2017
DOI: 10.15804/ppsy2017111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hybrid Power-Sharing in Indonesia

Abstract: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the validity of the thesis that in Indonesia one can find institutions that characterize two power-sharing models which are considered opposites of one another in political theory – centripetalism and consociationalism. In consequence, the Indonesian power-sharing system should be viewed as a hybrid, or mixed, system, and not a typically centripetal system as is usually the case in the literature. At the beginning of this article, a short analysis of Indonesia's politica… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Its institutional architecture features a plethora of democratically elected offices at the national and subnational level which vary in details but adhere to an overarching pan-ethnic, cross-voting stratagem designed to promote a national, pan-ethnic identity across the vast Indonesian archipelago stretching over 3,000 miles and 17,000 islands. While aspects of Indonesian democracy such as the ongoing presence of religious parties and proportional voting are closer to the consociational model, many of Indonesia's electoral institutions are explicitly centripetal (Trzciński 2017). These include an executive president both nominated and elected on an explicitly aggregative basis; cross-national organizational requirements for political parties which make most locally based parties unviable; a territorial structure which proliferates and in some cases divides potential ethnic powerbases; and semi-majority run-off electoral laws for regional governors.…”
Section: Strong Centripetalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Its institutional architecture features a plethora of democratically elected offices at the national and subnational level which vary in details but adhere to an overarching pan-ethnic, cross-voting stratagem designed to promote a national, pan-ethnic identity across the vast Indonesian archipelago stretching over 3,000 miles and 17,000 islands. While aspects of Indonesian democracy such as the ongoing presence of religious parties and proportional voting are closer to the consociational model, many of Indonesia's electoral institutions are explicitly centripetal (Trzciński 2017). These include an executive president both nominated and elected on an explicitly aggregative basis; cross-national organizational requirements for political parties which make most locally based parties unviable; a territorial structure which proliferates and in some cases divides potential ethnic powerbases; and semi-majority run-off electoral laws for regional governors.…”
Section: Strong Centripetalismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cases of Strong Centripetalism Example Dimension'National party' schemes, combined with cross-party presidential nominations and geographic distribution requirements plus run-off for presidential elections, as in Indonesia(Aspinall 2011;Trzciński 2017) …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Installed geothermal electric capacity of different countries (Statistics, 2013; Trzciński, 2017). [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%