MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA 2009 Indonesia … Docs/IDI/2009 Indonesia... · Chapter 1 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index 3 Chapter 1 Introduction

2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA

MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

This report was prepared by:Maswadi RaufSyarif HidayatAbdul Malik GismarSiti Musdah MuliaAugust Parengkuan

Data Processing Team Wynandin ImawanUzair SuhaimiTeguh PramonoEdy WaryonoTanno Kamila HelawTono IriantonoMaman RahmawanDewi Triana

ContributorsRaden SiliwantiOtho Hernowo HadiIrman G. LantiRita DjayusmanMuhammad HusainFajar NursahidTerra TaihituEka Leni Yuliani

Editor for English VersionKaroline Kemp

Design ConceptTaufik Bayu Nugroho

Published by:

United Nations Development Programme, Indonesia Menara Thamrin Bldg, 8th FloorJl. M.H. Thamrin 3, Jakarta 10250, Indonesia

Contents

Foreword——viForeword——vii

Chapter 1Introduction——3Background——3Significance and Benefit of the IDI——5

Chapter 2The Conception Of Democracy Under The Indonesia Democracy Index——9The Basic Concept of Democracy ——9Operationalization of Concepts in the IDI: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators——15

Chapter 3 Methodology——23Question to be answered with the IDI——23Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the IDI——23Data Collection Methods——25Data processing——30

Index Compiling Technique——33Scale of Democracatic Performance——38Methodological Limitations——39

Chapter 4 The 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index——43A General Description of the Indonesia Democracy Index——43National Democracy Index according to Aspects——43Provincial Democracy Index According to Aspects——45Ranking Democracy in 33 Provinces——46Percentage of Provincial Democracy Performance——48Index for Civil Liberties——49Index for Political Rights——60Index for Institutions of Democracy ——67

Chapter 5Conclusion——79Bibliography——82Appendix——87

vi

ForewordMEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

ForewordThe National Planning and Development Agency

(Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional-BAP-

PENAS) has led the development of the Index, and has

worked in partnership with the Ministry of Home Affairs,

the Central Statistics Agency and provincial governments.

Engagement with civil society organizations and academics

from across Indonesia has also strengthened the results of

the report.

The Indonesia Democracy Index measures civil liber-

ties, political rights and institutions of democracy across all

33 provinces, and provides an in-depth assessment of the

status of democracy according to these indicators. The In-

dex shows that progress in the development of democracy

has been made, but that further support is required in order

to realize a truly democratic Indonesia for all. The data pro-

vided in the Index is important for the government and a

range of other stakeholders, as it assesses democracy at the

provincial level to ensure that good governance is on track

with democratic reforms and goals. The data can therefore

be used as a tool for evidence based analysis and policymak-

ing for local governments and authorities (including police,

courts, civil society organizations and others) to specifically

target areas for intervention, as well as share good practices

in order to further consolidate democracy in Indonesia.

The United Nations Development Programme is

pleased that the Government of Indonesia has made a com-

mitment to the Indonesia Democracy Index, which signifies

the priority it places on strengthening democracy. We hope

that this report, and the others that follow, will help the

government to consolidate its efforts in empowering demo-

cratic institutions to realize the civil liberties and political

rights of all Indonesian citizens.

Jakarta, June 2011

El-Mostafa BenlamlihUN Resident Coordinator Indonesia

El-Mostafa Benlamlih UN Resident Coordinator Indonesia

Democracy in Indonesia has come a long way since

reformation began in 1998. “Measuring Democracy in Indonesia: 2009 Indonesia

Democracy Index” is a result of the commitment

of the Government of Indonesia to strengthening

the political and institutional structures

which contribute to a vibrant democracy.

vii

Foreword MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

ForewordWe thank God Almighty for the successful publication

of the report on Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI). Our thanks are given in consideration for the lengthy

process of developing the IDI 2009, starting with data collection, processing and analysis to its publication.

With the publication of the IDI 2009, we hope that curiosity for IDI will be answered due to the comprehensive nature of this IDI report

The Indonesian Democracy Index or IDI 2009 is the second index on democracy in Indonesia since the first compilation of IDI 2007 (published in 2008). The compilation we have at hand is markedly significant as the IDI 2009 will set the benchmark for future compilations of indices on democracy in Indonesia. The results and findings from this report will serve as a ‘reminder’, or benchmark to be compared with results from future IDIs.

In conjunction with other democratic achievements, Indonesia has successfully developed a tool to measure the progress of democracy that is specific for Indonesia and not developed by other countries. At its core, the IDI is a country-led assessment developed based on a foundation of national ownership. As a nation, we all should be proud with our achievements, particularly, having the IDI.

As a tool to measure Indonesia’s unique style of democracy, the IDI is highly useful. The IDI presents clear indicators of democracy which illustrate the level of democratic progress in provinces throughout Indonesia. Based on these indicators, national or sub-national governments can determine its development priorities for democracy and governance. Indicators with low marks will be improved, while indicators with high marks will be maintained. This is the exact purpose for the development of the IDI, to assist the government in its development planning in democracy and governance. For non-governmental actors and stakeholders, the IDI is a tool to monitor development planning process and

The Government of Indonesia has

designated the IDI as one of the sectoral

targets to be achieved in the National Medium-

Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan

Jangka Menengah Nasional, RPJMN) 2010-

2014. This illustrates government’s high

commitment in democracy as one of

development priorities in the political sector

Prof. Dr. Armida S. Alisjahbana, MAMinister of National Development Planning/

Head of Bappenas

viii

ForewordMEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

its implementation through national and sub-national development policies.

The Government of Indonesia has designated the IDI as one of the sectoral targets to be achieved in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional, RPJMN) 2010 -2014 . Th i s i l lus t ra tes g o v e r n m e n t ’ s h i g h c o m m i t m e n t i n democracy as one of development priorities in the political sector. This effort needs the support of all segments of the society, as democracy belongs to the people and not only to the governnment, and marks the necessary participation of the people. Hence the IDI considers both, the people and the government, actors of equal importance in determining the performance of democracy.

The compilation of the IDI 2009 reflects the synergy between different stakeholders- from academics, activists from civil society organizations, the media, and of course government officials- who are members of IDI working groups at the provincial level tasked to provide support and guidance for data collection and quality control.

With this publication of the IDI 2009, on behalf of the Government of Indonesia I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for the contribution, hard work, and extraordinary effort of the IDI Expert Board, BPS-Statistics Indonesia team, the Ministry of Home Affairs, provincial governments and Provincial IDI Working Groups, and other parties who have provided assistance in the compilation of the

IDI 2009. I would like to especially thank the UNDP for its support in the compilation of the IDI. I hope we can continue and expand our collaboration in the future.

It is of note, that the compilation of IDI 2011 will be done using state budget, which will be coordinated by the Coordinating Ministry of Politics, Law and Security, in collaboration with BPS-Statistics Indonesia, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas).

It is my sincere hope that this IDI 2009 will motivate provincial governments and their people to improve democracy in their area. Hard work to improve conditions of democracy at the provincial level will in turn improve democratic performance at the national level. With the IDI to measure democratic progress, we all hope that democracy in Indonesia will continue its consolidation through continued good cooperation between the people and their government.

Jakarta, June 2011

Minister of National Development Planning/Head of Bappenas

Prof. Dr. Armida S. Alisjahbana, MA

1

Introduction

Chapter 1 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

3

Chapter 1Introduction

The Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) refers to numerical indica-tors which measure aspects of democracy across the provinces of Indonesia. These include civil liberties, political rights, and institu-tions of democracy. Measuring democracy poses a challenge due to the broadness of the term – the construction of the IDI uses the three aspects of democracy mentioned above, and further breaks them down into 11 variables and 28 indicators.

based on data drawn from the gov-ernments of the country’s provinces and the district/ city governments and people in the provinces.

1.1 BackgroundAfter the fall of the New Order

regime, which culminated in the stepping down of Soeharto from presidency in May 1998, the oppor-tunity to revert back to democracy appeared. Indonesian people saw this as the only option to replace the authoritarian political system of the New Order regime. The citizens of the nation created a spontaneous mass movement to democratize the country, and soon after Soeharto of-ficially stepped down as president, community leaders established po-litical parties and exercised freedom of association and speech. Existing laws, such as the Law on Political Par-ties and the Functional Group Party (Golongan Karya-Golkar) barred the creation of new political parties (and

The Indonesia Democracy Index aims to quantify the development of democracy at the provincial level in Indonesia. The index provides information about the progress of democracy in each province, and also allows for comparisons between provinces. The Indonesia Democ-racy Index therefore refers to the provinces of the country as a group or set, and does not include national level data.

Therefore, the word “Indonesia” or “national” in this IDI refers to all the provinces across Indonesia [collectively] as a group or a set. Of course, the development of democ-racy at provincial level differs from the development of democracy at national level. A national level IDI must therefore be compiled using data sourced from the central or national government in Jakarta and from all the people of Indonesia, while the IDI compiled at this stage, that is, this provincial level IDI, is

Chapter 1MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

4

(perda). At the same time, provincial parliaments became increasingly independent, as their members were elected through democratic general elections. Through these elections, voters gained the political right to choose the political parties which would represent them in the Regional House of Representatives.

The freedom created at national level as a result of democratization has also been created at subnational level. People’s participation in fight-ing for their demands and keeping an eye on the way the government of a province runs the province has become a common phenomenon in all the provinces in Indonesia. Nu-merous demonstrations have been organized by different community groups, not only in big cities but also in the remotest villages across Indonesia. People have become increasingly aware of their rights. They have become increasingly sen-sitive to practices of administering governance that are not right and detrimental to people. This requires the government to be more sensitive to the aspirations which are develop-ing in society.

Democratization brought about political changes both at national and subnational levels, and became a means to establish a democratic political system which would provide broad based rights to the people, and prevent the abuse of power.

in fact only recognized two political parties and one functional group. However, the government did not wish to risk acting against the will of the people, and moved to open up the country to begin the process of democratization. New laws on politics were issued in early 1999, and the 1945 Constitution was amended to enforce democracy in the national political system. Democratization at the national level was carried out in conjunction with provincial and district/city level governments. The Law on Regional Autonomy was passed to provide broad based au-tonomy to provincial governments, and the freedom that was opening up at the national level was trickling down to the regional level.

In line with the development of democratization at the national level, the position and function of the Regional Houses of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah --DPRD) was also strengthened so that parliament had the same level of authority as provincial governors. The Governor was no longer the sole ruler of the province, thus negating the Law on Regional Governments which had been in effect under the New Order regime. The Regional House of Representatives, in their roles as regional legislative institu-tions, worked together with gover-nors, as heads of the executive branch of provincial governments – and the two parties combined had the au-thority to create regional regulations


5

the level of democracy development in provinces across Indonesia.

The index also serves a purpose for the governments and citizens, as it can identify specific indicators with low scores, this providing the opportunity to address those par-ticular issues directly.

1.2. Significance and Benefit of the IDI

More than ten years after Indo-nesia began the process of democra-tization, it is important to examine how this has developed. To date, democracy has only been measured qualitatively – that is, based on sub-jective estimations, without any clear benchmark data. It is therefore im-portant to measure the development of democracy across all of Indonesia, as the diversity of the country is likewise represented in the level and shape of democracy. Quantitative measurement will provide a clear picture on the level of democracy, and will enable comparison in order to address inconsistencies or deficits.

The information gleaned from the Indonesia Democracy Index can be used for various purposes. The index can be used to academically evaluate the level of democracy develop-ment in each province in Indonesia, providing an important baseline for further analysis by academics and journalists.

The index can also be used for development planning at the provin-cial level, using the data to pinpoint underdeveloped or less developed sectors, regions or aspects of democ-racy. While clear and quantitative data for economic development provides a useful basis for economic planning, the IDI can likewise pro-vide a clear benchmark for assessing

2

The Conception Of Democracy Under The Indonesia Democracy Index

9


Due to these disparities, it is relevant to address the diversity of democracy outcomes among and between the provinces of Indonesia in order to be able consolidate strategic political and democratic action plans.

It is in this context that the In-donesia Democracy Index (IDI) is a crucial empirical measurement tool for assessing the progress (or lack) of democracy across provinces in the country. To this end, it is fundamen-tally important to first understand what ‘democracy’ itself means and then derive its dimensions, variables and indicators from this definition.

2.1. The Basic Concept of Democracy

Defining democracy poses a par-ticular challenge, as it can describe

The ranking by Freedom House is based on a ‘freedom index’ construct-ed from variables and indicators of democracy and measures, in a clear and simple manner, how democratic or how undemocratic a country is. This index is helpful for evaluating the development of democracy and related factors that are intertwined with the level of democracy in a coun-try, including human and economic development and ethnic and regional diversity. The index for human and economic development is relatively high in Indonesia, at both national and provincial levels.

Indonesia is a huge country with a high level of diversity in terms of economic growth, people’s welfare, income disparity, law enforcement, communal conflict and other factors.

Chapter 2The Conception Of Democracy Under The Indonesia Democracy Index

Indonesia is now regarded by the world as a democracy. Freedom House1 has included Indonesia in the group of countries that are “fully free,” which includes the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, and others. This 2008 ranking is intended to keep watch over and monitor the development of democracy in the world, and to identify factors that can strengthen or weaken democracy in a given country.

1 Freedom House is a non-government organization based in Washington, D.C which focuses on research and advocacy in the field of democracy, political freedom and human rights. Every year, Freedom House publishes a report that analyses the global condition of democracy.

10


by the government; and 8) to have an institutional guarantee that the adoption or the non adoption of gov-ernment policies is based on voting and other forms of the expression of wish (Dahl 1971: 3).

The definition of democracy is therefore a system of government marked by, among other factors, the existence of freedom provided for under laws pertaining to public interest. Given that civil liberties is one of the essences of the conception of democracy, Gastil, the intellectual behind Freedom House, uses the term ‘liberty,’ and not ‘democracy’ to describe a level of democracy in countries all over the world (Gastil 1993: 22).By referring to the main characteristics of democracy defined by Dahl (1971), Gastil (1993) and Bollen (1993) delineate the concept of democracy, polyarchy, or freedom into two dimensions or aspects: politi-cal rights and civil liberties.

William Case (2002) distinguishes two main categories of democracy: substantive procedural democracy. The characteristics of substantive democ-racy include inter-class, ethnic, and gender equality and other forms of identity or affiliation in society, and are similar to the concept of populist democracy. Meanwhile, the charac-teristics procedural democracy include civil liberties and the implementation of regular general elections and can be further broken down into semi-democracy and pseudo-democracy. Semi-democracy is characterized by

an ideal or populist view (a system of government ‘from, by, and for the people’). However, democracy in the real sense of this meaning never truly exists - no government has ever been run directly by all the people; and never has there been a government that is [run] fully for all the people (Dahl 1971; Coppedge and Reinicke 1993). In practice, those who run the government are not the people, but are generally part of a ruling elite. There has never been a government whose proceeds are distributed to all the people evenly; differences always result in disparities. Because of this, if the meaning of a ‘populist democracy’ is to be maintained, Dahl proposes the concept of ‘polyarchy’ to replace the concept of ‘populist democracy.’ Polyarchy is considered more realistic to describe a certain political phenomenon in the his-tory of human civilization because it refers to a system of government by ‘many peoples’ and not by ’all the people.’

Democracy, in this sense of pol-yarchy, is a system of government where citizens have the liberty to: 1) establish and participate in an organization; 2) express themselves or to voice their opinions; 3) to be-come public government officials; 4) to compete among citizens to fight for public positions; 5) to cast their votes in general elections; 6) to have honest and just general elections; 7) to have alternative sources of infor-mation other than those provided

11


the government. On the other hand, in spite of their existence, opposition parties almost have no autonomy at all due to the dominant intervention of the government in the formation of their institutional structure, appoint-ment of personnel, the recruitment of cadres and financial control. Case (2002: 8) describes the characteristics of pseudo-democracy as follows:

Beyond semi-democracies, one find pseudo-democracies, a catego-ry in which elections are also held regularly. However, these elections are rigged, while civil liberties are nearly extinguished, with rights of expression, information, and assembly all rigidly controlled. But the most striking qualitative difference between semi and pseudo-democracies appears in the respective approaches taken toward opposition parties. Put simply, in pseudo-democracies, opposition parties are permitted no autonomy, with governments interfering deeply in their forma-tion, organizational structure, se-lection of officers and candidates, fund-rising, and campaigning. Thus, while opposition parties may win legislative seats, they are barred from performing even limited accountability functions.

The reality of democracy in Indo-nesia cannot be separated from the dynamics of the shift in state-society relation that has taken place in the post-Soeharto period. One of the

the implementation of regular gen-eral elections, but civil liberties is limited - opposition parties therefore usually continue to be given the op-portunity to exist, but are restricted by the ruling regime to reach out to broader constituents. Case (2002: 6-7) elaborates:

In a semi-democracy practice], ... government regularly hold elec-tions, thus offering a snapshot of propriety on voting day. But they have limited civil liberties beforehand, thereby hindering opposition parties in contesting effectively. More specifically, op-position parties are permitted to organize, operate head-quarters, solicit contributions, select their own leaders and candidates, then recruit cadres and core constituen-cies. On the other hand, they are prevented from reaching wider audiences by the government’s owning most media outlets, they are restricted in circulating their own party publications, and they are barred from organizing mass rallies, even daring campaign periods.

The characteristics of pseudo-democracy also include the implemen-tation of regular general elections, but the election process itself is often tainted by dishonesty and civil liber-ties is almost completely restricted. Both freedom of expression and parliament (as a representative insti-tution) are very strictly controlled by

12


between the ruling elite and the elite of society – which has dominated political processes both in terms of decision making and policy imple-mentation stage - has been difficult to avoid.

In general, it can be said that in a democratic regime, the pattern of interaction between state and society is very dynamic. There is a two-way interaction between state and society in decision making processes (policy making) and policy implementation. In principle, therefore, the decisions made by the state are a compact between the demands of society and the interest of the state itself. That is, even if the state has legal and official authority, its role in the decision making process is technically only as role of mediator to handle the interests of citizens.2

The opposite tendency takes place in authoritarian regimes, marked by the domination of the state, both in decision making process (policy

main characteristics in this shift dur-ing the transitional period towards post-Soeharto democracy was the extension of the role of society. How-ever, the extension of people’s par-ticipation has brought about a greater awareness of conflicts of interest among the ruling elite. This tendency is in some ways easy to understand, because society in the sense of civil society itself has not been fully ready to play a role in the new structure. As a consequence, the opportunity for people’s participation in the period of transition towards democracy has been used to the advantage of the elite, who have claimed to represent the mass of citizens in their dealing with the state.

