The Evolution of Indonesia's Political Party System

Introduction

Ruling political parties are pivotal actors within political systems, whether in totalitarian regimes, authoritarian governments, or democratic systems. These parties play an outsized role in mobilizing and controlling mass participation, often operating under significant governmental oversight and control. Even in authoritarian contexts, ruling parties actively promote mass public support for the government in power.

Political parties, as distinct from interest groups, serve as organized entities that aim to elect their candidates to government offices, thereby directly influencing policies. In democratic systems, parties compete against each other in elections to gain power, and voters use party identification as a heuristic to choose between candidates. This dynamic clearly illustrates the integral role political parties play in shaping the political landscape.

Beyond electoral competition, the functions of political parties also encompass recruiting political leaders, formulating government policies and programs, and organizing government structures. These diverse functions all contribute to the overarching influence and impact political parties exert on governance structures and outcomes.

Definition and Function of Political Parties

Political parties, distinct from interest groups, serve as organized entities aiming to place their representatives in government offices, thereby influencing policies. In democratic systems, parties compete to elect leaders, and voters utilize party labels to identify candidates. This dynamic showcases the integral role political parties play in shaping the political landscape.

The functions of political parties extend beyond electoral competition. They involve the recruitment of political leaders, the formulation of government policies and programs, and the organization of government structures. These functions collectively contribute to the overall influence and impact of political parties on governance.

In contrast, interest groups focus solely on influencing government public policy in specific areas. Unlike political parties, interest groups do not seek to elect leaders to government offices but concentrate on advocating for policies aligned with their goals.

The key distinction is that political parties aim to gain control of government through elections to enact broad policies, while interest groups focus narrowly on their issue area and seek to influence policy through advocacy and lobbying. This delineation highlights the broader governance role of political parties.

Categorization of Party Systems

Political scientist Jean Blondel developed an influential categorization of party systems that highlights the diversity of structures under which political parties operate globally. Blondel identified four main types of party systems:

Non-Partisan Systems

In certain political systems, political parties are absent entirely. Government administration operates without distinct political parties mobilizing electoral participation. Historical examples include Libya under Gaddafi and Uganda under Amin.

One-Party Systems

This model involves single party rule, with one dominant political party controlling the government. Opposition parties are either officially outlawed or unable to effectively challenge the ruling party’s power. Examples include China under the Communist Party, Mexico under PRI dominance, and South Korea under Liberal Party rule in the 1950s-60s.

Two-Party Systems

A two-party system involves two major political parties that alternate power over an extended period. The United States is a prominent example, with Democrats and Republicans dominating national politics. Other examples include Malta and Jamaica.

Multi-Party Systems

In a system with multiple significant political parties, power alternates between different coalitions of parties over time. India and Netherlands showcase diverse multi-party systems. No single party is able to achieve an outright majority, necessitating coalition governments.

Blondel’s categorization illuminates the contrast between systems where a single political party monopolizes power versus competitive multi-party democracies. It underscores the pivotal role parties play in structuring governance.

Evolution of Indonesia’s Party System

Indonesia’s political party system has undergone major transformations through different political eras.

In the early parliamentary democracy after independence, Indonesia saw a proliferation of political parties, with over 30 parties competing in the 1955 elections. This was partly fueled by tensions between Islamists and nationalists, as well as ideological divisions within these camps. Several Islamic parties emerged, while nationalist parties like the Indonesian National Party (PNI) and the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) vied for power.

This parliamentary system was fraught with instability, leading to Sukarno declaring guided democracy in 1957. Under Sukarno’s authoritarian leadership, the political system consolidated into three factions - nationalism, religion, and communism. The Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) represented nationalism, two Islamic parties Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Masyumi spoke for religion, while the PKI championed communism. This marked a shift from the earlier proliferation of parties to a simpler tripartite system.

The rise to power of Suharto in 1967 saw him banning most political parties and instituting a restrictive authoritarian regime for over 30 years. Only two parties were allowed during this period - Suharto’s own Golongan Karya (Golkar) party and the PPP, an amalgamation of several Islamic parties. The regime used Golkar to exert control and monopolize power, reducing the role of political parties.

However, Suharto’s fall in 1998 led to democratization and political liberalization. This opened the floodgates for new political parties to emerge in Indonesia. From just 3 parties in 2004, the number rapidly rose to 24 parties contesting the 2019 elections. This shift marked a new chapter in Indonesia’s political landscape.

Proliferation of Parties in Early Parliamentary Era

Indonesia’s early parliamentary democracy era in the 1950s saw a proliferation of political parties, with over 30 parties forming during this period. This fragmented landscape was characterized by regionalism, with parties organized around ethnic, religious and local interests competing for power and influence.

The initial euphoria after independence led to idealistic goals of fulfilling regional aspirations through political vehicles. This resulted in a surge of parties representing distinct ethnic groups, religious denominations, islands, and provinces. The four largest parties were secular nationalist parties with ties to the independence movement, but they failed to establish nationwide dominance.

