Political party and party system institutionalization in Southeast Asia: lessons for democratic consolidation in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand

Abstract

Is a higher degree of party and party system institutionalization positively correlated with the consolidation of democracy, defined here as the prevention of democratic breakdown? In order to answer this question, it is useful to compare different levels and types of institutionalization in three Southeast Asian electoral democracies. Institutionalized party systems are characterized, according to Mainwaring and Torcal, by 'stability of interparty competition.' Moreover, the distinction made by Levitsky ('value infusion' versus 'behavioural routinization') with reference to the institutionalization of individual parties will be employed. The empirical research of this paper finds that most Indonesian parties are better institutionalized than those in the Philippines and Thailand with reference to 'value infusion.' In addition, the interparty competition is more stable in Indonesia. Therefore, the probability of a collapse of the party system in the Philippines and Thailand is much higher. This, in turn, renders the democracies in these countries more fragile and prone to political crises or even sudden breakdowns. The early organizational consolidation of social cleavages, such as in Indonesia, enhances institutionalization. A few of the most important parties are socially rooted and have strong linkages to civil and/or religious organizations. Furthermore, the relationship between central and local elites appears to be essential: strong bosses or cliques undermine institutionalization in the Philippines and in Thailand, respectively. However, in recent years there has also been a tendency towards convergence. There are signs of regression in Indonesia, such that the future of the party system is open to question. This article calls for caution with respect to the stated causal relation between institutionalization and democratic consolidation, and it questions some aspects of the concept.

Recruitment, Certification And Financial Management Of Political Party In The Province Of North Sumatera, Indonesia

“…This also implies the frequent occurrence of disunity in political parties resulting in the emergence of political frustrations of the cadre as well as the society and the impediments of the democratic consolidation process itself (Johnson Tan, 2012). With regard to political parties and party systems, Andreas Uffen concluded that political parties in Southeast Asian countries, including Indonesia, are very weak in party politics, this is due to party party behavior and activities carried out by political parties (Ufen, 2008). The organization of political parties sometimes acts aloud for and on behalf of the interests of the people, but in reality on the ground it actually fights for the benefit of its own board.…”

Civic Engagement and Democracy in Post-Suharto Indonesia: A Review of Musrenbang, the Kecamatan Development Programme, and Labour Organising

“…Regarding Indonesian political parties, one verdict is that while the Indonesian party system is surprisingly stable compared to that of other countries in the region, it is less efficient in channelling the concerns of poor communities, excluded groups, and minorities. Also, it has proven to be less efficient in formulating a broad reformist, cleavage-based development agenda (Ufen, 2008). Research on civil society shows that while anti-reformist elites are the main force behind a stagnation in democratic progress in recent years, civil society emerges "as democracy's most important defender" (Mietzner, 2012, p.209).…”

Institutional Subsystems and the Survival of Democracy: Do Political and Civil Society Matter?

“…Relatedly, a number of studies associate institutionalization with better democratic """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Mainwaring and Scully 1995;Levitsky 1998;Randall and Svasand 2002;Ufen 2008;Hicken 2011;Hicken and Kuhonta 2014.8" " governance, including more programmatic representation, greater stability of interests, better accountability, and more attention to public goods (e.g Mainwaring and Torcal 2006;Tóka 1997). …”