Thus, the pattern of interaction between state and society during the period of transition towards democracy is generally limited to interaction between the ruling elite (state actors) and the elite of society (society actors). Conflict of interest

2 Theoretically, the argument on the pattern of state-society interaction in a democratic regime is based on the concept of the state according to a pluralist definition. Martin Smith (1995: 209-210) argues that: “The key feature of pluralism is difference or diversity. The complexity of the modern liberal state means that no single group, class or organization can dominate society. Hence, the role of the state is to regulate conflicts in society rather than to dominate society in pursuit of particular interests.” Furthermore, David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (1995: 230) note that: “Within the pluralist paradigm, the polity is comprised of a multiplicity of competing groups, all of which seek to influence the decision-making process. Rule purports to be in the interest of all and not that of any one section or alliance of sections. The duty of government is to harmonize and co-ordinate.” It is important to mention here that there are several variances in the perspective of pluralism itself. Martin Smith (1995: 210) recorded at least four variances of the perspective of pluralism, that is: classical pluralism, reformed pluralism, plural elitism, and eeo-pluralism. However, the basic concept of all four variances of this perspective emphasize state, or more concretely the government, must be responsive to the demands of society. Furthermore, in the study of state-society relations, the conception of the state according to the perspective of pluralism is extensively used as a theoretical platform to analyse, study and explain the characteristics of the pattern of state-society interactions in a democratic regime, which is methodologically known as the society-centred approach. Academics who have applied the perspective of pluralism in the study of state-society relations include Grindle and Thomas (1989). These two authors, argue that: “…the causes of decisions made to adopt, pursue, and change public policies lie in understanding relationships of power and competition among individuals, groups, or classes in society or in international extensions of class-based or interest-based societies” (page 216). Furthermore, it is said: “In pluralist approaches to political analysis, public policy results from the conflict, bargaining, and coalition formation among a potentially large number of societal groups, organized to protect or advance particular interests common to their members” (page 218).

13


processes, as well as the implementa-tion of policies. Meanwhile, society is conditioned to be passive, and its role is generally marginalized. The dynamics in decision making processes reflect conflicts of interest between and among a number of state actors (the elite of the central government).

During the transition towards democracy, authoritarianism is never completely absent. Despite the po-litical reform requiring an extension of the role of society, the state still dominates national decision making processes. In certain cases, the state can even forces its will. On the other hand, the disloyalty between state

making) and policy implementation. The role of society in decision mak-ing process is very much limited (if not completely removed). With such characteristics, the pattern of interaction between state and society in an authoritarian regime is essen-tially one way. Relationships between state and society in decision making processes are generally limited to conflicts of interest, coalitions. com-promises and deceitfulness between or among members of the state elite (state actors).3

In an authoritarian regime, the pattern of interaction between state and society tends to be one way. This means that the state always dominates national decision making

3 Theoretically, the argument on the pattern of state-society interaction in an authoritarian regime is built based on the conception of state according to the perspective of elitism (see Marks Evans, 1995), and at a certain level, is also influenced by the perspective of Maxism (see Gramsci, 1971; Poulantzas, 1976; Jessop, 1990; and Skocpol, 1985). As written by Mark Evans (1995: 228), there are at least three key figureheads who have played a major role in giving birth to the initial perspective of elitism,including: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels. Therefore, it is understandable if, in its developments, the elitism perspective is very much dominated by the basic thoughts of the three figureheads. Mosca (1939:30), for instance, explicitly states: In all societies – from societies that are very meagrely developed and have barely attained the dawning of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies – two classes of people appear, that is, a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolzses power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first. Meanwhile, Pareto (1966) argues that: “…historical experience provides testimony to the perpetual circulation of elites and oligarchy”. A similar premise has also been put forward by Michels (1962: 364): the practical ideal of democracy consisted in the self-government of the masses in conformity with the decision-making of popular assemblies. However, while this system placed limits on the extension of the principle of delegation, it fails to provide any guarantee against the formation of an aligarchical camerilla [political structure]. In short, direct government by the masses was impossible.

Futhermore, in the study of state-society relation, the concept of state according to such perspective of elitism has been extensively used as a theoretical platform to analyse and explain the characteristics of the pattern of state-society interaction in an authoritarian regime, which is methodologically known as the state-centred approach. Academics who have applied the perspective of elitism in the analysis of state-society relations include Grindle and Thomas (1989). According to these two authors, the main characteristics of the pattern of interaction between state and society in decision making in an authoritarian regime are as follows: “…the perception and interactions of policy elites and the broad orientations of the state more generally account for policy choices and their subsequent pursuit” (page 216). Furthermore, by quoting the basic argument of rational actor model, Grindle and Thomas (1989) write: “…because of the complexity of perfectly rational choice, and its costs in terms of time and attention, decision makers (whether individuals or organizations) do not usually attempt to achieve optimal solutions to problems, but only to find ones that satisfy their basic criteria for an acceptable alternative or ones that meet satisfactory standards” (page 220). The nuance of the domination of state over society is increasingly visible when Grindle and Thomas (1989) explain the basic argument of the state interest approach: “…states are analyti-cally separable from society and considered to have interests that they pursue or attempt to pursue. Among the interests of the state are the achievement and maintenance of its own hegemony vis-à-vis societal actors, the maintenance of social peace, the pursuit of national development as defined by policy elites representing particular regimes, and the particular interests of regime incumbents in retaining power” (pages 220-221).

14


society in the sense of civil society itself has not been ready to play a role. Therefore, it is understandable if the opportunity for people’s participa-tion during the period of transition towards democracy has been used by the elite, as they have claimed to represent the mass in dealing with state actors.

The pattern of interaction between state and society in the period of tran-sition towards democracy is tilted more towards interaction between the ruling elite (state actors) and the elite of society (society actors). Therefore, the competition of conflict of interest between the ruling elite and the elite of society which has dominated political processes both in terms of decision making and policy implementation – is difficult to avoid. Meanwhile, political col-lusion and conspiracy between the

actors in pursuit of their personal interests continues.

The opening up of opportunities for participation also demands a more nuanced interaction between state and society during the period of transition towards democracy. Under the authoritarian regime, the pattern of interaction between state and society is primarily one way, but during the period of transition towards democracy it begins to become more open and interactive. At the same time, complete balance is not yet achieved, as the state can still force its will to society.4

One implication of the extension of people’s participation during the pe-riod of transition towards democracy is the increasing transparency of con-flicts of interest between and among society actors. This tendency is of course easy to understand because

4 In building the concept of state-society interaction during the period of transition towards democracy, the theoretical platform that the author used includes, among others: concepts of corporatism (Philippe Schmitter, 1974), the restricted pluralism model (Liddle, 1985, 1987), and the preposition put forward by MacIntyre (1992) from the result of his study on Business and Politics in Indonesia. The basic concept of corporatism, according to Schmitter, (1974: 93) is as follows: Corporatism can be defined as a system of interest representation in which the constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, non-competitive, hierarchi-cally ordered and functionally differentiated categories, recognized or licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of demands and supports. Schmitter then distinguished corporatism into two main categories: state corporatism (commonly found in authoritarian regimes), and societal corporatism (usually practiced in a democratic regime). By referring to the categorization of corporation according to Schmitter, Alfred Stepen (1978) distinguished two forms of state corporatism, that is, what he refers to as the inclusionary pole and the exclusionary pole. Specifically, MacIntyre (1992: 246) notes that: The exclusionary end of the spectrum is characterised by a more repressive approach and a heavy reliance by the state on coercion. At the inclusionary end, while the state remains dominant, there is much greater scope for societal participation. Even though Liddle (1985, 1987) did not explicitly position himself as supporting the concept of inclusionary corporatism put forward by Stepen as mentioned above, he argues that: “even if state actors in Indonesia (during the period of the New Order regime) continued to play a key role in national decision making process, at a certain level, there is still room for extra state actors to influence the process. MacIntyre (1992) appears to be more explicit in positioning himself and also in building a theoretical speculation on the pattern of state-society interaction based on this perspective of corporatism. MacIntyre states: Indonesia seems to be in the process of evolving from an exclusionary to a inclusionary style of corporatism (pages 246-247).

With the assumption that the shift towards democracy is a transitory period in which there is a transfer from an authoritarian political system to a democratic political system, it is too early to expect that the pattern of interaction between state and society will be at what Schmitter (1974) refers to as: societal corporatism. Most likely, there will be a shift from the pattern of exclusionary corporatism to inclusionary corporatism, as described by MacIntyre (1992).

15


democracy and also places value on political rights and institutions of democracy as aspects of democracy that must be seen equally as impor-tant as civil liberties – these aspects are therefore also included in the IDI.

By taking into account the theo-retical and empirical dimensions of democracy as mentioned above, the three aspects have been agreed upon as objects of study in the context of construction of the 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) are civil liber-ties, political rights and institutions of democracy. These three aspects were also used in the 2007 IDI.

While civil liberties and political rights reflect the essence of the con-cept of democracy, it is unlikely that democracy would be able to work without a platform or structure, as well as supporting procedures. It is therefore crucial that institutions of democracy must also be articulated as an integral aspect of democracy.

2.2.1. The Civil Liberties AspectTheoretically, the concept of civil

liberties refers to freedom of self-expression and movement, as well as freedom from arbitrary arrest (Frank Bealey, 2000: 56). Freedom is a con-dition that is crucial to democracy, because without freedom, people cannot demand accountability from the government. However, freedom has different meanings. According to Isaiah Berlin (1969), freedom can be defined either negatively or positively. Negative freedom refers to freedom from interference (including

two elite strongholds (the elite of the mass and the ruling elite) in pursuing their own interests have become the main characteristics of the pattern of interaction between state and society.

2.2. Operationalization of Con-cepts in the IDI: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators

Democracy is a broad concept, and any effort to measure democracy will inevitably involve debates con-cerning which aspects of democracy are the most significant and how to measure them. Civil freedom, for instance, is an aspect agreed upon by many experts as the most fun-damental aspect of democracy. A new political regime is considered democratic when civil freedom is made into one of the pillars of the constitution of the state and is put into practice. Even in the tradition of liberal democracy, civil liberties are a main pillar. How important this freedom is in the tradition of liberal democracy is very much felt in, for instance, the assessment of Freedom House, which puts countries in the world into two categories: free or not free. In this case, all the procedures of democracy boil down to one thing, that is, guaranteeing the existence of freedom. The Indonesia Democracy Index is aware of how important civil liberties are in the construct of democracy in Indonesia, and this is therefore one aspect used to measure democracy. However, it is not the only one: the IDI also sees Indone-sia’s experience of transitioning to

16


originate from two main sources - from holders of state authority, also known as supreme coercive authority (governments are often threatened by civil liberties such as freedom of expression or association because it disturbs their political hegemony), and from what John Stuart Mill refers to as the ‘tyranny of the majority’ – which does not always come from the state, but may actually be exerted by other civil society groups. (Bealey, 2000: 57).

Civil l iberties can be simply defined as the freedom of citizens and groups of individuals to come together and to associate or organize, to voice their opinions or speak up and to have a belief or faith in some-thing. It also means freedom from discrimination, and from restraint exercised by other individuals in the name of the state.

In the context of the IDI, civil liber-ties are analysed only on the basis of freedom of individuals and groups related to the power of the state. In other words, the IDI does not see the freedom of an individual in relation to another individual or citizen. This particular approach was taken due to the fact that in many places where democracy is still young, civil liberties are defined by the issues of freedom from state intervention, and because methodologically, to collect data measuring the freedom of an

threats, disturbances or restrictions) from outside - negative freedom can be expressed as ‘freedom from.’ Meanwhile, positive freedom is the freedom to actualize or realize potentials linked to the guarantees of for example, education or health and can be expressed as ’freedom to’.

In both theory and practice, liberal democracy in the West, espe-cially in the United States, negative freedom is often taken for granted, and receives limited attention. The emphasis in the discourse on freedom is more on positive freedom, but in transitioning countries, including Indonesia, the dominant type of free-dom required is very often freedom from threats or pressures. Threats to the freedom of an individual or a group of people may come not only from the state or its officials but may also come from an individual or another group of people. Realizing this, the IDI focuses on the aspect of negative freedom, reflected in indicators on civil liberties.

The e lements that comprise civil liberties are also varied, but generally, civil liberties include the freedom to voice one’s opinion (free-dom of expression), press freedom (freedom of the press), freedom of association (freedom of assembly), and freedom of belief (freedom of worship) (Bealey, 2000: 56).

Threats to civil liberties generally

5 The 2007 IDI served as a pilot for the compilation of the Indonesia Democracy Index. Therefore, the full concept and operationaliza-tion was not established for the 2007 IDI, but provided the basis for the 2009 IDI, including the elimination and addition of variables and indicators.

17


voice their opinions, views, will and feelings without impedi-ments in the form of physical or psychological pressure and restrictions.

3) Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion): This refers to the freedom of an individual to embrace a belief or a religion outside the beliefs or religions officially adopted/recognized by the government, and the absence of repressive acts by one group of society against another group of society who refuse to accept the policy of the government regarding those beliefs/faiths.

4) Freedom from discrimination: This refers to the freedom from treatment that discriminates against the rights and obliga-tions of individual citizens on the grounds of gender, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity/race, age, HIV/ AIDS status, and other physical barriers.

The aspects of civil liberties com-prise ten indicators, with two or three indicators for each variable. This is different from that of 2007 IDI, which applied 20 indicators (see Appendix 1: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2007 IDI). This change was brought about by conceptual and methodological considerations.

individual from pressure imposed by another citizen, in a country as diverse and large as Indonesia, would be difficult to carry out.

It is also necessary to point out that the definition of the ‘state’ referred to here includes local governments, the administration of local govern-ments, members of local parliaments, members of provincial parliaments (including the Papua People’s Assem-bly or MRP – specific to Papua), Re-gional General Election Commissions (Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah) and Regional Police (Polda). Meanwhile, the definition of the term ‘groups of people’ here refers to people-based organizations based on, among other factors, shared religion, ethnicity, race, scope of work, and similarities in group objectives.

To obtain data and information for constructing the IDI, civil liberties aspect has been disaggregated into a number of variables:

1) Freedom of assembly and freedom of

association: The term ‘assembly’ here refers to a societal/people-based activity in the form of a meeting involving more than two persons. The term ‘asso-ciation’ refers to the activity of establishing or forming an or-ganization, either registered or not with a government agency/institution.

2) Freedom of expression: This refers to the freedom of an individual and/or group to

18


processes. One of the forms of political participation is the right of citizens to vote in a general election. Another form of participation is the involve-ment of citizens in all stages of policy making - starting from decision making, to assessing or evaluating that decision and the opportunity to participate in the implementation or monitor-ing of that decision. People’s involvement can be seen from the frequency of involvement, either individually and as part of a group - in various activities, including, for example public hearings, demonstrations or strikes. Keeping a watch over the government by citizens can be carried out in the form of reports or complaints about the way the government runs the country - through press or media releases or complaints filed to the police.

The two variables above simplify the three used in the previous IDI, which also included the variable on the right to vote and the right to get elected, as well as people’s participation in politics and people’s participation in keeping an eye on the government.

In terms of indicators, the aspect of political rights has seven indica-tors, which consist of between two and five indicators, differing from

2.2.2. The Political Rights AspectBollen (1993) wrote that: political

rights exist to the extent that the national government is accountable to the gen-eral population and each individual is entitled to participate in the government directly or through representatives.” This statement implicitly indicates that political rights are sufficiently comprehensive indicators of political democracy, including participation and competition. Given the impor-tance of this political rights aspect, Robert Dahl (1971) gave five indi-cators of political rights: the right to cast a vote, the right to fight for public positions, the right to compete for votes, free and fair elections, and policy making based on public votes or inputs.

In the context of the 2009 IDI, political rights are elaborated into two variables, including:

1) The right to vote and the right to

get elected in a general election; the first right refers to the right of each individual to freely give his/her vote in the election of a public official. The right to get elected is the right of each individual to freely compete for votes in an election for the post of a public official.

2) Political participation in decision making and watchdog; The term participation’ in a political context refers to involvement or engagement in political

19


the formation and maintenance of a democratic political system. This means that institutions of democracy may exist in the form of a ‘suprastruc-ture’ — which includes the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well ‘infrastructure,’ including general elections, political parties, press and interest groups.

For the purpose of measuring the democracy index for Indonesia, institutions of democracy have been broken down into the following variables:

1) Free and fair general elections: This refers to general elections that meet democratic stand-ards, which are reflected in, for example, the existence of the same opportunites for all in election campaigns, the absence of manipulation in the count-ing of votes and the absence of intimidation and/or physical violence in the casting of votes.

2) The role of regional parliament (DPRD): It is important to refer to the effectiveness of the im-plementation of the functions of regional parliaments in con-solidating democracy because parliaments represent people. An effective parliament is the one that prioritizes the interests of the people as indicated by high levels of political participa-tion and free competition, the effective working of checks

the 2007 IDI, which applied ten in-dicators. (See Appendix 1: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2007 IDI).

2.2.3. The Institutions of Democracy Aspect

As mentioned in the previous theoretical analysis, it would not be possible to actualize civil liberties and political rights as pillars of democracy without being supported by institu-tions of democracy. Institutions of democracy are therefore seen as inseparable from civil liberties and political rights by many academics. The crucial role of the institutions of democracy is such that those who subscribe to this perspective frequently say that one of the dif-ferences between ‘democracy’ and ‘anarchy’ is that civil liberties in the practice of democracy are carried out institutionally, or in other words, based on rules, norms, procedures and a collectively agreed institutional framework.

Even though the word ”institu-tion” itself often has meanings that differ from one scientific discipline to another, in the context of political science, the term has been defined as a public body established to regulate and carry out the activities of the state, and/or the government (Bealye, 2000: 166). Linked to the concept of democracy, the institutions referred to here are no other than state bodies tasked with supporting

20


and equality before the law. This is important because the supremacy of the law as the basis of democracy. A judici-ary free from bureaucratic and political intervention (and the intervention of other branches of government or powers), and consistent law enforcement indicates that the supremacy of the law is being held in high esteem.

Institutions of democracy are bro-

ken down into eleven indicators, with between two and three variables. This is different from the 2007 IDI, which had thirteen indicators (See Appendix 1: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2007 IDI).

