaysia can also be lumped with these troubled countries. Nevertheless, recent developments in this country serve as an indication that at least one of Indonesia’s neighbors may be taking baby steps towards a more democratic future.
In comparison to Indonesia, the political state of affairs in Malaysia is primitive. The corrupt, authoritarian United Malays National Organization (UNMO) party has ruled the country since 1957. In late March, the UMNO selected Najib Razak, a party insider who has been accused of the brutal murder of a Mongolian woman, to succeed Abdullah Badawi as Malaysia’s next prime minister. The UMNO and its coalition, the National Front, have wielded complete authority over the country’s political system despite the fact that a multiparty system formally exists. Throughout UMNO’s reign, opposition activities have been repeatedly restricted. As the 2006 Countries at the Crossroads report explains, campaign periods are extremely short, and with strong control of the media by the government. During the run-up to both the March 2008 parliamentary election and the by-elections that followed, the government’s interference in the campaign activities of the opposition was as bold as ever. At the end of this March, for example, police broke up an opposition rally by seizing DVDs and detaining an opposition leader. They also fired tear gas into a crowd while opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was giving a speech. Harassment of Anwar is no surprise; the repeated charges against the opposition’s most popular leader have epitomized UMNO’s style of frontal combat style politics.
That said, there are signs that the UMNO’s monopoly over Malaysia’s political scene may be waning. In comparison with previously, pluralism is at a new high in the country. Recently, the strength of the opposition, as well as its participation in mainstream politics, has steadily mounted. The opposition is made up of a coalition of three parties: the Malay-dominated Parti Keadilan, the Chinese Democratic Action Party, and the Islamic Pan Malaysian Islamic Party. As a previous post explains, the UMNO lost their two-thirds majority in the parliamentary elections of 2008. In this election, the opposition achieved victories in 5 of 13 Malaysian states. They have subsequently lost seats in two by-elections. The most recent loss took place on April 7, when UMNO lost a state parliament seat. In addition, the opposition won another seat in the national parliament in Perak.
Surprisingly, under the newly elected prime minister, the government itself has made some preliminary efforts to respect, or at least not directly smother, the country’s burgeoning competitive party system. For example, Prime Minister Najib lifted the three-month ban on Harakah and Suara Keadlin, two opposition newspapers. However, on the whole, Najib's initial performance has left observers unimpressed.
It is obvious that the current situation in Malaysia leaves much to be desired. It will still take a sizeable effort to effectively challenge or even to significantly influence the agenda of the entrenched UMNO party. Nevertheless, healthy pluralism has a higher chance than ever before of becoming firmly established in the country. Interestingly enough, Malaysia’s level of true pluralism could one day overshadow that of its neighbor should this prove to be the case. While the number of parties represented in Indonesia’s system is impressive, the diversity of interests and ideas espoused by these parties is not. As both the 2006 Countries at the Crossroads report and The Economist note, most of Indonesia’s parties share strikingly similar platforms. The candidates’ policy proposals and opinions on key issues are fairly comparable. Unfortunately, their plans for the future are also equally vague. This dearth of ideological competition may soon contribute to a standstill in Indonesia’s path towards governance reform.
Conversely, the ideas represented in Malaysia’s party system are more diverse than ever before. The interests, beliefs, and political ideologies of the majority of Malaysia’s inhabitants have finally entered the political scene. Most notably, the concerns of traditionally marginalized non-Malays, including the Chinese and smaller indigenous populations, have become part of political discourse. Opposition parties have also come forward with an abundance of ideas about how to address the problems currently debilitating Malaysian politics and society. Thus far, conflict has been the norm in Malaysia’s system. Nevertheless, if the opposition continues to increase its influence just as the negative effects of the global economic slowdown reach Malaysia’s shores, this exchange of ideas may become crucial. Malaysia certainly has a long road ahead. Nevertheless, for the first time in 50 years, there is a chance that it may one day join Indonesia as one of the region’s democratic exemplars.
Photo Credit: Flickr user 12th St. David
