FromAliranto Dealignment: Political Parties in Post-Suharto Indonesia

Abstract

Surprisingly, the outcome of the 1999 and 2004 elections in Indonesia and the resultant constellation of political parties are reminiscent of the first Indonesian parliamentary democracy of the 1950s. The dynamics of party politics is still marked by aliran (‘streams’): that is, some of the biggest political parties are still identified with specific milieux. But politik aliran lost a lot of its significance and re-emerged in a quite different form after the fall of Suharto in 1998. It is argued that parties are still socially rooted, so a modified aliran approach still has its analytical value. But one can witness a weakening of aliran (dealiranisasi) or dealignment of political parties. This dealignment is indicated by the rise of presidential or presidentialized parties, growing intra-party authoritarianism, the prevalence of ‘money politics’, the lack of meaningful political platforms, weak loyalties towards parties, cartelization and the upsurge of new local elites. The identification with certain parties has remained, but the ideological cement as well as the organizational base has been eroded. The reasons for this lie in reforms of formal institutions and social factors, ie shifts in the relationship between capital and the political class, altered educational patterns and the rising importance of mass media.

The Age of Personalized Parties: Survival and Revival of Party Personalization in the Philippines and Indonesia

“…Extensive party personalization of post-2014 election results in such cooptation of intra-party politics which in turn is to be cooperation of inter-party politics. Personalization tendency is different with presidentialization theses (Ufen 2008 Such party personalization is conducted into two mechanisms in current Indonesian parties. First, the leader holds both legislative and executive power concurrently.…”

“…Thus, comparing tothe elite-based approaches of Indonesian party politics, Philippine political parties are mostly seen in its linkage with the society. In this regard, there are two dominant points of view explaining the dependency of partyinstitutions upon individual patronages in the Philippines: patron-client relationship (Landé 1973, Sidel 1999)and the absence of social cleavagepoliticization (Ufen 2008, Quimpo 2007, Manacsa and Tan 2005. The notion of patron-client thesesrelates to the working of two things.…”

Islamic Organisation and Electoral Politics: Nahdlatul Ulama and Islamic Mobilisation in Indonesia's Local Election

“…power-sharing mechanisms between ideologically opposed social and political (Sebastian, 2004), the institutional weakness of political parties in the competitive multi-party system (Buehler and Tan, 2007;Choi, 2004Choi, , 2007, the widespread fragmentation emerging from the dominant patronage politics and neoliberal economy (Aspinall, 2013a), the focus on ethnic and religious identities amidst the weakening of formal political associations (Aspinall, Dettman, & Warburton, 2011;Ufen, 2008), and increased piety amidst the commodification of Islam in the public sector (Fealy and White, 2008).…”

The Evolution of Cleavages in the Indonesian Party System

“…In recent years the literature on political parties in Indonesia has focused on the impact of social milieus (aliran or "streams") on voters' behavior (King 2003;Baswedan 2004;Sherlock 2005;Johnson Tan 2005;Ufen 2008a) and has investigated dealignment processes (Ufen 2008a), "cartelization" (Slater 2004), the role of formal institutions (Sherlock 2005), and institutionalization (Johnson Tan 2005;Tomsa 2006;Ufen 2008b). Most scholars have combined rational choice, institutionalist, and sociological approaches (e.g., Johnson Tan 2005;Tomsa 2006;Mujani and Liddle 2007).…”