Appendix two provides a detailed overview of all of the measurements used to calculate the 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index, which incudes three aspects, eleven variables and twenty eight indicators.

and balances, strong political accountability and the exist-ence of strong relationships between politicians and their constituents.

3) The role of political parties: A political party is an organized group whose members have the same orientation, values, and aspirations. The objec-tive of this group is to obtain political power and position — constitutionally — to imple-ment their policies (Miriam Budiardjo, 1983: 160). A political party has a number of func-tions, including representing people’s aspirations, carrying out political communication (between constituents and state administrators), the formation of cadres and the recruitment of prospective political leaders and political awareness raising (La Palombara and Weiner, 1966: 3).

4) The role of regional government bureaucracy: In this case, the role of regional government administration is limited to consolidating democracy, that is, the openness and commit-ment of regional government in representing people in a transparent manner.

5) The role of an Independent judici-ary: This refers to the imple-mentation of the rule of law that is free from intervention, consistent law enforcement

3

Methodology

23


survey design, the collection and processing of data and the analysis or interpretation of that data (Bouma, 1993: 8-9).

3.1. Question to be answered with the IDI

In general, the IDI is designed to reveal the status and condition of the development of democracy across all provinces in Indonesia, through an analysis of the aspects of civil liberties, political rights and institutions of democracy. At a more concrete level, by using the indica-tors, the IDI can assess whether there are applicable regulations, events or conditions that reflect either the existence or absence of democracy development in a province.

3.2. Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the IDI

The Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) is a composite index that is based on three aspects, consisting of eleven variables and twenty eight indicators, including the following:

Chapter 3Methodology

“The challenge of the research is to relate theory and research in such a way that questions are answered. Both theory and data are required. Data cannot be collected without some idea (theory) about the answer to the questions. Theories alone are unsatisfactory because they are only ideas which is much more sounding at abstract level.”

(Bouma, 1993: 17)

Survey activities are actually a ‘compound’ or a combination of two main elements, that is, discipline and process. As a discipline, a survey must be carried out on the basis of a number of principles in order for it to be academically sound. Such academic principles stipulate that the survey shall include empirical ques-tions and a specific focus of study, a clear conceptual and theoretical basis, accuracy and that the survey shall recognize the limitations of the study conducted (Vredenbregt, 1978: 1-20). Meanwhile, as a process, a survey must undergo stages, though these require a degree of flexibility. While survey methods and procedures may differ from one survey to another in line with the objective and the object of study, all surveys have the same stages. Clear methods and proce-dures must be in place in order to ensure integrity and credibility The stages of survey conduct include the formulation of issues to be surveyed, the formulation of survey variables and indicators, the formulation of

24


IndicatorsA. CIVIL LIBERTIES

I. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association

1 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association

2 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association

II. Freedom of expression

3 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression

4 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression

III. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion)

5 Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

6 Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

7 Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings

IV. Freedom from discrimination

8 Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

9 Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

10 Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups

B. POLITICAL RIGHTS

V. The right to vote and get elected in a general election

11 Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed

12 Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote

13 The quality of the permanent voter list (Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT)

14 Percentage of population who use their right to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in a general election (voter turnout)

15 Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament

VI. Political participation in decision making and watchdog

16 Percentage of demonstrations /strikes that turn violent compared to the total number of demonstrations/strikes

Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the IDITable 3.1.

25


Indicators

17 Complaints on the running of government

C. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY

VII. Free and fair elections

18 Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering general elections

19 Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes

VIII. The role of regional parliament (DPRD)

20 The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita

21 Percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by DPRD compared to the total number of regional regulations produced

22 Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive

IX. The role of political parties

23 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections

24 Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level

X. The role of regional government bureaucracy

25 Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of certain nominees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections

26 Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative general elections

XI. The role of an independent judiciary

27 Controversial rulings handed down by judges

28 Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police

refer to data collection in numerical form, which includes the use of ex-perimentation, surveys and analysis of contents and statistics. Qualitative data refers to narrative, including direct and indirect observations, interviews, focus group discussions and historical comparative data collection. Nawawi (1983: 94-133)

3.3. Data Collection MethodsData collection methods vary, but

typically include observation, docu-ment reviews and direct interviews with resource persons. Lawrence Neuman (2000: 33) categorizes data collection techniques into quantita-tive and qualitative methods. Quan-titative data collection techniques

26


imperative to a study on democracy, media analysis is perhaps slightly more unusual. However, news-papers record written accounts of everyday life in Indonesia, including, for example, the process and pace of democratization. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that despite the independent nature of the media in Indonesia, the potential for editorial or journalistic bias and the limited scope of coverage, space and expertise of journalists. Despite these potential limitations, the media is still an excellent source of data on the condition of democracy in Indo-nesia’s provinces, as they record the participation of citizens in political life. In order to ensure that bias is limited, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews have been car-ried out to cross check data.

Neuman (2000: 34) notes that at least four key requirements must be met for media and document reviews. First, the subject of study must be speficically formulated. Second, it is necessary to determine, in advance, the documents to be studied. Third, a mechanism or system to ’record’ the data is required. Fourth, the collected data must be measured and presented statistically.

In the context of the compilation of the IDI, the first requirement refers to the aspect, variables and indicators defined by the index. The documents chosen include one leading newspaper in each province (see Appendix 3: List of Newspapers used as Sample/Data Resources),

distinguishes at least five data collec-tion techniques, including: 1) Direct observation; 2) Indirect observation; 3) Direct communication (structured and in-depth interviews); 4) Indirect communication (surveys/question-naires); and 5) Documentary study/bibliography.

Data collection techniques are de-termined by the type of information required. In the case of compiling the Indonesia Democracy Index, it was agreed that a triangulation method (Denzin, 1978) would be applied, using both quantitative and qualita-tive methods and cross validating the data. The four methods for data collection included: media reviews (analysis of relevant news articles), document reviews (analysis of the contents of official documents issued by the government), focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

3.3.1. Media and Document Review

Media and document reviews belong to the category of quantita-tive data, and are used to obtain information pertaining to research variables and indicatory by analysing the contents of written and symbolic materials, including news articles, photos and legal regulations. These sources are considered invaluable in providing realistic sources of infor-mation for quantitative data, given that observation is carried out over a one-year period.

While the analysis of documents, such as laws and other regulations is

27


amongst themselves and evaluate each other’s understanding on the issues being discussed (Kitzinger, 1995).

Focus group discussions are a common methodology in research because they allow researchers to gather diverse information on the views, opinions, experiences and reactions of participants, and they allow researchers to obtain suffi-ciently comprehensive information in a relatively short period of time (Gibbs, 1997: 2). At the same time, it is important to note that focus group discussions also have limitations – the information gained is often not strong enough to generalize more broadly due to the fact that the data collected only reflects the views and opinions of a limited number of participants (Hoppe, 1995).

Focus group discussions are a form of qualitative data, and can be used as either a main method of collecting data, or to complement other methods. If the main objective of the focus group discussion is to conduct investigation and explore the orientation, experiences, and value systems of the participants regard-ing a particular issue, then a focus group discussion function as the main method. However, if the focus group discussion acts as a means of verifying other information already collected through other means, then it is only complementary (Bernett, 2008: 1-2).

Given that the IDI is compiled using more than one data collection

as well as official documents is-sued by regional governments and regional parliaments (DPRD) – such as regulations (Perda), gubernatorial decrees/decision letters and other official documents, including data on demonstration from the police, and statistics on voters issued by the Regional General Elections Commis-sion (KPUD).

3.3.2. Focus Group DiscussionFocus group discussions can be

defined as a very specific process of collecting data and information on a certain issue by way of group discussion (Irwanto, 1998: 1). Pow-ell (1996: 499) wrote, “Focus group discussion is a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research.” Meanwhile, Barnett (2008:1) notes that, “Focus groups are comprised of individuals assembled to discuss a particular subject.” These definitions indicate that focus group discussions are similar to group in-terviews. Focus group discussions differ from group interviews in the depth of the data obtained from interaction amongst focus group discussion participants, while group discussions rely more on dialogue between the researcher and interview participants. (Gibbs, 1997:2). Focus group discussion participants not only provide researchers/facilita-tors with information about their value systems and orientations, but participants may also ask questions

28


participants concerning the issues being discussed (Guion, 2006; Berry, 1999). Because of this very specific objective, in-depth interviews are fundamentally different from struc-tured or regular interviews. These fundamental differences include: 1) the open-ended format of questions; 2) the conversational tone of the interview; and 3) the ability of the interviewer to interpret responses and then ask for further clarifica-tion. Berry (1999: 1-2) notes that the “in-depth interview involves asking informants open-ended question, and probing wherever necessary to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher.”

The use of in-depth interviews requires special skills on the part of interviewers, and must also fulfill seven stages of conducting in-depth interviews as detailed by Kvale (1996) in the writing of Lisa A. Guion (2006: 2-4). The first involves setting the theme or objective of the interview, and preparing issues which will be discussed. The second is the design of the instrument or tool that will be used to obtain data in the form of an interview guide. Third, the interview will be conducted with re-spondents. The forth stage involves the transcription of the interview, which compiles the result of into a narrative. The fifth stage involves analysis and brings together the in-formation obtained in the interview and the theme or issue being studied. Sixth, the verification of the validity of the data is required. The seventh and final stage is reporting, which

methods and that the focus group discussions in this case are used to capture quantitative data, their role is complementary to media and document reviews.

In this case, then, the main objec-tive of focus group discussions in constructing the IDI has been to cap-ture qualitative data pertaining to the aspects, variables and indicators set out by the researchers. Therefore, the objective of focus group discussions has been to collect information con-cerning the opinions of participants (verification, confirmation, contesta-tion) on quantitative data pertaining to the IDI collected through the media and document reviews, to explore cases which have a high level of relevance to IDI indicators and to unearth qualitative information pertaining to IDI indicators which has not been obtained through the media and document reviews

3.3.3. In-depth interviewsIn-depth interviews, like focus

group discussions, belong to the cat-egory of qualitative data collection. In-depth interviews are generally carried out in order to: 1) obtain information about experiences, feel-ings and motivations; 2) reconstruct past experiences; 3) project future experiences; and 4) verify data and information obtained from other sources (Moleong, 2005: 186).

In-depth interviews are generally also used to obtain more compre-hensive information or to explore the views and perspect ives of

29


28 Indicators

Data CollectionMethodology Quantitative

Data

Final Scoreof EachIndicator

Contributiontoward 11Variables

Contributiontoward 3Aspects

Democracy Indexof

Each Province

Verification(Qualitative Data)

Media & DocumentReview

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

In-depth interview

Diagram 3.1. Flowchart on the compilation of the IDI

tion with one another. The media and document reviews serve to capture quantitative data pertaining to the IDI aspects, variables and indica-tors. This data is the verified and elaborated upon using the qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

The index of each IDI indicator (28) in each province contributes to the calculation of the index of the 11 variables and this is then used to calculate the index of the three aspects. It is the composite index of this third aspect of the IDI which reflects the democracy index in each province.

The operationalization of the four data collection methods in the compi-lation of the IDI is briefly described in Diagram 3.1.

brings together all of the interview results and analysis.

In the context of the construc-tion of IDI, in-depth interviews are used to verify and further explain information obtained in the media and document reviews, as well as the focus group discussions. For this reason, in-depth interviews are not the main data sources, but are complementary to the other methods. In-depth interviews are only carried out after focus group discussions, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the issues. They are therefore used as a type of filter for the information already gathered, and also can filter biases relating to the IDI aspects, variables and indicators.

The methods of data collection used in the IDI are used in conjunc-

30


The data gathered in documents and media sources was not cumu-lative with regards to incidence or occurence. Rather, the source with the higher number of incidence was chosen, taking into account that information in both sources was the same, as well as the fact that the source with the smaller number of incidence was counted in the source with the higher number. This serves to avoid duplication.

It is also important to note that in-dicators 12 and 13 have been treated differently from the rest. This was decided based on the assessment of an IDI panel of experts.6

In indicator 13 – the quality of the Permanent Voters List (DPT) – the panel of experts gave an assessment of 30 points for the index indicator, based on the fact that in the 2009 legislative general elections, lists of fixed voters contained errors. This

Based on the data collection meth-ods described above, a number of instruments were employed, includ-ing document coding, newspaper content coding, focus group discus-sion guides, focus group discussion recordings, tabulation of focus group discussion results, in-depth discussion guides, and transcripts of interview results.

3.4. Data processingThe main source of data for each

indicator differs. Of the 28 indicators measured in the IDI, ten indicators use newspaper coding as a data source, nine indicators use docu-ment coding as a data source and seven indicators use newspaper and document coding as a data source. Table 3.2 presents indicators based on their data source and treatment in data processing.

No of Indicator

Source of DataTreatment of Tabulation

Newspaper Document

1 √ Newspaper

2 √ Newspaper

3 √ Newspaper

4 √ Newspaper

5 √ Document

6 √ Newspaper

List of Indicators Based on Data SourceTable 3.2.

6 The team of the panel of experts for the 2009 IDI consists of is the following: Prof. Dr. Maswadi Rauf (from the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of the Universitas Indonesia), Prof. Dr. Siti Musdah Mulia (from the ICRP –Indonesian Conference on Religion and Peace), Dr. Syarief Hidayat (from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)), Dr. Abdul Malik Gismar (from Kemitraan/ Partnership), and August Parengkuan (Kompas Daily).

31


in information, including name spell-ing or home addresses, also hindered the ability of some to vote.

Indicator 12 was also amended. This indicator measures whether or not people with disabilities were able to vote based on the available facilities. The panel of experts gave a score of 50 points for the index based on the following considerations: 1)

was caused in part by poor voter coverage, where the lists did not include the names of all of the people who had the right to vote. Some lists contained the names of people who were no longer living, or had moved to another electoral district. Other lists contained the names of minors, or recorded the same names more than once. In addition, inaccuracies

No of Indicator

Source of DataTreatment of Tabulation

Newspaper Document

7 √ Newspaper

8 √ Document

9 √ Newspaper

10 √ Newspaper

11 √ Document

12 √ Expert Judgment

13 √ √ Expert Judgment

14 √ Document

15 √ Document

16 √ √ Newspaper


18 √ √ Document

19 √ √ Document

20 √ Document

21 √ Document

22 √ Document


24 √ Document

25 √ √ Document

26 √ √ Document

27 √ Newspaper

28 √ Newspaper

32


complement the quantitative data obtained from newspapers coding, so that the value as-signed to the qualitative data does not exceed the value of the quantitative data;

2. The transformation of value through the conversion of quali-tative data into quantitative data has to include valuation, in order for the value assigned to the qualitative data to have the same meaning as quantitative data; and

3. To guarantee the accuracy of the mathematical operations, the quantitative value assigned to the qualitative data must be of the same unit as that of the quantitative data.

Based on these considerations, the qualitative data in group 1 which are irrelevant data and in group 2 which are used only to confirm quantitative data do not affect the number of quantitative data occur-rences and because of this, are scored 0. The qualitative data in groups 3 and 4 which describe the addition or the reduction of occurrences to and from data quantitative are given the score of 10 percent index points. The mathematical operation of addition/ reduction is performed on the index value obtained from quantitative data so that it is free from unit. The score of 10 percent points serves as an element adding to the index of quantitative data when the indicator

there were no facilities in the poll-ing stations which guaranteed that people with disabilities would be able to exercise their right to vote in the 2009 legislative general elections; and 2) the permanent voter list did not address the issue of disability and the assistance needed by people with disabilities. However, the panel of experts realized that not all polling stations were visited by voters with disabilities

The qualitative data obtained from focus group discussions and in-depth interviews must be carefully assessed. Because their function is to confirm, clarify and complement the data obtained from newspaper coding and document coding, the information resulted from focus group discussions and in-depth inter-views are classified into four groups: 1) data which is irrelevant to the indicators; 2) qualitative data used only to confirm quantitative data; 3) data which adds to the incidence of quantitative data; or 4) qualitative data which reduces the incidence of quantitative data.

The process of formating the IDI is one that quantifies democracy in Indonesia. The transformation of qualitative data into quantitative data is therefore required. This process must take into account the following:

1. The function of the qualitative data obtained from focus group discussions and in-depth inter-views is to confirm, clarify and

33


to democracy in Indonesia, but are nonetheless important. The same can be true of the variables and indicators used in the index. To this end, they must have weights associated with each of them in order to determine their importance. These weights can be theoretically determined by, for example, ensuring that each aspect contributes in the same way. This, however, is “a priori” determina-tion, which may differ from reality or empirical understanding on the part of academics or practicioners of democracy.

In this case, IDI utilizes “weights” which were calculated through an analytical hierarchy procedure. This approach determines priority amongst a number of complex crite-ria by relying on expert assessment, which made two way comparisons between assessment indicators. The IDI employed 14 experts, including academics, politicians and civil so-ciety representatives.

As a technique which combines qualitative-psychological assess-ments of each expert and a math-ematical calculation, the analytical hierarchy procedure can produce comprehensive assessments of the weights in order to determine the extent to which the aspects, variables and indicators contribute to the development of democracy in Indonesia. According to this process, political rights contribute the most to the development of democracy in Indonesia (41%), followed by civil liberties (33%) and institutions of

is such that the greater the number of occurrences, the better the level of democracy is. Conversely, the score of 10 percent points serves as an element which reduces the quantita-tive data index when the indicator is such that the greater the number of occurrences, the poorer the level of democracy is.

3.5. Index Construction TechniqueThe Indonesia Democracy Index

is calculated in three stages: 1) calculating the final index for each indicator; 2) calculating the index for each province; and 3) calcu-lating the overall index, taking into account all aspects, variables and indicators – for each province. These three stages relate to each other hie-rarchically - the calculation of the index for indicators precedes and contributes to the calculation of the index for variables; the index for variables determines the calculation of the index for aspects; the index for aspects determines provincial in-dexes; and finally, provincial indexes determine the Indonesia Democracy Index. Before the index itself can be calculated, a separate process is carried out to calculate the weight of each indicator, variable, and aspect which constitutes the entire index.

