Illiberal Democracy in Indonesia: The Ideology of the Family State

by David Bourchier

Illiberal Democracy in Indonesia charts the origins and development of organicist ideologies in Indonesia from the early 20th century to the present. In doing so, it provides a background to the theories and ideology that informed organicist thought, traces key themes in Indonesian history, examines the Soeharto regime and his ‘New Order’ in detail, and looks at contemporary Indonesia to question the possibility of past ideologies making a resurgence in the country. Beginning with an exploration of the origins of the theory of the organic state in Europe, this book explores how this influenced many young Indonesian scholars and ‘secular’ nationalists. It also looks in detail at the case of Japan, and identifies the parallels between the process by which Japanese and Indonesian nationalist scholars drew on European romantic organicist ideas to forge ‘anti-Western’ national identities and ideologies. The book then turns to Indonesia’s tumultuous history from the revolution to 1965, the rise of Soeharto, and how his regime used organicist ideology, together with law and terror, to shape the political landscape consolidate control. In turn, it shows how the social and economic changes wrought by the government’s policies, such as the rise of a cosmopolitan middle class and a rapidly growing urban proletariat led to the failure of the corporatist political infrastructure and the eventual collapse of the New Order in 1998. Finally, the epilogue surveys the post Soeharto years to 2014, and how growing disquiet about the inability of the government to contain religious intolerance, violence and corruption, has led to an increased readiness to re-embrace not only more authoritarian styles of rule but also ideological formulas from the past. This book will be welcomed by students and scholars of Southeast Asia, politics and political theory, as well as by those interested in authoritarian regimes, democracy and human rights.

Genres: Politics

Hardcover

First published July 27, 2012

Reviews

[FauzanH · Rating 5 out of 5]

Apakah anda kerap menemukan istilah semisal "gotong-royong", "musyawarah mufakat", "kekeluargaan", "harmoni", dan kata-kata sejenis? Atau kalau saya benar-benar mau kritis, kata-kata semisal "Ideologi Pancasila", "Demokrasi Pancasila", dan "NKRI Harga Mati".

Well, pada Buku ini, David Bourchier, tidak hanya mengurai terminologi, melainkan kronologi sejarah tentang mengapa elit politik di Indonesia, begitu terobsesi dengan pola pikir "Family State". Atau, pola pikir bahwa entitas, entah itu "Bangsa" atau "Negara", merupakan sebuah kesatuan, bahkan organisme, dimana disusun berdasar banyak individu dan kelompok. Ya, pola pikir yang amat kontras terhadap kesadaran dan kebebasan individual ala liberalisme.

Sejarah yang dimaksud disini, merentang dari masa Kebangkitan Nasional (utamanya masa dimana para mahasiswa "Indonesia", berkuliah di Belanda dan bertemu dengan Ideologi Romantisisme), hingga refleksi di masa Reformasi.

Buku ini amat direkomendasikan bagi WNI KTP yang kritis terhadap budaya politik di Indonesia, mengenai orientasi mereka terhadap "Family State". Buku ini juga direkomendasikan bagi yang meyakini hak individual di atas kolektivisme (terutama yang mengatasnamakan "Bangsa", "Negara", "NKRI", "Pancasila", dan sebagainya).

[Agung · Rating 5 out of 5]

I find myself returning to this book quite often. I've cited this book at least five times in online discussion forum—the latest being just a few hours ago, 10 months after I finished reading it. I can't write a proper review right now, since I haven't reread the book in its entirety. So I'll just quote my own usage of the book in that online discussion:



A lot of [Indonesian] founding fathers received their education from Leiden University, which had a conservative faculty deeply influenced by the tradition of German political philosophy, legal anthropology, and romanticism. Leiden became one of the centers of colonial adat scholarship in Europe, and our adat law scholars such as Supomo had directly drawn inspiration from the likes of Spinoza, Hegel, and Adam Mueller.

Supomo summarised the key features of ‘Indonesian culture’ in the highly romantic, orientalist terms that by then formed a standard part of the discourse of national identity among many older generation nationalists. Supomo spoke of the basic impulse among Indonesians and in Indonesian culture toward the ‘unity of life’ in both the corporeal and spiritual realms. This entailed a unity between the microcosmos and macrocosmos, between servant and lord (kawulo dan gusti), between the people and their rulers. Individuals, he said, could not be conceived of as separate from other people, from the outside world or indeed from living beings as a whole.

‘This is the totalitarian concept, the Indonesian integralist concept which is manifest in the traditional constitutional order’

In the process of drafting our constitution and debating with Hatta, Supomo made many positive references to 'totalitarianism'. Note that ‘totalitarian’ did not always have the negative connotations it gained during and after the war. The Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci for instance, used it in the early 1930s in a neutral sense to mean ‘all-embracing and unifying’. The political scientist Ross Hoffman argued that the ideal of what the Italian Fascists called Lo Stato totalitario, i.e. ‘a state in which all persons are enlisted and all have a consciousness of membership’, did not differ in essence from the ideal of the democratic state.

Still, Supomo made a lot of positive references to Mussolini and fought Hatta in the matter of individual rights:

[A]ccording to the integralistic understanding of ‘state’, as the unity of the constituted people, there will be no dualism between ‘state and individual’, there will be no conflict between the structure of the state and the laws relating to individuals, there will be no dualism between state and civil society [Staat und staatsfreie Gesellschaft], there will be no need for basic rights or human rights [Grund-und Freiheitsrechte] for the individual against the state, because individuals are organic parts of the state, each with their own position and responsibilities to contribute to the glory of the state, and because the state is not a coercive body or a political giant standing outside the sphere of individual freedom.

~Soepomo, trans. from A Note On the Sources For the 1945 Constitutional Debates in Indonesia by Kusuma & Elson

The concept of individual rights, Soepomo said, doesn't make any sense in Indonesia since individuals in our nation were so very embedded in their desa. This makes the desa, not individuals, as the basic political unit in Supomo's system of legal thought. Fortunately for us, Supomo was defeated by Hatta in their debate, so our 1945 constitution—as well as the 1949 and the 1950 constitution—made references affirming the individual rights of Indonesian citizens.

In the time leading up to the 1971 election, Soeharto was looking for a way to ensure his grip on the political landscape. Ali Moertopo, with his cadre of intellectuals which would soon form the core of CSIS, unearthed the Hatta-Supomo debate on the constitution. Moertopo emphasized certain parts of the debate and downplayed the others to discredit Sukarno's conception of Pancasila and Hatta's handiwork in the constitution. The result is the Pancasila infused with the organicist ideology of the New Order as we know and love.

[Charlotte · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this book, I have a new clarity and understanding of instances that previously confused/befuddled me completely. In clear, precise, and well researched sections, Bouchier explains the appeal of the organist/family system as objectively as possible.