Smaller, regionally-based parties had strongholds in certain areas but little national presence. This fragmentation and regionalism ultimately bred dissatisfaction with the ineffective parliamentary system. The proliferation of localized parties catering to specific constituencies made it difficult to form stable ruling coalitions or achieve coherent national policymaking.

Sukarno’s Guided Democracy

Sukarno’s rise to power in the late 1950s marked a shift towards guided democracy and growing nationalism in Indonesia. Faced with ethnic and regional tensions, Sukarno sought to exert greater control over the political structures.

A key characteristic of this period was the increasing authority exerted by Sukarno over the parliamentary system and political parties. The 1945 constitution had established a parliamentary democracy, but Sukarno aimed to consolidate power in the presidency.

In 1957, Sukarno declared martial law and introduced Guided Democracy - an authoritarian system with Sukarno at the helm. Political parties were forced to amalgamate into two groups, reducing opposition and dissent. The Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), with its emphasis on nationalism aligned with Sukarno’s vision, became the dominant political force during this period.

The Guided Democracy era saw Sukarno consolidate authority and suppress regionalism and ethnic-based parties. By controlling the political party system, Sukarno was able to centralize power and promote a nationalist ideology. However, this growing authoritarianism sowed the seeds for future political turmoil.

Suharto’s Authoritarian Rule

Suharto rose to power in 1967 following an attempted communist coup. His authoritarian New Order regime was marked by the dominance of Golkar, the ruling political party tied to the military. Under Suharto, restrictions were imposed on political participation and activity.

Golkar served as the main government-backed party, essentially functioning as the only party allowed to participate in elections during Suharto’s rule. Opposition parties were limited through measures like requiring Pancasila to be recognized as their sole ideology. This allowed Golkar to emerge victorious with landslide majorities in rigged elections.

The political system under Suharto was designed to restrict any challenges to his authoritarian rule. Opposition parties and voices were suppressed. Strict control was enforced over the media and civil society. An electoral system based on proportional representation with appointed regional representatives guaranteed Golkar’s dominance in parliament. This enabled Suharto to consolidate power and govern in an authoritarian manner for over 30 years.

Post-Suharto Liberalization

The fall of Suharto’s authoritarian New Order regime in 1998 marked a major turning point for Indonesia’s political landscape. Political reforms instituted after Suharto’s resignation led to significant changes in the country’s party system.

One of the most notable changes was the elimination of restrictions on establishing new political parties. Under the New Order, the government had placed severe limitations on forming new parties outside of the existing three sanctioned ones - Golkar, PDI, and PPP. However, the post-Suharto reforms removed these barriers, leading to a proliferation of new parties entering the scene.

Within just a few years after Suharto stepped down, the number of parties contesting national elections swelled from three to over 100. This was a dramatic shift from the rigid party system that had existed for over three decades under the New Order regime. A wider range of political voices and ideologies found expression through these newly formed parties.

Some of the more influential parties emerging in the immediate post-Suharto period included the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), led by Suharto’s successor Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the National Awakening Party (PKB), with support bases among Muslim constituencies. The National Mandate Party (PAN) and the Justice and Unity Party (PKP) also drew significant support in early elections.

This proliferation of new parties marked a clear departure from the dominance of Golkar, PDI, and PPP under Suharto’s New Order. It signaled greater political liberalization and a more open, democratic process taking root in the post-authoritarian era. The influx of parties represented the voices of Reformasi, reflecting the public’s demand for transparent, representative politics after decades of restrictive government control over the party system.

Key Takeaways

The evolution of Indonesia’s political party system highlights the pivotal role of ruling parties in shaping a country’s political landscape. In the early parliamentary democracy era, Indonesia had over 30 political parties competing for power and influence. This led to regionalism and ethnic conflict as parties mobilized support along those lines.

Sukarno’s guided democracy saw the rise of certain parties aligned with his governance approach, exerting control over political participation. Subsequently, Suharto’s authoritarian New Order regime restricted the party system to just three parties, enabling the dominance of Golkar. This single party acted as the main ruling party supporting Suharto’s regime.

The fall of Suharto gave rise to dramatic reforms, including the influx of new political parties no longer bound by past restrictions. This shift marked a new multiparty era in Indonesia’s history. Overall, the trajectory illustrates how ruling parties in power can significantly impact a country’s political development, often used to exert control by authoritarian regimes.

Conclusion

Political party systems play an integral role in governance and the functioning of diverse political structures globally. While parties serve as organized entities competing for power, the prevalence of dominant ruling parties underpins many political systems regardless of regime type.

Authoritarian governments and totalitarian regimes often utilize ruling parties to mobilize and control mass participation. But even in these constrained environments, dominant ruling parties actively promote mass support for their authoritarian governments.

Across political systems, the importance of political parties stems from their multifaceted functions beyond just electoral competition. Their role extends to recruiting leaders, formulating policies, and organizing government structures. Through these functions, ruling parties in particular hold tremendous influence over governance and policymaking.

Understanding the categorization of party systems provides perspective on the varied structures that political parties operate within. While some nations lack organized party systems entirely, others feature single-party dominance or multiparty competition. Appreciating this diversity helps underscore the pivotal role played by political parties and ruling parties worldwide.