3.5.1. Determining the Weight of Indicators, Variables and Aspects

The aspects of civil liberties, po-litical rights, and institutions of de-mocracy have different contributions

34


Institutions of DemocracyPolitical RightsCivil Liberties

0.327

0.413

0.260

Graph 3.1. Weight of IDI Aspects

Name of Expert Background

Dr. Valina Singka Subekti, M.Si Lecturer at FISIP UI

Drs. Andrinof Chaniago, M. Si Lecturer at FISIP UI

Ita Fathia Nadia Women Activist

Erna Ratnaningsih YLBHI

Anwar Ma’ruf Committee of Independent Unions Action (KASBI)

Rustam Ibrahim Head of NGO Accountability Working Group

Dr. Made Suwandi, M. Soc. Sc. Expert Staff of MoHa

Dr. Siti Nurbaya Bakar, M. Sc Secreatry General of DPD RI

Letjen (Purn) Agus Widodo TNI Retired

Dr. Ir. Andi Yuliani Paris, M.Sc Politician - PAN

Nurul Arifin Politician - Golkar

Indah Nataprawira Megawati Institute

HM. Nasir Djamil Politician - PKS

Bestian Nainggolan Research and Development Department of Kompas

List of Analytical Hierarchy Procedure Expert AssessorsTable 3.3.

35


weight. Below is a graph which de-scribes the weights of the variables in each aspect.

It is these weights which deter-mine the index for each indicator,

democracy (26%). This is reflected in Graph 3.1.

Each variable of the three aspects, followed by each indicator the variables are also given a respective

Freedom fromDiscrimination

Freedom ofBelief/Faith(Freedom of

Religion)

Freedom ofExpression

Freedom ofAssembly andFreedom of Association

0.084 0.093

0.584

0.239

Graph 3.2. The Weights of Variables in the Aspect of Civil Liberties

Graph 3.3. The Weights of Variables in the Aspect of Political Rights

Political participation in decision making

and watchdog

The right to vote and getelected in a general

election

0.5 0.5

36


variable, and aspect. In some cases, despite having a high score, an indicator does not translate into a high index, because the weight of the indicator is low. (For more information on the weight of each aspect, variable and indicator of the IDI, please refer to Appendix 4).

3.5.2 Calculating the Index of Each Indicator, Variable and Aspect

The process associated with pro-cessing the data from the media and document reviews all the way to the calculation of the index indicators relies on the conversion of quantita-tive data into qualitative data (in the form of a score). These scores are then combined with the information garnered from focus group discus-sion and in-depth interviews in order to produce index indicators. The process is described in Figure 3.2.

Each indicator categorized as a variable index is then weighted using the indicator weighting obtained in the analytical hierarchy procedure. This weighting determines the contribution of each indicator to the variable in which the indicator constitutes one of its components.

The variable index is then con-verted into the aspect index. In the process of establishing a score for each aspect, each variable is weighted using the weighting of the analyti-cal hierarchy procedure. The aspect index is then converted into the IDI. Based on these results, the level of democracy in the provinces can be categorized into poor, medium or good. The conversion from indicators into the IDI is presented in Figure 3.3.

Different from the scores of the aspects of provincial IDI [provincial democracy indexes] that are calcu-

Graph 3.4. The Weights of Variables in the Aspect of Institutions of Democracy

The role of anindependent

judiciary

The role ofregional

govermentbureaucracy

The role ofpoliticalparties

The role ofregional

parliament(DPRD)

Free and fair election

0.152

0.197 0.197

0.227 0.227

37


Quantitaive Data- Newspaper Review - Document Review

Quantitative Data Score

Indicator Index

Qualitative Data- Focus Group

Discussion- In-depth Interview

Figure 3.2 . Scheme of Calculation of Final Score of Each Indicator

Quantitative Data-Newspaper Reviews -Document Reviews

Quantitative Data Score

Score of Indicator

Score of Variable

Score of Aspect IDI

Weighting (AHP)Weighting (AHP)Weighting (AHP)

Qualitative Data-Focus Group

Discussion-In-depth Interview

Category- Poor

- Medium- Good

Figure 3.3 .Scheme of Process of Calculating the 2009 IDI (Provincial)

38


lated from the scores of the aspects’ variables, the scores of the aspects for the Indonesia IDI is obtained from the weighted average of the outcomes of the scores of the aspects of provincial [indexes] in Indonesia. After the score for each aspect is ob-tained, they are then weighted using the weight obtained from the AHP to produce the Indonesia IDI. The process of calculating the national IDI is presented in the following scheme:

3.6. Scale of Democratic Performance

To describe the outcome of democ-racatic performance in each province,

a scale of 1 – 100 is used. This scale is a normative scale in which an index of 1 point indicates the lowest performance and an index of 100 points indicates the highest perfor-mance. The lowest performance is theoretically possible if all the indicators receive the lowest score. The highest performance, equal to an index of 100 points, is theoretically possible if all the indicators receive the highest score, that is, 5.

In order to assign further meaning from the variation of the provincial indexes obtained, 1 – 100 scale is divided into three categories of democratic performance: 1) good

Provincial Aspect Score

Indonesian Aspect Score IDI

Weighting(AHP)

WeightingAspect 1 and 3: Population

Aspect 2: Total Eligible Voters

Figure 3.4 .Scheme of Process of Calculating the 2009 IDI (Indonesia)

39


facilitators also have an impact on the results.

4. In-depth Interviews: the different skills of the interviewers in the 33 provinces resulted in differ-ing quality of interviews.

5. Data Analysis: while coding allows qualitative data to be quantified, it can also lead to a loss of data, due to the fact that variations in the extent or mag-nitude of an event or situation are not recorded (for example, a demonstration is put in the same category, regardless of whether that demonstration is in opposition to the President, or whether protesters are de-manding that a damaged road be repaired).

(index >80); 2) medium (index 60 – 80); and 3) poor (index < 60).

3.7. Methodological LimitationsAll research faces methodological

limitations caused by the methodo-logy chosen for the research and the conditions and circumstances under which the research is carried out. Some of the methodological limita-tions of the IDI are listed below:

1. Media Reviews: not all the data for the indicators were found, in part because of the limited ability on the part of data collec-tors to conduct media reviews, or because the media itself did not report on the issues related to the indicators.

2. Document Reviews: the difficulty in obtaining documents for review was a significant barrier to the IDI survey, particularly those required from govern-ment offices.

3. Focus Group Discussions: not all categories of participants who were expected to participate were able to participate in focus group discussions. This limits the range of opinions that can be elicited from participants and in turn reduces the wealth of information that can be unearthed. The different abili-ties of focus group discussion

40


4

The 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

43


Graph 4.1 below shows that the 2009 national democracy index is 67.30. The indexes of the three aspects of the IDI are 86.97 for civil liberties; 54.60 for political rights; and 62.72 for institutions of democracy. The distribution of the indexes of these three aspects indicates the contribu-tion of each aspect to the total index on a national scale. The contribution of each of these three aspects very clearly describes that even though civil liberties is high, (86.97), the total index that can be achieved is only

Chapter 4The 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index4.1. A General Description of

the Indonesia Democracy Index

4.1.1. National Democracy Index according to Aspects7

As has been mentioned in previous chapters, the Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) applies three democracy performance aspects: civil liberties, political rights, and institutions of democracy. Each of these aspects consists of a number of variables and each variable consists of a number of indicators (see Chapter 2).

Institutionsof Democracy

PoliticalRights

Civil Liberties

Overall 67.30

86.97

54.60

62.72

7 The word “National” or “Indonesia” in this IDI refers to all the provinces across Indonesia [collectively] as a group or a set. Of course, the development of democracy at provincial level differs from the development of democracy at national level. A national level IDI must therefore be compiled using data sourced from the central or national government in Jakarta and from all the people of Indonesia, while the IDI compiled at this stage, that is, this provincial level IDI, is based on data drawn from the governments of the country’s provinces and the district/ city governments and people in the provinces.

National Democracy Index by VariablesGraph 4.1.

44


three of the five variables have a high index: 1) the role of an independent judiciary; 2) the role of government bureaucracy; and 3) free and fair general elections. The other two variables have a lower index: 4) the role of regional parliament; and 5) the role of political parties. The aggregation of the indexes of these five variables provides the national index of 62.72 for institutions of democracy. The aggregation of the index of each variable that makes up the IDI aspects is shown in Graph 4.2.

As demonstrated in Graph 4.1, there is s significant difference in value between the aspect of civil liberties (86.97) and the other two

67.30 because the other two aspects are relatively low.

The index for civil liberties are the result of the aggregation of the indexes of the four variables: 1) free-dom of assembly and association; 2) freedom of religion; 3) freedom from discrimination; and 4) freedom of expression, all of which contribute to a high index. The low index for political rights is attributable to the contribution of the low indexes of the two variables for this aspect: 1) political participation in decision-making and watchdog; and 2) the right to vote and to be elected in a general election (less than 60). With regards to institutions of democracy,

Freedom of expression

Freedom from discrimination

Freedom of religion

Freedom of assemblyand freedom of association

The right to vote and getelected in a general election

Political participationin decision making

and watchdog

The role ofpolitical parties

The role ofregional parliament (DPRD)

Free and fairelection

The role of regionalgoverment bereaucracy

The role ofan independent judiciary

CIV

IL L

IBE

RT

IES

AS

PE

CT

PO

LIT

ICA

LR

IGH

TS

AS

PE

CT

INS

TIT

UT

ION

S O

FD

EM

OC

RA

CY

AS

PE

CT

91.44

90.67

88.92

83.97

55.16

50.05

90.53

88.58

87.67

38.03

19.29

Graph 4.2. National Democracy Index by Variables

45


aspects. The gap between the index for civil liberties and political rights is 32.37 points, while the gap between the index for civil liberties and in-stitutions of democracy is around 24.25 points. The numerical figure of this index points to a significant gap between the aspects of democracy.

The issue that must be addressed, therefore, is the meaning of the gap in index values of the three aspects as they relate to the “performance” of democracy in Indonesia. Given the national index for the three as-pects in Graph 4.1, one explanation could include the fact that despite successes in allowing civil liberties, and the setting up of institutions of democracy, Indonesia lags behind other countries when it comes to political rights.

4.1.2. Provincial Democracy Index According to Aspects

The index at the national level exhibits a pattern that is relatively consistent with provincial scores, as seen in Graph 4.3. Again, the aspect of civil liberties is highest in the provinces, with the exceptions of Aceh, West Sumatera, and South Kalimantan provinces. In Aceh, for instance, the index for civil liber-ties lower than the political rights aspect, but above the index for the aspect of institutions of democracy. In West Sumatera, the index for the civil liberties aspect is well below the indexes of the other two aspects. Meanwhile, in the province of South Kalimantan, the index for is almost equal to the aspect of institutions of democracy.

Graph 4.3. Provincial Democracy Indexes According to Aspects

Institutions of DemocracyPolitical RightsCivil Liberties

Ace

h

Nor

th S

umat

ra

Wes

t Sum

atra

Ria

u

Jam

bi

Sou

th S

umat

ra

Ben

gkul

u

Lam

pung

Ban

gka

Bel

itung

Ria

u Is

land

s

DK

I Jak

arta

Wes

t Jav

a

Cen

tral

Jav

a

DI Y

ogya

kart

a

Eas

t Jav

a

Ban

ten

Bal

i

Wes

t Nus

a T

engg

ara

Eas

t Nus

a T

engg

ara

Wes

t Kal

iman

tan

Cen

tral

Kal

iman

tan

Sou

th K

alim

anta

n

Eas

t Kal

iman

tan

Nor

ht S

ulaw

esi

Cen

tral

Sul

awes

i

Sou

th S

ulaw

esi

Nor

th S

ulaw

esi

Gor

onta

lo

Wes

t Sul

awes

i

Mal

uku

Nor

th M

aluk

u

Wes

t Pap

ua

Pap

ua

46


of Central Kalimantan is disaggre-gated based on the contribution of each index of the three aspects of the IDI, it is apparent that the index for civil liberties (98.45) is the highest contributor to the total index, fol-lowed by the index for institutions of democracy (78.69), then political rights (60.50) as shown in Table 4.1. The reverse tendency can be seen in the province of West Nusa Tenggara: the indexes for civil liberties and institutions of democracy are only 68.05 and 62.48, respectively, while the index for political rights is 47.50 (see Table 4.1.).

The configuration of the indexes as presented below clearly shows that as far as the province of Central Kalim-antan is concerned, the contribution of the index on the aspect of civil liberties (98.45) plays a large role in supporting the province’s total index

4.1.3. Ranking Democracy in 33 Provinces

Complete information about the index of democracy in its entirety across the 33 provinces of Indonesia is presented in Graph 4.4. in the data shows that not a single province in Indonesia has a “good” index of de-mocracy belong to the high category of index >80. The province which ranks the highest in democracy is Central Kalimantan, whose democ-racy index is 77.63. Meanwhile, the province which ranks the lowest is West Nusa Tenggara, whose index is 58.12. Compared to the National Democracy Index, while the province of Central Kalimantan has a higher index than the national one, it still belongs to the medium category (index 60-80).

Moreover, when the total democracy index for the province

Province IDI/OverallAspect Indexes

Civil Liberties Political RightsInstitutions of Democracy

Central Kalimantan(A Province with the highest Indonesia Democracy Index)

77.63 98.45 60.50 78.69

West Nusa Tenggara (NTB)

(A Province with the lowest Indonesia Democracy Index)

58.12 68.05 47.50 62.48

Aspect Indexes in Provinces with the Highest and the Lowest Index of DemocracyTable 4.1.

47


Graph 4.4. Provincial Indexes According to Ranks

INDONESIA

Central Kalimantan

Riau

DKI Jakarta

Riau Island

Gorontalo

South Sumatera

West Kalimantan

East Kalimantan

East Nusa Tenggara

West Java

Jambi

North Sulawesi

Bali

Maluku

West Sulawesi

Banten

DI Yogyakarta

Lampung

North Maluku

Bangka Belitung

South Kalimantan

Central Java

Aceh

Southeast Sulawesi

Bengkulu

North Sulawesi

Papua

West Papua

East Java

South Sulawesi

West Sumatera

North Sumatera

West Nusa Tenggara

67.30

77.63 75.85 73.91 73.61 73.50 72.52 72.38 72.31 71.64 71.07 71.00 70.94 70.35 69.07 67.99 67.98 67.55 67.47 67.21 67.01 66.63 66.45 66.29 66.02 64.76 64.29 63.80 63.06 62.49 61.48 60.29 60.2058.12

48


high, medium and poor. The results of the 2009 IDI present numeri-cal data that provide the basis for analysis, which is especially impor-tant because none of Indonesia’s 33 provinces has received a high rating for democratic performance. While one province (West Nusa Tenggara) belongs to the category of poor per-formance, the remaining 32 provinces have been rated as medium, as seen in Graph 4.5.

The following is a more detailed description of the index for each aspect of democracy performance in the 33 provinces.

of 77.63. Meanwhile, the province of West Nusa Tenggara ranks the low-est in terms of provincial democracy index (58.12), caused by the relatively low contribution of the index on the civil liberties and institutions of democracy aspects, which is made worse by the contribution of the low index for political rights (47.50).

4.1.4. Percentage of Provincial Democracy Performance

It is important to translate the outcomes of the provincial de-mocracy indexes into the three cat-egories of democratic performance:

Graph 4.5. Percentage of Provincial Democracy Performance

Medium performingdemocracy

97%

Lowperformingdemocracy

3%

Highperformingdemocracy

0%

49


4.2.1. Index for Civil LibertiesCivil l ibert ies are measured

through four variables: including: 1) freedom of assembly and association; 2) freedom of expression; 3) freedom of religion; and 4) freedom from discrimination.

Freedom of assembly and as-sociation is measured through two indicators: 1) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association; and 2) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and association.

Freedom of expression is also measured through two indicators: 1) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression; and 2) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression.

Freedom of religion is measured through three indicators: 1) the num-ber of written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people to practice the teachings of their religion; 2) the number of ac-tions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom people, or require people to practice the teachings of their religions; and 3) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by one group of people against an-

other group of people pertaining to religious teachings.

Freedom from discrimination is measured through three indicators: 1) the number of written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-able groups; 2) the number of actions taken or statements made by regional government officers/officials that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-able groups; and 3) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups.

4.2.1.1. Indonesia Index for Civil Liberties

Civil liberties have the highest index in the IDI, which, at 86.97, be-longs to the category of good democ-racy. This figure can be interpreted as a success of the Government of Indonesia in developing a democ-ractic system. At the same time, because the aspects of institutions of democracy and political rights are low, there is still work to be done.

These following paragraphs will elaborate on the outcome of the index on the Civil Liberties aspect, and explain which factors contribute to the hight contribution in relation to the other aspects.

The aspect of civil liberties is based on the four variables as seen in Graph 4.6. Freedom of assembly

50


number of threats of violence or the use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association (93.03) as shown in Table 4.2. The high indexes of the two indicators demonstrate Indonesia’s success in allowing room for freedom of assembly and association. One of the factors which contributes to this is that the actual number of these types of incidencts is low, indicat-ing that both the government and individual citizens have made an effort to enforce democracy by tak-ing measures to eliminate all forms of threats and use of violence which may restrict the right of citizens in the

and association received a scoring of 91.44, while freedom of religion stands at 90.67. The freedom from discrimination variable was scored at 88.92 and freedom of expression received a scoring of 83.97. These are relatively high scores, and will be explained in detail below.

The index of freedom of assembly and association ranks highest among the four variables in the aspect of civil liberties. The index is obtained from two indicators: 1) the number of threats of violence or the use of vio-lence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and free-dom of association (91.21); and 2) the

Graph 4.6. National Index on Civil Liberties

91.44 90.67 88.9283.97

Freedom ofexpression

Freedom fromdiscrimination

Freedom of religion

Freedom ofassembly and

freedom ofassociation

51


context of freedom of assembly and freedom of association. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the indexes of the indicators seem to suggest that the level of awareness and commitment on the part of the people to build freedom of assembly and freedom of association (93.03) is higher than that of the government (91.21). This is interesting given that the government is responsible for guaranteeing these fundamental rights of Indonesian citizens.

The national index of the 2009 IDI for freedom of expression is 83.97. This index is the result of the calcula-tion of the indexes of the two indica-tors in the variable: 1) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression (83.43); and 2) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression (86.67), as shown in Table 4.3.

Compared to the other three variables in the civil liberties aspect,

Indicators for Freedom of Assembly and Association Index

Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and association 91.21

Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of as-sembly and association 93.03

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Freedom of Assembly and AssociationTable 4.2.

Indicators for Freedom of Expression Index

Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression 83.43

Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expres-sion 86.67

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Freedom of ExpressionTabel 4.3.

