The ephemeral nature of local political monopolies

Abstract

The decentralization of political and fiscal authority in Indonesia in 1999 triggered a series of studies that predicted the rise of subnational strongmen who would subjugate the local state to their personal interests. However, almost 20 years after the devolution of power, Indonesian local politics are a lot more dynamic than earlier studies had assumed. While there are undoubtedly oligarchic and dynastic tendencies in Indonesian local politics, recent scholarship has emphasized the ephemeral nature of such power constellations. This chapter argues that a unique combination of institutional and structural conditions explains why local dynasties struggle to survive multiple election cycles in Indonesian local politics. The findings also speak to research on subnational authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world by showing that different constellations of institutional and socioeconomic variables shape the rise and fall of local political monopolies.

The irony of Indonesia's democracy: The rise of dynastic politics in the post-Suharto era

“…Additionally, the majority of political dynasties were only able to monopolize power in a single district or city. This finding supports previous scholarly findings that the scope of power of most Indonesian dynasties is limited to a single locality (Aspinall and As’ad, 2016; Buehler, 2018).…”

“…Through process tracing, this study also demonstrates how democratic institutions can help to sustain dynastic politics in Indonesia. This study also challenges Buehler's (2018) argument that, while some political dynasties have lost power, many have continued to succeed in maintaining their dominance, and the number will continue to grow as long as no drastic institutional changes occur. Finally, the study's analysis should prompt democratization students, pro-democracy movements, international donors, the media, and the general public to consider some unexpected consequences of democratization and decentralization.…”

“…Other scholars—including Savirani (2016), Aspinall and As’ad (2016), and Buehler (2007, 2013)—have studied the adaptability of political families in the newly democratic environment. Still others have focused on the extent to which material wealth and clientelistic relations are the backbones of dynastic candidates’ success in local elections (Buehler, 2007, 2013, 2018; Okamoto, 2004; Okamoto and Hamid, 2008).…”

“…Additionally, Zulkifli Nurdin's wife, Ratu Munawaroh, lost in the 2020 gubernatorial election and failed to restore his family's prestige after being defeated in the Jambi governorship race. The brief lifespans of some dynasties and the limited scope of power of Indonesian political dynasties have led Buehler (2018) to conclude that the nature of the country's political dynasties is “ephemeral”. Indeed, Indonesia's political dynasties are less widespread or durable than those in the Philippines and Thailand.…”

“…First, it presents empirical evidence of the rise of political dynasties at the subnational level in Indonesia after the democratic transition. Previous studies on political dynasties in Indonesia have primarily concentrated on one or a few subnational units (Aspinall and As’ad, 2016; Savirani, 2016; Buehler, 2013, 2018). Other studies on dynastic politics in Indonesia focused at the party level (Mietzner 2012, 2016) and the national parliament (Prihatini and Halimatusa’diyah, 2022; Wardani and Subekti, 2021).…”