52


may of course restrict the growth of freedom of expression, which is an important pillar of democracy. It is apparent from the graph above that threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people or by government officers are still common in Indonesia, impeding freedom of expression.

It is again apparent that the effort to enforce the right of freedom of expression is supported to a larger extent by individual citizens (86.67), than the government (83.43).

The freedom of religion variable has an index of 90.67 and ranks se-cond after freedom of assembly and association. This high index is a result of the accumulation of the indexes of three indicators: 1) the indicator on the number of written rules which restrict freedom or require people to practice their religions (91.70); 2) the indicator on the number of actions

the index of this variable ranks the lowest. This is perhaps because in a democratic system, freedom of expression covers a very broad spectrum, including efforts to ex-press one’s thoughts orally by way of a speech, a dialogue, a discussion and so on; through writing in the form of petitions, pictures, posters, brochures, handouts, and banners; or through hunger strikes and protests, demonstrations, rallies, public meet-ings or forums that include drama, dance and the screening of films. Freedom of expression also includes freedom to be critical of government officials and public figures. Gene-rally, those being criticized are not ready to accept criticism as part of efforts to build democracy, and as a result, those being criticized often issue threats or even use violence against those who criticize them. Such threats and use of violence

Indicators for Freedom of Religion Index

Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people to practice the teachings of their religion 91.70

Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require people to practice the teachings of their religion

91.97

Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings 85.76

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Freedom of ReligionTable 4.4.

53


taken by or statements made by government officers which restrict freedom or require people to prac-tice the teachings of their religions (91.97); and 3) the indicator on the number of threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people for reasons pertaining to religious teach-ings (85.76), as shown in Table 4.4.

In contrast to freedom of as-sembly and association freedom of expression, the commitment of the government appears to be higher than the commitment of the people in efforts to enforce religious rights and freedoms. In other words, threats to the fulfillment of religious rights ap-pear to come mostly from particular elements within society.

Despite these statistics, it is im-portant to note that the government must continue to increase their efforts in enforcing or fulfilling religious

rights and freedoms. As shown in the graph above, there are still incidents in which government or government officials have made rules, taken actions or made statements which restrict freedom or require people to practice religion. The government has an obligation to guarantee the freedom of religion of Indonesian people in accordance with the provi-sions of the constitution.

The index for freedom from dis-crimination is 88.92, which is lower than the indexes for freedom of as-sembly and association, as well as freedom of religion, but it higher than the index for freedom of expres-sion. The index for freedom from discrimination is compiled from three indicators: 1) the number of written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups (88.89); 2) the number of actions taken or state-

Indicators for Freedom from Discrimination Index

Written rules that are discriminatory on the the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups 88.89

Actions taken, or statements made by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

84.09

Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups 93.03

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Freedom from DiscriminationTable 4.5.

54


The following description will provide further elaboration on the results of the assessment of the index of democracy for the aspect of civil liberties at the provincial level.

Graph 4.7 presents the indexes for the aspect of civil liberties across Indonesia’s 33 provinces. Most prov-inces rank high (29 out of 33), with indexes of more than 80.00. Only four provinces belong to the medium category (with indexes ranging from 60.00 to 80.00), including South Kali-mantan, West Nusa Tenggara, Aceh, and West Sumatera. Meanwhile, none of the provinces received a low index (lower than 60.00). Of course, this index for civil liberties can not be taken alone, as it must be added to the indexes of the other two aspects in order to obtain a comprehensive index representative of the achieve-ment of each province in their efforts to fully develop democracy.

The three provinces with the highest index are Central Sulawesi (98.51), followed by Central Kalim-

ments made by regional government officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups (84.09); and 3) the number of threats of vio-lence or the use of violence by people for reasons pertaining to gender, ethnicity of the victim and/or vul-nerable groups (93.03), as depicted in Table 4.5.

The commitment of the people appears to be higher than the commit-ment of the government in efforts to enforce freedom from discrimination. In other words, threats to the fulfill-ment of freedom from discrimination tend to come from the government, rather than from elements in society, despite the fact that the government has the obligation to protect and fulfill the rights of citizens to be free from any forms of discrimination, especially on the grounds of gender and ethnicity.

4.2.1.2. Provincial Indexes

for Civil Liberties

Province Index

Central Sulawesi 98,51

Central Kalimantan 98,45

West Kalimantan 98,29

Provinces with the Highest Indexes for civil libertiesTable 4.6.

55


Graph 4.7. Provincial Indexes for civil liberties

Central Sulawesi

Central Kalimantan

West Kalimantan

East Kalimantan

Bangaka Belitung

Riau Island

Gorontalo

Jambi

East Nusa Tenggara

Banten

South Sumatera

North Sulawesi

Bengkulu

Bali

West Sulawesi

North Maluku

Riau

West Papua

Papua

Maluku

North Sulawesi

DI Yogyakarta

DKI Jakarta

Lampung

Central Java

West Java

North Sumatera

East Java

South Sulawesi

South Kalimantan

West Nusa Tenggara

Aceh

West Sumatera

98.51

98.45

98.29

98.22

96.51

96.22

96.05

95.86

95.55

95.46

95.42

94.66

94.26

93.97

93.82

93.61

93.14

93.14

92.83

92.77

92.23

92.15

91.65

90.57

86.48

85.84

84.16

83.30

82.94

68.24

68.05

64.42

63.06

56


presents the indexes of the variables for this aspect.

The table shows that the differenc-es among the three provinces are very small. Central Sulawesi presents an interesting example, where three of the variables get a perfect score, but the fourth variable (freedom from discrimination), is lower (at 93.75) than the indexes of the other two provinces. This variable is affected by the indicators, and in particular, the number of actions taken or state-ments made by regional government officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups. The index of this indicator is 77.50, which points to the fact that although the province

antan (98.45) and West Kalimantan (98.29), as stated in the graph 4.7. In order to explain this further, it is important to examine the factors that cause the index for civil liberties to be so high. The following table

Variables for Civil LibertiesProvincial Index

Central Sulawesi

Central Kalimantan

West Kalimantan

Freedom of assembly and association 100.00 91.25 100.00

Freedom of expression 100.00 98.33 100.00

Freedom of religion 100.00 100.00 98.21

Freedom from discrimination 93.75 97.22 97.22

Distribution of Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Highest Indexes for Civil Liberties

Table 4.7.

has taken a number of important steps towards ensuring civil liber-ties, the government still has a role to play in strengthening the rights of citizens in this particular area.

The province of Central Kali-mantan ranks second in the aspect of civil liberties. The high index of this province can be mostly attributed to the perfect index of the variable of the freedom of religion (100.00). This means that there are no written rules that are discriminatory and no threats or use of violence by people or by government officials which restrict the freedom of religion of its citizens. Moreover, the high index of the province is also supported by the high indexes of the other three variables, freedom of assembly and association (91.25), freedom of ex-pression (98.33), and freedom from discrimination (97.22).

57


The province of Central Kali-mantan is still not free from threats of violence or use of violence which may restrict the fulfillment of the freedoms of people related to as-sembly, association and expression. However, the province still has cases of actions taken or statements made by government officials which discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-able groups.

The province of West Kalimantan ranks third in terms of civil liberties, which is attributable to the perfect indexes (100.00) of the variables re-lated to freedom of assembly and as-sociation and freedom of expression. The other two variables – freedom of religion (98.21) and freedom from discrimination (97.22) also support this high score, while the indicator on threats of violence or use of vio-lence by people against freedom of religion is slightly lower at 90.00. The same index is also obtained by the

indicator on actions taken or state-ments made by regional government officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethni-city or against vulnerable groups. At a glance, the indexes of the four variables in the province of West Kalimantan appear to be higher than the index of the province of Central Kalimantan. However, because the freedom of religion variable is considered a key variable, and thus has the heaviest weight among the four variables in the aspect of civil liberties, the total index is lower for West Kalimantan.

Despite receiving high rankings, not a single province has achieved a perfect index, which means that all provinces experience constraints in civil liberties.

The following graph describes the outcome of the three lowest provincial ratings for civil liberties. The province of West Nusa Tenggara has index of 68.05, Aceh rates 64.42,

Variables for Civil LibertiesProvincial Index

West Sumatera

AcehWest Nusa Tenggara

Freedom of assembly and freedom of association 91.25 90.00 98.75

Freedom of expression 91.67 26.12 72.23

Freedom of religion 45.91 67.94 51.03

Freedom from discrimination 83.91 61.74 97.22

Distribution of Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Civil LibertiesTable 4.8.

58


so low, despite having high scores on the variables of freedom of assembly and association (91.25) and freedom of expression (91.67). The variable related to freedom from discrimina-tion is also low in West Sumatera (83.91), due to the fact that there exist a number of written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-able groups.

Aceh is also ranked low on the aspect of civil liberties, in large part because of the very low index for freedom of expression (26.12). This is based on the two indicators for this variable: 1) the number of threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression (23.33); and 2) the number of threats of violence, or use of violence, by people which curbs freedom of expression (40.00). These are significant barriers, and are also compounded by the low index related to freedom of religion (67.94), which is based on the following indicators: 1) the number of written rules which restrict the freedom of people or which require people to practice their religions (78.26); 2) the number of actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people or require people to practice the teachings of their reli-gion (0.00); 3) the number of threats of violence, or use of violence, by a group of people against another

and West Sumatera has an index of 63.06. Table 4.8 shows further details.

The Table 4.8 presents the three provinces which rank lowest in terms of civil liberties. The province of West Sumatera occupies the lowest posi-tion, which is particularly attribut-able to the low index of the variable of freedom of religion (45.91). This index is low due to low scores of indicators: 1) the number of written rules which restric the freedom of people or require people to prac-tice the teaching of their religion produces the lowest index (34.78); 2) the number of actions taken or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people or require people to practice the teachings of their religion (77.50); and 3) the number of threats of violence, or the use of violence, by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teaching issues (70.00). These statistics indicate that the people of West Sumatera face sig-nificant barriers related to religion. This is also demonstrated by the fact that there are as many as 15 written government policies, in the form of provincial regulations, which are discriminatory on the grounds of religion. These are considered as a key indicator in the 2009 IDI, and therefore have the heaviest weight amongst the indicators related to civil liberties. It is for this reason that the index for West Sumatera is

59


based on the variables of freedom of religion (51.03) and freedom of expression (72.23). The index for freedom of expression is low due to the indicator related to the number of threats of violence or the use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression (66.67). The index for freedom of re-ligion is low despite the fact that one of the indicators in this variable has received a perfect score. However, the number of written rules which restrict or require people to practice the teachings of their religions is low (43.48), and the indicator on the number of threats of violence made, and the use of violence, by certain groups of society for reasons pertaining to religious teachings is also low (50.00).

The low indexes related to civil liberties can be linked, primarily, to three indicators: 1) the number of threats of violence or use of violence, by government officers which curbs freedom of expression; 2) the number of written rules which restrict the freedom or require people to practice teachings of their religions; and 3) the number of threats of violence or use of violence, by a group of people against another group of people per-taining to religious teachings. This implies that efforts to strengthen civil liberties must be focused on meas-ures that fulfill, protect and enforce freedom of expression and religious rights. Despite receiving relatively high rankings, civil liberties must

group of people for reasons pertain-ing to religious teachings (70.00). Freedom of religion in Aceh suffers from significant barriers because there are written government policies in the form of regional regulations which are discriminatory on the grounds of religion, and there are significant incidents of actions taken or statements made by government officials which restrict the freedom of people or require people to practice the teachings of their religions. These are infringements on citizens which pose a distinct threat to democracy. The low index related to civil liber-ties in Aceh can also be attributed to the variable related to freedom from discrimination, which has an index of 61.74, based primarily on the indicator which scores the number of threats of violence, or use of violence, by people for reasons pertaining to gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups (33.33). This is a constraint to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and take the form of, for example, threats of violence made, or the use of violence by the government or by certain groups among the people themselves. Moreover, constrains coming from both elements of the people and or government officers are also still hampering efforts to enforce freedom of assembly and association and freedom from dis-criminatory rules and treatment.

The province of West Nusa Teng-gara has also received a low score,

60


(voter turnout); and 5) the percent-age of women elected as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament.

The first indicator, which measures barriers to voting or being elected, indicates a significant violation of political rights. The more barriers there are to this indicator, the lower the level of democratic development. The same is true for the second in-dicator, which measures the ability of people with disabilities to vote. The quality of the permanent voter list (DPT) was a particular issue in the run up to the 2009 elections, as so many mistakes were found on the lists. The IDI therefore uses this as an indicator based on the assump-tion that the poorer the quality of the permanent voter list is, the more barriers there will be to people being able to exercise their democratic right to vote. Voter turnout is also used as an indicator for this same reason.

The percentage of voter turnout is also used as an indicator because a great number of people who use their right to vote indicate a high level of political awareness on the part of citizens and lack of weaknesses in the way general elections are organized/ administered. The same thing also applies to the percentage of women elected as members of a provincial parliament to the total members of the provincial parliament. The more women are elected as members of parliament, the higher the gender

still be a priority for Indonesia, as the citizens of the country demand human rights.

4.2.2 Index for Political RightsThe second aspect measured by

the 2009 IDI is political rights. These are vital to democracy because they determine which freedom is accorded to each individual in order for them to carry out their role as citizens. While there are many different kinds of political rights, the 2009 IDI measures only: 1) the right to vote and to get elected; and 2) the right to participate in decision-making and to keep watch over the government’s actions. Political rights span such a broad range of issues, and thus, both variables and indicators could have been increased. However, due to the challenges in gathering empirical evidence for further variables and indicators, these were chosen for their significance in contributing to the development of democracy.

The first variable comprises a number of indicators: 1) the number of incidences in which people’s right to vote and get elected is curbed; 2) the number of incidenceswhich indicate a lack or shortage of facili-ties for people with disabilities- as a result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote: 3) the quality - of the permanent voters list (DPT); 4) the percentage of population who use their right to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in general elections

61


issues affecting their lives. These include, for example, complaints about poor road quality or damaged bridges. The more complaints made by citizens in relation to the way the government meets its responsibilities means the higher the political aware-ness of the citizens. It means that the level of democracy development in the province is high.

4.2.2.1. Indonesia Index for Political Rights

Nationally, political rights has the lowest index compared to civil liber-ties and institutions of democracy. The index for political rights is 54.60 (while the index for civil liberties is 86.97 and institutions of democracy is 62.72).

Political rights are measured by two variables: 1) the right to vote and get elected, which is rated at

awareness is, which means that the democracy development in the province in question is getting better.

The second variable measures political participation in decision-making and keeping a watch over the government, based on two indicators: 1) the percentage of demonstrations/strikes that turn violent compared to the total number of demonstra-tions/strikes; and 2) the number of complaints on the running of go-vernment. The first indicator aims to determine the tendency of violence in people’s efforts to lobby the go-vernment through demonstrations or strikes. The higher the percentage of demonstrations and strikes which involve physical violence, the lower the level of democratic development.

The second indicator measures the number of complaints made through newspapers on government related

Graph 4.8. National Index on Political Rights

The right to vote andget elected in a general

election

Political participation indecision making and

watchdog

55.1650.05

62


The table below also indicates that barriers to vote or be elected are not so strong, and voter turnout is quite high. These are significant indica-tors of democratic development, as they signify high participation in democratic processes. While prob-lems with the permanent voter list still exist, the data demonstrates that their impact on voter turnout is not as significant as expected. The low number of women in parliament is also demonstrated by the data, and is something that must be monitored in the future.

In the variables related to par-ticipation in decision-making and watchdog, the first indicator (related to violent demonstrations or strikes) is high (81.75). At the same time, the indicator which measures people’s

50.05; and 2) the right to participate in decision-making and watchdog, rated at 55.16. These indexes are low.

The main factor which causes the low index for the first variable is the quality of the permanent voter list (30.00), which is the lowest amongst the indicators for this particular vari-able (and also fourth lowest amongst all of the indicators in the 2009 IDI). Also low are the indicators on fa-cilities for people with disabilities (50.00) and the percentage of women elected to provincial parliament (52.07). Somewhat more promising are the other indicators – voter turn out is rated at 73.82 and the number of incidences in which the right to vote or get elected is hampered is 84.52, as shown in Table 4.9.

Indicators for the Right to Vote and Get Elected in a General Election

Index

Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed 84.52

Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities as a result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote

50.00

The quality of the permanent voter list (DPT) 30.00

Percentage of population who use their rights to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in a general election (voters turnout)

73.82

Percentage of women elected to provincial parliament to the total members of provincial parliament

52.07

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Right to Vote and Get ElectedTable 4.9.

63


aware. However, the differences between provinces has resulted in this low rating.

4.2.2.2. Provincial Indexes for Political Rights

The following section will elabo-rate on the aspect of political rights in each province according to the measurement of the 2009 IDI, as seen in the Graph 4.9.

Based on Graph 4.9, the province of Aceh scores the highest in terms of political rights (70.39), followed by West Java (68.48) and Riau (65.40) while the three provinces with the lowest indexes are West Papua

complaints about the way the go-vernment runs the country, gets an index of only 28.56, bringing down this overall index for participation in this aspect to be low (55.16).

The low rat ing for people ’s complaints concerning the way the government runs the country is somewhat surprising. It is estimated that people’s complaints in all the provinces in Indonesia are quite many as reflected in the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. Since the process of de-mocratization has been going on for over ten years, the people of Indonesia are relatively politically

Indictors for Political Participation in Decision-Making and Watchdog

Index

Percentage of demonstrations/strikes that turn violent to the total number of demonstrations/strikes

81.75

Complaints on the running of government 28.56

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Political Participation in Decision-Making and WatchdogTable 4.10.

Province Index

Aceh 70,39

West Java 68,48

Riau 65,40

Provinces with the Highest Indexes for Political RightsTable 4.11.

64


Graph 4.9. Provincial Indexes for Political Rights

Aceh

West Java

Riau

South Kalimantan

Central Kalimantan

Riau Island

North Sulawesi

Gorontalo

South Sumatera

East Kalimantan

Bengkulu

West Sumatera

West Kalimantan

West Sulawesi

DI Yogyakarta

DKI Jakarta

Maluku

Central Java

Lampung

East Nusa Tenggara

East Java

Jambi

Bali

Banten

Bangka Belitung

West Nusa Tenggara

North Maluku

Central Sulawesi

Southeast Sulawesi

Papua

South Sulawesi

North Sumatera

West Papua

70.39

68.48

65.40

62.63

60.50

59.47

58.50

56.39

56.07

54.78

54.03

53.57

53.46

53.09

52.52

52.20

52.05

51.85

51.81

51.46

50.96

50.41

49.82

49.47

48.29

47.50

46.30

45.90

43.97

43.84

42.36

41.26

37.09

65


had very high indexes for political participation: Aceh scored 94.98, West Java rated at 93.48, and Riau was at 79.11 (see Table 4.12.). This indicates the importance of participation in decision-making processes to the development of democracy.

In the aspect the right to vote and to be elected, West Java has a low index (30.77) in the indicator number of incidents in which peo-ple’s right to vote or get elected is curbed , indicating that constraints have been found for this indicator. At the same time, the province has high voter turnout and a high number of women elected to the provincial parliament (83.33). Riau’s index for the number of women elected to provincial parliament (60.61). While Aceh ranks highest in terms of politi-cal rights, it has the lowest index for the percentage of women elected to provincial parliament (19.32).

Aceh’s index for the percentage of demonstrations or strikes that turn violent is 96.65, as is Riau’s – indicat-

(37.09), North Sumatera (41.26), and South Sulawesi (42.36).

Table 4.11. indicates the highest provincial indexes. This provincial ranking is different from the national ranking, which placed Central Ka-limantan (77.63), Riau (75.85), and the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (73.91) at the top. In terms of political rights, only Riau belongs to the top three provinces, where it ranks third. The other two provinces which also belong to the top three provinces in terms of political rights are Aceh and West Java and yet, their ranks on the national IDI are far below (10th and 23rd respectively). Even though the ranks of Aceh and West Java as strong nationally, their ranking in terms of political rights is higher.

Within political rights, the prov-inces with the highest scrores have very low indexes on the right to vote and to be elected: Aceh scored 45.80, West Java received a rating of 43.48, and Riau scored 51.69. At the same time, these three provinces

Variables for Political Rights Provincial Index

Aceh West Java Riau

The right to vote and get elected in a general election 45,80 43,48 51,69

Political participation in decision-making and watchdog 94,98 93,48 79,11

Distribution of the Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Highest Indexes for Political Rights

Tabel 4.12.

66


in the lowest three, also rank low nationally, so it is not surprising that their low ratings for political rights are also low (see Table 4.13). These numerical figures indicate that the indexes for political rights do not differ greatly from the national fi-gures, but also show that the province with the lowest national IDI, West Nusa Tenggara, whose index is 58.12, ranks 26th (eight from the bottom) for political rights.

The three provinces with the lowest polit ical r ights indexes also have low ratings for the vari-ables for political participation in decision-making and watchdog, over the government, despite receiving

ing that violent strikes rarely take place in the two provinces. West Java’s slightly lower ranking of 86.96 is not significant.

West Java has the highest index (100.00) for the number of people making complaints about the gov-ernment’s running of the country, indicating that the people of the province frequently make their opinions known. Aceh ranks only slightly lower, while Riau has a score of 62.57, which is rather low.

West Papua ranks lowest in terms of political rights, with an index of 37.09. Nationally, West Papua ranks at 28th, with an index of 63.06. North Sumatera and South Sulawesi are also

Province Index

West Papua 37,09

North Sumatera 41,26

South Sulawesi 42,36

Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Political RightsTable 4.13.

Variables for Political RightsProvincial Index

West PapuaNorth

SumateraSouth

Sulawesi

The right to vote and be elected in a general election 52,54 49,37 51,25

Political participation in decision-making and watchdog 21,64 33,15 33,48

Distribution of the Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Political Rights

Table 4.14.

67


ernment (12.84) and high numbers of demonstrations/strikes that become violent (30.43). North Sumatera ranks at 52.17 for the number of violent demonstrations, while South Sulawesi receives a score of 55.22. The number of people who complain about the government is low in all three provinces - 12.84 for West Papua, 14.13 for North Sumatera and 11.74 for South Sulawesi.

4.2.3. Index for Institutions

of Democracy

4.2.3.1. Indonesia Index for Institutions of Democracy

relatively high scores for the right to vote and be elected, as shown in Table 4.14 below.

Despite their overall low ranking in terms of political rights, the three provinces all demonstrate a relatively high index on the right to vote and to be elected. At the same time, voter turn out varies, from 81.22 in West Papua, down to a low rating of 65.35 in North Sumatera. The three provinces have similar rankings for women’s election into provincial parliament (roughly 53.00). West Papua has low indexes for number of complaints in the running of gov-

Graph 4.10. National Index for Institutions of Democracy

The role ofpolitical parties

The role ofregional

parliament(DPRD)

Free and fairelection

The role ofregional

govermentbereaucracy

The role of independent

judiciary

90.53 88.58 87.67

38.03

19.29

68


age of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level. The contribution of the index of each indicator to the index of the role of political parties can be seen in Table 4.15. These ratings indicate that the national index for the role of political parties is low, at 13.33, due to the fact the number of cadre formation activities carried out by political parties participating in general elec-tions is low.

The role of regional parliaments receives the following ratings for its indicators:, 1) the amount of budget allocated for education (51.84); 2) the amount of budget allocated for health (56.39); 3) the percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by regional parliaments (DPRD) to the total number of regional regulations pro-duced (5.65); and 4) the number of recommendations made by regional parliaments to the executive (7.79), as shown in Table 4.16.

As seen in Graph 4.1, the index for the aspect of institutions of democ-racy for the IDI at the national level is 62.72. Compared to the national in-dexes of the other two aspects, this is lower than civil liberties (86.97), but higher than political rights (54.60).

The national indexes for institu-tions of democracy are rated as follows: 1) Free and fair general elections (87.67); 2) the role of re-gional parliaments (38.03); 3) the role of political parties (19.29); 4) the role of regional government bureaucracy (88.58); and 5) the role of an independent judiciary (90.53). These statistics imply that despite provincial success in some areas, much work is to be done, particularly at a provincial level, in enhancing the role of regional parliaments, as well as the role of political particies.

The variable related to the role of political parties variable has two indicators: 1) the number of cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections; and 2) the percent-

Indicator for the Role of Political Parties Index

Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections

13.33

Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level 72.92

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Role of Political PartiesTable 4.15.

69


terminations of controversial inves-tigations by prosecutors or police. The distribution of the index of each indicator of this variable can be seen in Table 4.17.

These two ratings are high, and make a significant contribution to the index, and point to the fact that across all of Indonesia’s 33 provinces, the chance of finding controversial rulings by judges, or the termina-tion of controversial investigations

The indexes clearly show that the performance of regional parliaments in producing regional regulations based on their initiative and in mak-ing recommendations to the execu-tive as one of the forms of follow up of people’s aspiration is still very low.

The variable which measures the independent judiciary is measured by two indicators: 1) the number of controversial rulings handed down by judges; and 2) the number of

Indicators for the Role of Parliament Index

The amount of budget allocated for education per capita 51.84

The amount of budget allocated for health per capita 56.39

Percentage of number of regional regulations originating from the initiative right [the right to initiate the making of a regulation regulation] exercised by regional parliament (DPRD) to the total number of regional regulations produced

5.65

Recommendations put forward by regional parliament to the executive 7.79

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Role of Regional ParliamentTalel 4.16.

Indicators within Independent Judiciary Index

Controversial rulings handed down by judges 85.91

Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police 95.15

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of an Independent JudiciaryTable 4.17.

70


KPUD in the running and adminis-tration of general elections (91.46); and 2) the number of incidences or reporting on the fraudulent practices in the calculation of votes (83.89).

4.2.3.2. Provincial Index for Institutions of Democracy

This section will describe the as-pect of institutions of democracy at a provincial level, and will compare the three provinces with the high-est and lowest indexes. Graph 4.11 demonstrates that most of the prov-inces in Indonesia (24 out of 33 – or 73%), have indexes belonging to the medium category of democratic de-velopment. Only one province falls into the high category – the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, while the remainer – eight provinces, belong

is unlikely. The other variables, which measure the role of the re-gional government bureaucracy and free and fair general elections also make a significant contribution to the national index for institutions of democracy, as shown in Table 4.18.

Table 4.18. shows high indicators for the two variables: 1) the number of reports and news on the use of government facilities for the interests of candidates/political parties in leg-islative general elections (92.04); and 2) the number of reports and news on the involvement of civil servants in political activities or political par-ties in legislative general elections (85.12). In terms of free and fair gen-eral elections, the indicators score as follows: 1) the number of incidences which indicate the partiality of the

Indicators for the Role of Regional Parliament Bureaucracy Index

Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of certain nominees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections

92.04

Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative general elections

85.12

Indicators for Free and Fair General Elections Index

Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering general elections

91.46

Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes 83.89

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Role of Regional Parliament Bureaucracy and Free and Fair General Elections Table 4.18.

71


Graph 4.11. Provincial Indexes for Institutions of Democracy

DKI Jakarta

Central Kalimantan

East Nusa Tenggara

Bali

Jambi

Gorontalo

South Kalimantan

Riau

West Kalimantan

South Sumatera

Riau Island

East Kalimantan

West Sumatra

North Maluku

West Papua

Maluku

South Sulawesi

Central Java

North Sulawesi

Lampung

Banten

West Nusa Tenggara

Aceh

DI Yogyakarta

North Sumatera

Bangka Belitung

West Sulawesi

Papua

Southeast Sulawesi

Central Sulawesi

West Java

East Java

Bengkulu

86.09

78.69

73.63

73.24

72.43

72.32

70.95

70.68

69.85

69.83

67.62

67.57

67.48

67.23

66.48

66.30

64.88

64.43

63.91

63.27

62.83

62.48

62.13

60.48

60.14

59.65

59.15

58.97

58.37

57.14

56.61

54.64

44.70

72


ings are the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (86.09), Central Kalimantan (78.69), and East Nusa Tenggara (73.63), as stated in the table 4.19.

When the Special Capital Region of Jakarta is analysed at the level of variables, it is apparent that this province ranks first in terms of insti-tutions of democracy because three of its five variables have almost perfect indexes: 1) free and fair general elec-tions (100.00); 2) the role of regional parliament bureaucracy (99.93); and

to the poor category. The province of Bengkulu falls even below this, at 44.70.

Graph 4.11 shows consistency between the national index of this aspect and the distribution of the indexes at the provincial level. The national index for institutions of democracy is 62.72 (see Graph 4.1), which correlates directly with major-ity of provincial results, which fall into the same, medium category. The three provinces with the highest rat-

Province Index

DKI Jakarta 86,09

Central Kalimantan 78,69

East Nusa Tenggara 73, 63

Provinces with the Highest Indexes for Institutions of DemocracyTable 4.19.

Variables for Institution of Democracy Provincial Index

DKI JakartaCentral

KalimantanNTT

Free and fair elections 100,00 98,10 86,71

The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 64,12 28,45 45,00

The role of political parties 71,13 64,44 34,55

The role of regional government bureaucracy 99,93 95,99 97,29

The role of an independent judiciary 95,00 100,00 100,00

Distribution of Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Highest Indexes for Institutions of Democracy

Table 4.20.

73


the variable for the role of regional parliament is the lowest among the indexes at 28.45, belong to the poor category (see Table 4.20). The statis-tics demonstrate that even though Central Kalimantan has a good record in judiciary independence, free and fair elections and service provision by the regional government, the per-formance of the regional parliament still requires strengthening.

The independent judiciary variable has a perfect index in the province of Central Kalimantan due to the perfect scores of its two indica-tors: 1) the number of controversial rulings handed down by judges; and 2) the number of termination of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police. The role of regional parliament variable receives a low score due to the fact that two out of its four indicators performed poorly: 1) the percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by DPRD compared to the total number of regional regulations produced (0.00); and 2) the amount of budget allocated for health (18.40). The other two indicators rank in the medium category: 1) the number of regional parliament recommenda-tions to the executive (7.14); and 2) the amount of budget allocated for education (63.80).

The province of East Nusa Tenggara ranks similarly to Central Kalimantan in terms of institutions of democracy. The independent ju-

3) an independent judiciary (95.00). The indexes of the other two vari-ables are slightly lower: 4) the role of political parties (71.13); and 5) the role of regional parliament (64.12), as shown in Table 4.20.

The high index of the variable for free and fair general elections can be attributed to the contribution of two indexes of the variable’s indicators which received perfect scores - the number of incidences which indicate partiality on the part of the Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in the running of general elections (100.00) and the number of incidences or reporting of fraudulent practices in the calculation of votes (100.00). The indexes of the two indi-cators demonstrate that general elec-tions in the Province of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta have been carried out freely and fairly, reflected by impartiality on the part of the KPUD in running general elections, as well as a relative lack of fraudulent practices in the calculation of votes.

In the province of Central Kalim-antan, the distribution of the indexes of the five variables for institutions of democracy shows a significant variation in which the independent judiciary variable has a perfect index of 100.00, free and fair general elec-tions variable is rated at 98.10, and the role of regional parliament bu-reaucracy scores 95.99 – all belonging to the high category. While the index for the role of political parties belong to the medium category (69.44),

74


five variables for institutions of democracy indicates a wide range. Two variables rank highly: 1) an independent judiciary (90.00); and 2) free and fair general elections (72.78). At the same time, the remaining three variables are extremely low: 3) the role of political parties (8.97); 4) the role of regional parliament (9.03); and 5) the role of regional government bureaucracy (42.57), as shown in Table 4.23. These rankings place Bengkulu in the poor category, despite the success in maintaining an independent judiciary and conduct-ing free and fair general elections.

The provinces of East Java and West Java occupy the second and the third lowest positions for the aspect of institutions of democracy. Table 4.22 indicates the same tendency in the two provinces as in Beng-kulu. Even though an independent judiciary and free and fair general elections rank relatively high, the other three variables are very low. Table 4.22 demonstrates that two of the variables which make a very low

diciary variable (100.00) makes the highest contribution to the index, followed by the role of regional government bureaucracy (97.29) and free and fair general elections (86.71), as shown in Table 4.21. The other two variables rank lower, at 34.55 for the role of political parties and 45.00 for the role of regional parliaments, ranking in the category of poor contributions to the develop-ment of democracy.

The distribution of the indexes of these variables indicates that cumu-latively, institutions of democracy rank in the medium category in East Nusa Tenggara (73.63), ranking in the top three provinces, despite their low indexes on the performance of political parties and the regional parliament.

The three provinces with the lowest indexes for institutions of democracy are Bengkulu (44.70), East Java (54.64) and West Java (56.61), as can be seen in Table 4.21.

In the province of Bengkulu, the distribution of the indexes of the

Province Index

Bengkulu 44,70

East Java 54,64

West Java 56,61

Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Institutions of DemocracyTable 4.21.

75


ing in general elections; 2) limited numbers of regional regulations originating from the initiative right of the regional parliament; 3) the low number of regional parliament recommendations to the executive as a follow up to the requests of citizens; 4) limited role of regional parlia-ment in pursuing for the allocation of a health budget; and 5) relatively high use of government facilities for the interests of certain candidates/political parties in legislative general elections.

contribution to the index are the role of political parties and the role of regional parliament. In the province of East Java, the index of the role of political parties is only 8.29 and the index of the role of regional parlia-ment is 35.41. In West Java, the index of the role of political parties and the role of regional parliament are 19.24 and 22.52, respectively.

These three provinces Bengkulu, East Java, and West Java share the same characteristics of low ratings for the roles of political parties and parliament, caused by: 1) the absence of cadre formation activities carried out by political parties participat-

Variables for Institution of DemocracyProvincial Index

Bengkulu East Java West Java

Free and Fair Elections 72,78 94,56 94,19

The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 9,03 35,41 22,52

The role of political parties 8,97 8,29 19,24

The role of regional government bureaucracy 42,57 74,46 75,06

The role of independent judiciary 90,00 65,00 75,00

Distribution of the Indexes on the Variables in Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Institutions of Democracy

Table 4.22.

76


5

Conclusion

79


impartial, and tends to allow these acts to take place.

The provincial indexes for civil liberties are also promising. As many as 29 provinces rated above 80.00, and 24 provinces received indexes of more than 90.00. Only four provinces had scores lower than 80.00. The three provinces with the highest scores were Central Sulawesi (98.51), Central Kalimantan (98.45) and West Kalimantan (98.29), while the three provinces with the lowest indexes were West Nusa Tenggara (68.05), Aceh (64.42) and West Su-matera (63.06).

Three indicators for civil liberties were consistently low across the provinces: 1) the number of threats of violence or the use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression; 2) the num-ber of written rules which restrict freedom or require people to practice the teachings of their religion; and 3) the number of threats of violence or the use of threats by one group of people against another group of people for reasons pertaining to religious teachings.

The essence of democracy lies in the protection of human rights, particularly those related to civil

Conclusion

The 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) is a compilation of val-ues of the indexes of three aspects of democracy that are considered crucial: civil liberties, political rights and institutions of democracy. The index assessment used a score rang-ing from 0 to 100, which was divided qualitatively into three categories: poor (for index < 60), medium (for index ranging from 60 to 80), and high (for index >80).

The 2009 IDI indicates that civil liberties rate the highest at the na-tional level (86.97). This demonstates that rights related to civil liberties are upheld by Indonesia. Freedom of assembly and association rank higest, at 91.44, followed by freedom of religion at 90.67, freedom from discrimination at 86.39 and freedom of expression at 83.97. Despite these high ratings, the indexes also show that the threats to these rights come primarily from the government, which is actually responsible for protecting these rights. These threats take the form of written rules, actions and statements made by government officials. Freedom of religion, on the other hand, is primarily threatened by individual citizens or groups of people, mostly in the form of threats and violence. This is allowed to hap-pen by a government which is not

80


The indicators for political par-ticipation in decision-making and keeping a watch over the government are vastly different from one another. The statistics show that only a low percentage of demonstrations or strikes become violent in Indonesia. At the same time, there are numerous complaints made by people about how the government carries out its responsibilities, though this number varies by province, and so the index overall is relatively low.

The index for institutions of de-mocracy is relatively low, at 62.72, thus receiving a scoring in the me-dium category for development of democracy.

The five variables for this aspect include: 1) free and fair general elec-tions; 2) the role of regional parlia-ment; 3) the role of political parties; 4) the role of regional government bureaucracy; and 5) an independ-ent judiciary. The indexes show that across Indonesia, the 33 provinces have been relatively successful in creating an independent judiciary (though the IDI does not measure their qual i ty or performance) , enhancing the role of regional gov-ernment bureaucracy and carrying out free and fair general elections. In spite of this success, the role of both political parties and regional parliaments must be strengthened.

liberties. If these rights are fulfilled adequately, citizens should be able to live in peace and harmony. The state and ruling government has a duty to guarantee these rights, which can be in the form of written rules and policies, as well as actions and statements of government officials.

Political rights are another im-portant aspect of democracy. In the 2009 IDI, this is the lowest aspect, rating below 60.00. This score places political rights in the poor category, standing in sharp contrast to the high rating of civil liberties. This ranking indicates that the citizens of Indonesia are unable to fully exercise their political rights.

The two variables for political rights, political participation in decision-making processes and watchdog, as well as the right to vote and to be elected, have low indexes. The reasons for these low ratings include barriers for people with disabilities to exercise their right to vote, the percentage of women in provincial parliament and the quality of the permanent voter list.

Voter turnout and the ability to vote and be elected are relatively high. These statistics indicate that the citizens of Indonesia are interested in politics, while the capacity of the government is low, particularly in running general elections.

81


The low index for the role of po-litical parties is caused by the low number of cadre formation activi-ties carried out by political parties participating in general elections. The low national index for the role of regional parliament variable is caused by the poor performance of regional parliaments in taking initia-tive to produce a regional regulation and in putting forward recommen-dations to the executive as a follow up of people’s aspiration. The index for an independent judiciary is high because the likelihood of finding controversial rulings by judges and terminations of controversial inves-tigations by prosecutors or police is relatively limited.

At the provincial level, the index for institutions of democracy indicates that most provinces in In-donesia (24 out of 33) have an index belonging to the medium category. Only the Special Capital Region of Jakarta falls into the high category, while eight provinces belong to the low category.

The distribution of the index for institutions of democracy indicates a strong consistency between the national index and the distribution of provincial indexes. The national index is 62.72, while 24 out the 33 provinces fall within this same me-dium category.

Overall, the following conclusions for the 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index can be drawn.

First, a high civil liberties index is found almost evenly across all of the provinces of Indonesia. This reflects a state in which people are “free to,” rather than “free from,” and is important for decision makers and policy analysts to understand.

Second, there is a gap between the aspects of civil liberties and political liberty and institutions of democracy. Abundant civil liberties leads to high political passion and participation on the part of society, however, as that statistics indicate, citizens face a challenge in exercising this participa-tion due to the poor management of general elections.

Third, Indonesia has been success-ful in the development of institu-tions of democracy, but is hampered by weaknesses in capacity. Cadre formation amongst political par-ties is weak, and the performance of regional parliaments is poor. Political freedom is high, but at the same time, is not accompanied by the institutions required to support it. Coupled with the weakness on the part of security officers in law enforcement, this situation may give rise to ‘street democracy’ which is likely to degenerate into anarchy.

82

BibliographyMEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Bibliography

Barnett, Jacqueline, M (2008), Focus Groups: Tips for Beginners (updated ver-sion) (TCALL Occasional Research Paper No. 1, Texas Center for Adult Literacy & Learning).

Berry, Rita, S.Y. (1999), Collecting Data By In-Depth Interviewing (Paper pre-sented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Susex at Brighton, September 2-5, 1999).

Bollen, Kenneth A. (1993), Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps,” dalam Alex Inkelas (ed.). On Measuring Democracy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher.

Bouma, G. D. (1993), The Research Process, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Coppedge, Michael, dan Wolfgang H. Reinicke (1993), “Measuring Polyar-chy,” dalam Alex Inkeles (ed).

Dahl, Robert A. (1971), Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Metod (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gastill, Raymond Duncan, “Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions.” Dalam Alex Inkeles (ed.).

Gibbs, Anita (1997), Focus Groups, England: Social Research Update, Issue 19, the Department of Sociology, University of Surrey.

Guion, L. A. (2006), Conducting an In-Depth Interview, (FCS6012, one of a series of the Family Youth and Community Sciences Department, Florida Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida)

83

Bibliography MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Hadari, Nawawi (1983), Metode Penelitian Bidang Sosial, Yogyakarta: Gad-jahmada University Press.

Hoppe, M. J. et.al (1995), ”Using Focus Groups to Discuss Sensitive Topics with Children”, Evaluation Review 19 (1): 102-14.

Irwanto (1998), Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Sebuah Pengantar Praktis, Ja-karta: Pusat Kejian Pembangunan Masyarakat, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya.

Kitzinger, J (1995), ”Introducing Focus Groups”, British Medical Journal 311: 299-302.

Moleong, L. J. (2005), Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (edisi revisi), Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Neuman, W. Lawrence (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quan-titative Approaches (4th ed.), London: Allyn and Bacon.

Powell, R. A., and Single H. M (1996), “Focus Groups”, International Journal of Quality in Health Care 8 (5): 499-504.

Vredenbregt, J. (1978), Metode dan Teknik Penelitian Masyarakat, Jakarta: PT. Gramedia.

84

BibliographyMEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

6

Appendix

Appendix 1 Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2007 IDI

Appendix 2 Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2009 IDI

Appendix 3 List of Newspaper used as Sample/Data Resources

for 2009 IDI

Appendix 4 Weight of Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the

2009 IDI

Appendix 5 2009 Indexes on Aspects,Variables and Indicators in

33 Provinces

Appendix

87


Appendix


I. Freedom of Assembly and Organisational Rights

1 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of assembly for general assembly of a political party, demonstration and boycott.

2 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of association for political party, mass organisations and religious affiliations.

3 Statements from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly of political party, demonstration and boycott.

4 Statements from local government deemed to limit freedom of association for political party, mass organisations and religious affiliations.

5 Physical actions from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly for political party’s forming and activities.

6 Physical actions from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly for mass organisations’ forming and activities

7 Actions from the local people deemed to limit to freedom of assembly in forming and political party activities.

8 Actions from the local people deemed to limit freedom of assembly in forming mass organizations and its activities.

II. Freedom of Speech

9 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of speech.

10 Statements from local government—written and or orally—deemed to limit freedom of speech.

11 Physical actions from the local government deemed to limit freedom of speech of the people.

12 Actions from one individual or community deemed to limit freedom of speech of the other individual or communities

III. Freedom of Religious Affiliation

13 The existence of any local regulations that limit or discriminate freedom of religious affiliation

14 The existence of discriminatory actions from local government towards the people to build their religious place

15 The existence of repressive actions from one community toward the other communities refusing certain local regulation related to religious beliefs

16 Events of banning religious performance or discriminatory action from the local government

17 The existence of banning or discriminatory action from one community toward other community to perform their religious beliefs

ASPECTS, VARIABLES, AND INDICATORSINDONESIA DEMOCRACY INDEX 2007Appendix 1

Appendix

88


Indicators

IV. Freedom from Discrimination

18 The existence of discriminative regulations on gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS, physical disability or other marginalized groups

19 The existence of discriminative behaviour from local government on gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS, physical disability or other marginalized groups

20The existence of discriminative behaviour from the local people towards other community on gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS, physical disability or other marginalized groups

B. POLITICAL RIGHTS

V. People’s participation in politics

21 Voters-turnout rate

22 Frequency/number of involvement from the people in hearing session with DPRD

23 Frequency/number of involvement from the people in audience session with local government (Pemda).

24 Involvement from the people representing how many groups in musrenbang

25 Frequency of involvement of the people in demonstration

26 Frequency of involvement from the people in boycott action

VI. Participation of the people in governance monitoring

27 The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local governance through press statement/release in mass media

28 The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local governance through official letter to local government (Pemda)

29The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local govern-ance to the police

30 The frequency and substance of news initiated by the mass media in covering news on the management of the local governance


VII. Free and fair election

31 The same opportunity for campaigning

32 Guarantee for vote tabulation without manipulation

33 Political intimidation (such as repressive action towards potential voters to vote for certain candidate, etc.)

34 Protests followed up by KPUD/Panwas in comparison with the number of protests done by contestants and the supporters

35 Violent actions done by supporters of one candidate towards supporters of other candidates

Appendix

89


Indicators

VIII. Parliament’s role

36 DPRD’s role in making public-oriented APBD in education and health sectors

37 Written critiques from DPRD towards report of a regional head

38 Percentage of total local regulations derived from DPRD’s initiative in comparison with total local regulations been produced

39 Recommendations produced by DPRD as the follow-up action from people’s aspirations


40 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties

41 Double committee within a political party

X. The role of an independent judiciary

42 Political interventions from executive, legislative or judicative of the central and local government on judicial process

43 Controversial rulings handed down by the court

Appendix

90


Appendix 2 ASPECTS, VARIABLES, AND INDICATORSINDONESIA DEMOCRACY INDEX 2009


I. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association

1 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association

2 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association

II. Freedom of expression

3 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of speech

4 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression

III. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion)

5 Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

6 Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

7 Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings

IV. Freedom from discrimination

8 Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

9 Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

10 Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups

B. POLITICAL RIGHTS

V. The right to vote and get elected in a general election

11 Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed

12 Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote

13 The quality of the permanent voter list (Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT)

14 Percentage of population who use their right to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in a general election (voter turnout)

15 Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament

Appendix

91


Indicators

VI. Political participation in decision making and watchdog

16 Percentage of demonstrations /strikes that turn violent compared to the total number of demonstrations/strikes

17 Complaints on the running of government


VII. Free and fair elections

18 Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering general elections

19 Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes

VIII. The role of regional parliament (DPRD)

20 The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita

21 Percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by DPRD compared to the total number of regional regulations produced

22 Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive


23 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections

24 Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level

X. The role of regional government bureaucracy

25 Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of certain nominees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections

26 Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative general elections

XI. The role of an independent judiciary

27 Controversial rulings handed down by judges

28 Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police

Appendix

92


NO Provinces Newspapers

1 Aceh Serambi Indonesia

2 North Sumatera Waspada

3 Riau Riau Pos

4 Riau Islands Batam Pos

5 West Sumatera Singgalang

6 South Sumatera Sriwijaya Post

7 Bangka Belitung Babel Pos

8 Jambi Jambi Independent

9 Bengkulu Rakyat Bengkulu

10 Lampung Radar Lampung

11 Banten Radar Banten

12 DKI Jakarta Warta Kota

13 West Java Pikiran Rakyat

14 Central Java Suara Merdeka

15 DI Yogyakarta Kedaulatan Rakyat

16 East Java Jawa Pos

17 West Kalimantan Pontianak Post

18 Central Kalimantan Kalteng Pos

19 East Kalimantan Kaltim Post

20 South Kalimantan Banjarmasin Post

21 Bali Harian Umum Nusa Bali

22 NTB Lombok Post

23 NTT Pos Kupang

24 South Sulawesi Fajar

25 Central Sulawesi Radar Sulteng

26 West Sulawesi Radar Sulbar

27 Southeast Sulawesi Kendari Pos

List of Newspaper used as Sample/Data ResourcesAppendix 3

Appendix

93


NO Provinces Newspapers

28 Gorontalo Gorontalo Post

29 North Sulawesi Manado Post

30 North Maluku Malut Post

31 Maluku Suara Maluku

32 West Papua Cahaya Papua

33 Papua Cendrawasih Pos

Appendix

94


Aspects, Variables and Indicators LOCAL GLOBALI. CIVIL LIBERTIES 0.327 0.327

1. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association 0.084 0.028

1.1. Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association

0.875 0.024

1.2. Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of as-sembly and freedom of association

0.125 0.003

2. Freedom of expression 0.093 0.030

2.1. Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression

0.833 0.025

2.2. Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expres-sion

0.167 0.005

3. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion) 0.584 0.191

3.1. Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

0.709 0.136

3.2. Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions

0.113 0.022

3.3. Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings

0.179 0.034

4. Freedom from discrimination 0.239 0.078

4.1. Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups

0.391 0.031

4.2. Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-able groups

0.278 0.022

4.3. Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups

0.330 0.026

II. POLITICAL RIGHTS 0.413 0.413

1. The right to vote and get elected in a general election 0.500 0.206

1.1. People’s right to vote or get elected is not curbed 0.176 0.036

Weight of Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the 2009 IDI Appendix 4

Appendix

95


Aspects, Variables and Indicators LOCAL GLOBAL

1.2. Facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote

0.077 0.016

1.3 The quality of the permanent voter list(Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT) 0.497 0.102

1.4. Voter turnout 0.155 0.032

1.5. Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament

0.096 0.020

2. Political participation in decision making and watchdog 0.500 0.206

2.1. Demonstrations/strikes 0.500 0.103

2.2. Complaints on the running of government 0.500 0.103

III. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY 0.260 0.260

1. Free and fair elections 0.152 0.040

1.1. Impartiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering general elections

0.500 0.020

1.2. Fairness on counting of votes 0.500 0.020

2. The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 0.197 0.051

2.1. The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita 0.659 0.034

2.2. Regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regula-tion exercised by DPRD

0.156 0.008

2.3. Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive 0.185 0.009

3. The role of political parties 0.197 0.051

3.1. Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections

0.900 0.046

3.2. Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level 0.100 0.005

4. The role of regional government bureaucracy 0.227 0.059

4.1. Guarantee of un-using government facilities for the interests of certain nomi-nees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections

0.500 0.029

4.2. Impartiality of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative general elections

0.500 0.029

5. The role of an independent judiciary 0.227 0.059

5.1. Uncontroversial rulings handed down by judges 0.500 0.029

5.2. Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police 0.500 0.029

NOAs

pect

s/Va

riabl

es/

Indi

cato

rsAc

eh

North

Sum

ater

a

Wes

t

Sum

ater

aRi

au

Jam

bi

Sout

h

Sum

ater

aBe

ngku

luLa

mpu

ng

Babe

lRi

au

Isla

nd

DKI

Jaka

rta

Wes

t

Java

Cent

ral

Java

DI

Yogy

a-

karta

East

Java

Bant

en

Bali

Wes

t

Nusa

Teng

gara

East

Nusa

Teng

gara

Wes

t

Kalim

anta

n

Cent

ral

Kalim

anta

n

Sout

h

Kalim

anta

n

East

Kalim

anta

n

North

Sula

wesi

Cent

ral

Sula

wesi

Sout

h

Sula

wesi

Sout

h-

East

Sula

wesi

Goro

n-

talo

Wes

t

Sula

wesi

Mal

uku

North

Mal

uku

Wes

t

Papu

aPa

pua

INDO

NESI

A

OVER

ALL

INDE

X66

.29

60.2

060

.29

75.8

571

.00

72.5

264

.76

67.4

767

.01

73.6

173

.91

71.0

766

.45

67.5

562

.49

67.9

870

.35

58.1

271

.64

72.3

877

.63

66.6

372

.31

70.9

466

.02

61.4

864

.29

73.5

067

.99

69.0

767

.21

63.0

663

.80

67.3

0

ASPE

CT 1

.

CIVI

L

LIBE

RTIE

S

64.4

284

.16

63.0

693

.14

95.8

695

.42

94.2

690

.57

96.5

196

.22

91.6

585

.84

86.4

892

.15

83.3

095

.46

93.9

768

.05

95.5

598

.29

98.4

568

.24

98.2

292

.23

98.5

182

.94

94.6

696

.05

93.8

292

.77

93.6

193

.14

92.8

386

.97

Varia

ble

1. F

reed

om

of a

ssem

bly

and

freed

om o

f

asso

ciat

ion

90.0

010

0.00

91.2

598

.75

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0011

.25

98.7

598

.75

91.2

598

.75

78.7

590

.00

91.2

598

.75

100.

0098

.75

91.2

510

0.00

91.2

590

.00

91.2

547

.50

100.

0010

0.00

91.2

510

0.00

100.

0098

.75

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0091

.44

1

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by g

over

nmen

t

offic

ers

whic

h

curb

s fre

edom

of a

ssem

bly

and

freed

om o

f

asso

ciat

ion

90.0

010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

000.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0090

.00

90.0

090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0090

.00

90.0

090

.00

40.0

010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

91.2

1

2

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by p

eopl

e wh

ich

curb

s fre

edom

of a

ssem

bly

and

freed

om o

f

asso

ciat

ion

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

90.0

090

.00

100.

0090

.00

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

93.0

3

Varia

ble

2. F

reed

om

of e

xpre

ssio

n26

.12

55.5

591

.67

77.7

990

.00

91.6

781

.65

90.0

091

.65

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0050

.02

86.1

291

.67

90.0

091

.67

72.2

310

0.00

100.

0098

.33

100.

0010

0.00

63.9

010

0.00

41.6

790

.00

100.

0077

.79

67.7

776

.12

100.

0077

.77

83.9

7

3

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by g

over

nmen

t

offic

ers

whic

h

curb

s fre

edom

of

expr

essi

on

23.3

356

.67

90.0

073

.33

90.0

090

.00

90.0

090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

40.0

083

.33

90.0

090

.00

90.0

066

.67

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0056

.67

100.

0040

.00

90.0

010

0.00

73.3

373

.33

73.3

310

0.00

83.3

383

.43

4

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by p

eopl

e wh

ich

curb

s fre

edom

of

expr

essi

on

40.0

050

.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

40.0

090

.00

50.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0050

.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0040

.00

90.0

010

0.00

50.0

086

.67

Varia

ble

3. F

reed

om

of R

elig

ion

67.9

486

.43

45.9

110

0.00

97.0

894

.63

97.0

898

.21

98.2

198

.21

91.0

578

.61

93.2

298

.21

79.6

894

.00

100.

0051

.03

98.8

798

.21

100.

0052

.57

98.2

110

0.00

100.

0090

.77

95.1

310

0.00

94.1

010

0.00

98.2

198

.21

98.2

190

.67

5

Writ

ten

rule

s

whic

h re

stric

t th

e

freed

om o

f peo

ple,

or re

quire

peo

ple,

to p

ract

ice

the

teac

hing

s of

thei

r

relig

ions

78.2

686

.96

34.7

810

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0073

.91

100.

0010

0.00

95.6

595

.65

100.

0043

.48

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0039

.13

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0086

.96

95.6

510

0.00

95.6

510

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0091

.70

6

Actio

ns ta

ken

by o

r

stat

emen

ts m

ade

by g

over

nmen

t

offic

ers/

offic

ials

whic

h re

stric

t the

freed

om o

f peo

ple,

or re

quire

peo

ple,

to p

ract

ice

the

teac

hing

s of

thei

r

relig

ions

0.00

77.5

077

.50

100.

0090

.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

087

.50

100.

0090

.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

77.5

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0075

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

91.9

7

7

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by a

gro

up o

f

peop

le a

gain

st

anot

her g

roup

of

peop

le p

erta

inin

g

to re

ligio

us

teac

hing

s

70.0

090

.00

70.0

010

0.00

90.0

070

.00

90.0

090

.00

90.0

090

.00

50.0

090

.00

70.0

090

.00

10.0

090

.00

100.

0050

.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0090

.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

090

.00

90.0

085

.76

Inde

xes

on a

spec

ts, v

aria

bles

, and

in

dica

tors

in 3

3 pr

ovin

ces

Ap

pen

dix

5

NOAs

pect

s/Va

riabl

es/

Indi

cato

rsAc

eh

North

Sum

ater

a

Wes

t

Sum

ater

aRi

au

Jam

bi

Sout

h

Sum

ater

aBe

ngku

luLa

mpu

ng

Babe

lRi

au

Isla

nd

DKI

Jaka

rta

Wes

t

Java

Cent

ral

Java

DI

Yogy

a-

karta

East

Java

Bant

en

Bali

Wes

t

Nusa

Teng

gara

East

Nusa

Teng

gara

Wes

t

Kalim

anta

n

Cent

ral

Kalim

anta

n

Sout

h

Kalim

anta

n

East

Kalim

anta

n

North

Sula

wesi

Cent

ral

Sula

wesi

Sout

h

Sula

wesi

Sout

h-

East

Sula

wesi

Goro

n-

talo

Wes

t

Sula

wesi

Mal

uku

North

Mal

uku

Wes

t

Papu

aPa

pua

INDO

NESI

A

Varia

ble

4. F

reed

om

from

dis

crim

inat

ion

61.7

484

.15

83.9

180

.40

97.2

297

.22

90.2

710

0.00

93.4

789

.00

89.9

993

.47

86.9

380

.44

86.1

010

0.00

78.0

097

.22

87.2

197

.22

97.2

286

.52

100.

0010

0.00

93.7

573

.87

96.5

383

.46

97.2

282

.75

90.4

575

.68

83.0

488

.92

8

Writ

ten

rule

s th

at

are

disc

rimin

ator

y

on th

e gr

ound

s of

gend

er, e

thni

city

or

agai

nst v

ulne

rabl

e

grou

ps

83.3

366

.67

83.3

350

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

83.3

310

0.00

83.3

383

.33

66.6

783

.33

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

83.3

310

0.00

100.

0083

.33

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0033

.33

100.

0066

.67

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

83.3

388

.89

9

Actio

ns ta

ken,

or s

tate

men

ts

mad

e, b

y re

gion

al

gove

rnm

ent

offic

ers/

offi

cial

s

whic

h ar

e

disc

rimin

ator

y on

the

grou

nds

of

gend

er, e

thni

city

or

agai

nst v

ulne

rabl

e

grou

ps

65.0

090

.00

77.5

010

0.00

90.0

090

.00

65.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

87.5

010

0.00

100.

0065

.00

50.0

010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

77.5

090

.00

90.0

075

.00

100.

0010

0.00

77.5

010

0.00

87.5

087

.50

90.0

077

.50

77.5

012

.50

62.5

084

.09

10

Thre

ats

of v

iole

nce

or u

se o

f vio

lenc

e

by p

eopl

e fo

r

reas

ons

asso

ciat

ed

with

the

gend

er,

ethn

icity

of t

he

vict

im a

nd/o

r

agai

nst v

ulne

rabl

e

grou

ps

33.3

310

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0066

.67

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

33.3

310

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0066

.67

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0093

.03

ASPE

CT

2.

POLI

TICA

L

RIGH

TS

70.3

941

.26

53.5

765

.40

50.4

156

.07

54.0

351

.81

48.2

959

.47

52.2

068

.48

51.8

552

.52

50.9

649

.47

49.8

247

.50

51.4

653

.46

60.5

062

.63

54.7

858

.50

45.9

042

.36

43.9

756

.39

53.0

952

.05

46.3

037

.09

43.8

454

.60

Varia

ble

5. T

he

right

to v

ote

and

get

elec

ted

in a

gen

eral

elec

tion

45.8

049

.37

50.7

651

.69

50.7

749

.78

48.4

350

.78

50.0

249

.26

52.6

443

.48

42.5

952

.25

48.5

352

.07

50.5

549

.20

50.2

648

.21

52.0

949

.66

52.0

247

.56

49.5

951

.25

49.8

252

.16

51.3

056

.36

50.2

652

.54

50.4

950

.05

11

Inci

dent

s in

whi

ch

peop

le’s

right

to

vote

or g

et e

lect

ed

is c

urbe

d

76.9

287

.18

96.7

994

.23

96.1

584

.62

67.3

182

.69

96.1

596

.79

100.

0030

.77

34.6

286

.54

76.2

894

.23

100.

0087

.18

94.2

392

.95

96.1

589

.74

93.5

950

.00

77.5

691

.03

82.0

576

.28

96.1

587

.82

92.9

591

.67

88.4

684

.52

12

Inci

dent

s wh

ich

show

lack

/ sho

rtage

of fa

cilit

ies

for

peop

le w

ith

disa

bilit

ies

[diff

able

peop

le] a

s a

resu

lt

of w

hich

they

cann

ot e

xerc

ise

thei

r rig

hts

to v

ote

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

50.0

050

.00

13

The

qual

ity o

f the

perm

anen

t vot

er

list (

DPT)

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

30.0

030

.00

14

Perc

enta

ge o

f

popu

latio

n wh

o

use

thei

r rig

hts

to

vote

com

pare

d to

the

tota

l pop

ulat

ion

who

have

the

right

to v

ote

in a

gen

eral

elec

tion

(vot

er

turn

out)

75.3

165

.35

70.4

668

.11

74.5

776

.70

74.7

774

.34

69.7

759

.51

56.9

073

.11

71.2

672

.95

68.4

571

.66

76.7

075

.09

81.4

073

.36

69.3

571

.38

67.1

978

.77

78.1

873

.40

75.3

083

.18

77.9

881

.10

79.5

381

.22

89.7

073

.82

NOAs

pect

s/Va

riabl

es/

Indi

cato

rsAc

eh

North

Sum

ater

a

Wes

t

Sum

ater

aRi

au

Jam

bi

Sout

h

Sum

ater

aBe

ngku

luLa

mpu

ng

Babe

lRi

au

Isla

nd

DKI

Jaka

rta

Wes

t

Java

Cent

ral

Java

DI

Yogy

a-

karta

East

Java

Bant

en

Bali

Wes

t

Nusa

Teng

gara

East

Nusa

Teng

gara

Wes

t

Kalim

anta

n

Cent

ral

Kalim

anta

n

Sout

h

Kalim

anta

n

East

Kalim

anta

n

North

Sula

wesi

Cent

ral

Sula

wesi

Sout

h

Sula

wesi

Sout

h-

East

Sula

wesi

Goro

n-

talo

Wes

t

Sula

wesi

Mal

uku

North

Mal

uku

Wes

t

Papu

aPa

pua

INDO

NESI

A

15

Perc

enta

ge o

f

wom

en e

lect

ed

to a

s m

embe

rs

of p

rovi

ncia

l

parli

amen

t

com

pare

d to

the

tota

l mem

bers

of p

rovi

ncia

l

parli

amen

t

19.3

253

.87

42.4

260

.61

37.0

444

.44

65.2

262

.22

37.0

444

.44

78.0

183

.33

70.0

072

.73

60.0

058

.82

24.2

436

.37

24.2

418

.18

59.2

642

.43

66.6

781

.48

53.0

353

.33

51.8

574

.07

37.0

410

0.00

29.6

353

.03

23.8

152

.07

Varia

ble

6. P

oliti

cal

parti

cipa

tion

in

deci

sion

mak

ing

and

watc

hdog

94.9

833

.15

56.3

979

.11

50.0

662

.36

59.6

352

.84

46.5

669

.69

51.7

793

.48

61.1

152

.80

53.4

046

.86

49.1

045

.80

52.6

558

.71

68.9

075

.60

57.5

569

.44

42.2

133

.48

38.1

160

.63

54.8

947

.75

42.3

421

.64

37.2

055

.16

16

Perc

enta

ge o

f

dem

onst

ratio

ns/

strik

es th

at tu

rn

viol

ent t

o th

e

tota

l num

ber o

f

dem

onst

ratio

ns/

strik

es

95.6

552

.17

91.3

095

.65

91.3

060

.87

100.

0010

0.00

78.2

691

.30

95.6

586

.96

69.5

790

.00

68.2

685

.65

82.6

182

.61

86.9

686

.96

100.

0010

0.00

95.6

586

.96

69.5

755

.22

65.2

273

.91

95.6

590

.00

78.2

630

.43

65.2

281

.75

17

Com

plai

nts

on

the

runn

ing

of

gove

rnm

ent

94.3

114

.13

21.4

762

.57

8.81

63.8

519

.27

5.69

14.8

648

.07

7.89

100.

0052

.66

15.6

038

.53

8.07

15.6

08.

9918

.35

30.4

637

.80

51.1

919

.45

51.9

314

.86

11.7

411

.01

47.3

414

.13

5.50

6.42

12.8

49.

1728

.56

ASPE

CT 3

.

INST

ITUT

IONS

OF

DEM

OCRA

CY

62.1

360

.14

67.4

870

.68

72.4

369

.83

44.7

063

.27

59.6

567

.62

86.0

956

.61

64.4

360

.48

54.6

462

.83

73.2

462

.48

73.6

369

.85

78.6

970

.95

67.5

763

.91

57.1

464

.88

58.3

772

.32

59.1

566

.30

67.2

366

.48

58.9

762

.72

Varia

ble

7. F

ree

and

fair

elec

tions

57.7

725

.43

97.4

775

.83

86.0

879

.37

72.7

876

.99

89.6

497

.73

100.

0094

.19

94.9

491

.66

94.5

689

.50

98.1

088

.49

86.7

110

0.00

98.1

099

.37

98.7

397

.47

91.0

295

.20

65.2

593

.93

80.3

895

.57

98.1

094

.94

87.9

787

.67

18

Inci

dent

s th

at

indi

cate

the

parti

ality

of

Regi

onal

Gen

eral

Elec

tions

Com

mis

sion

s

(KPU

D) in

orga

nizi

ng a

nd

adm

inis

terin

g

gene

ral e

lect

ions

63.6

49.

0910

0.00

90.9

110

0.00

95.4

510

0.00

81.8

281

.82

95.4

510

0.00

90.9

110

0.00

90.9

195

.45

95.4

510

0.00

90.9

110

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.91

95.4

554

.55

95.4

510

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

91.4

6

19

Inci

dent

s or

repo

rting

of t

he

fraud

ulen

t cou

ntin

g

of v

otes

51.9

041

.77

94.9

460

.76

72.1

563

.29

45.5

772

.15

97.4

710

0.00

100.

0097

.47

89.8

792

.41

93.6

783

.54

96.2

086

.08

73.4

210

0.00

96.2

098

.73

97.4

794

.94

91.1

494

.94

75.9

592

.41

60.7

691

.14

96.2

089

.87

75.9

583

.89

Varia

ble

8. T

he

role

of r

egio

nal

parli

amen

t (DP

RD)

47.6

048

.31

28.1

545

.62

41.9

860

.57

9.03

51.1

567

.18

21.7

164

.12

22.5

269

.88

19.8

835

.41

36.0

751

.43

36.1

745

.00

40.5

728

.45

41.6

948

.43

29.6

321

.20

56.4

223

.91

36.1

027

.09

28.4

537

.37

18.4

315

.59

38.0

3

20

The

amou

nt o

f

budg

et a

lloca

ted

for e

duca

tion

per

capi

ta

68.1

022

.30

46.8

065

.55

46.1

081

.55

22.7

555

.30

91.5

543

.90

100.

0038

.35

100.

0043

.05

26.8

026

.80

38.6

59.

6036

.35

52.2

563

.80

100.

0010

0.00

33.1

028

.10

67.6

039

.05

51.4

545

.05

49.4

076

.50

21.5

519

.45

51.8

4

The

amou

nt o

f

budg

et a

lloca

ted

for

heal

th p

er c

apita

60.4

010

0.00

36.5

068

.70

81.1

010

0.00

4.60

95.7

010

0.00

21.9

094

.30

29.9

010

0.00

15.2

080

.50

80.5

051

.50

100.

0010

0.00

70.7

018

.40

24.7

043

.40

56.7

019

.30

100.

0033

.40

25.9

029

.40

30.1

025

.90

34.3

027

.80

56.3

9

21

Perc

enta

ge o

f

num

ber o

f reg

iona

l

regu

latio

ns

orig

inat

ing

from

the

right

to in

itiat

e

the

mak

ing

of

a re

gula

tion

exer

cise

d by

DPR

D

com

pare

d to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f

regi

onal

regu

latio

ns

prod

uced

25.0

021

.43

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

25.0

00.

000.

000.

0033

.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.45

7.14

0.00

23.0

87.

140.

000.

003.

4514

.29

23.0

80.

000.

005.

65

NOAs

pect

s/Va

riabl

es/

Indi

cato

rsAc

eh

North

Sum

ater

a

Wes

t

Sum

ater

aRi

au

Jam

bi

Sout

h

Sum

ater

aBe

ngku

luLa

mpu

ng

Babe

lRi

au

Isla

nd

DKI

Jaka

rta

Wes

t

Java

Cent

ral

Java

DI

Yogy

a-

karta

East

Java

Bant

en

Bali

Wes

t

Nusa

Teng

gara

East

Nusa

Teng

gara

Wes

t

Kalim

anta

n

Cent

ral

Kalim

anta

n

Sout

h

Kalim

anta

n

East

Kalim

anta

n

North

Sula

wesi

Cent

ral

Sula

wesi

Sout

h

Sula

wesi

Sout

h-

East

Sula

wesi

Goro

n-

talo

Wes

t

Sula

wesi

Mal

uku

North

Mal

uku

Wes

t

Papu

aPa

pua

INDO

NESI

A

22

Num

ber o

f

reco

mm

enda

tions

put f

orwa

rd b

y

DPRD

to th

e

exec

utiv

e

7.14

25.0

03.

577.

140.

003.

570.

007.

1421

.43

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.57

0.00

3.57

89.2

90.

000.

000.

007.

140.

000.

000.

0010

.71

0.00

0.00

57.1

410

.71

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.79

Varia

ble

9.

The

role

of p

oliti

cal

parti

es

16.0

415

.81

29.3

830

.99

41.3

129

.76

8.97

15.6

74.

9817

.12

71.1

319

.24

5.01

5.56

8.29

6.39

15.9

47.

4834

.55

6.79

69.4

417

.30

8.86

17.4

022

.86

5.58

6.71

43.2

35.

697.

6016

.94

17.2

37.

4119

.29

23

Cadr

e fo

rmat

ion

activ

ities

car

ried

out b

y po

litic

al

parti

es w

hich

parti

cipa

te in

gene

ral e

lect

ions

10.0

010

.00

24.2

928

.57

38.5

724

.29

0.00

10.0

00.

0010

.00

71.4

314

.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.0

00.

0028

.57

0.00

67.1

410

.00

0.00

10.0

014

.29

0.00

0.00

38.5

70.

000.

0010

.00

10.0

00.

0013

.33

24

Perc

enta

ge o

f

wom

en in

the

stew

ards

hip

of

polit

ical

par

ties

at

prov

inci

al le

vel

70.4

168

.07

75.2

452

.73

65.9

779

.05

89.7

066

.67

49.8

381

.20

68.4

463

.83

50.0

755

.56

82.9

063

.93

69.4

474

.79

88.3

567

.89

90.1

582

.98

88.6

084

.02

100.

0055

.77

67.0

885

.13

56.9

475

.97

79.3

782

.30

74.0

772

.92

Varia

ble

10. T

he

role

of r

egio

nal

gove

rnm

ent

bure

aucr

acy

92.3

092

.27

87.0

894

.11

89.1

788

.58

42.5

781

.69

90.1

298

.75

99.9

375

.06

80.3

087

.98

74.4

697

.51

98.4

888

.12

97.2

999

.63

95.9

994

.84

99.3

487

.98

52.5

198

.26

86.8

786

.87

83.3

296

.77

88.3

498

.34

98.4

188

.58

25

Num

ber o

f

repo

rts a

nd n

ews

conc

erni

ng th

e

use

of g

over

nmen

t

faci

litie

s fo

r

the

inte

rest

s of

certa

in n

omin

ees/

cand

idat

es /

polit

ical

par

ties

in

legi

slat

ive

gene

ral

elec

tions

93.6

995

.15

78.7

198

.83

95.0

189

.28

0.29

98.2

496

.92

97.5

099

.85

86.4

990

.90

98.6

858

.00

99.5

610

0.00

98.9

799

.12

99.2

799

.56

95.7

498

.68

98.6

894

.42

99.5

696

.48

96.4

886

.34

98.0

999

.41

99.7

199

.85

92.0

4

26

Invo

lvem

ent o

f civ

il

serv

ants

in p

oliti

cal

activ

ities

of

polit

ical

par

ties

in

legi

slat

ive

gene

ral

elec

tions

90.9

189

.39

95.4

589

.39

83.3

387

.88

84.8

565

.15

83.3

310

0.00

100.

0063

.64

69.7

077

.27

90.9

195

.45

96.9

777

.27

95.4

510

0.00

92.4

293

.94

100.

0077

.27

10.6

196

.97

77.2

777

.27

80.3

095

.45

77.2

796

.97

96.9

785

.12

Varia

ble

11.

The

role

of a

n

inde

pend

ent

judi

ciar

y

87.5

010

0.00

95.0

010

0.00

100.

0087

.50

90.0

087

.50

50.0

010

0.00

95.0

075

.00

75.0

095

.00

65.0

082

.50

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

82.5

087

.50

100.

0070

.00

100.

0010

0.00

95.0

010

0.00

95.0

010

0.00

82.5

090

.53

27

Cont

rove

rsia

l

rulin

gs h

ande

d

down

by

judg

es

75.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0075

.00

90.0

075

.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

050

.00

50.0

090

.00

40.0

065

.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

65.0

075

.00

100.

0040

.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

65.0

085

.91

28

Term

inat

ion

of

cont

rove

rsia

l

inve

stig

atio

ns b

y

pros

ecut

ors

or

polic

ei

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

90.0

010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0010

0.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0090

.00

100.

0010

0.00

95.1

5

MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA 2009 Indonesia … Docs/IDI/2009 Indonesia... · Chapter 1 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index 3 Chapter 1 Introduction

Documents