Analysis of Political Reform and Regional Politics in Indonesia

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the political landscape of Indonesia, focusing on the period following the fall of the Suharto regime. It examines the significant political changes, including the shift from an authoritarian government to a more decentralized system, and the resulting instability. The essay highlights the debates surrounding the need for a federal versus a unitary state, and the economic disparities that arose from the distribution of resources and power between the central government and the regions. It explores the impact of these political and economic factors on the social fabric of the country, with specific examples from regions like South Sumatra, Riau, and East Kalimantan. The analysis draws upon I Ketut Putra Erawan's essay, "Political Reform and Regional Politics in Indonesia," and discusses the implications of these changes for the country's future. The essay also touches on the demand for decentralized state to distribute power among different stakeholders and how it impacts the states wealth.

Running Head: POLITICS OF SOUTH EAST ASIA
Politics of South East Asia
Name of the Student:
Name of the University
Author note

1
POLITICS OF SOUTH EAST ASIA
The paper aims at excavating and elucidating the political state of Indonesia, south
east Asian country after analyzing the essay ‘Political Reform and the regional Politics in
Indonesia’. The later part of the 20th century witnessed a political turmoil in the history of
Indonesia as the country went through several political changes. The primary one of them
being the turning over of the authoritarian regime propagated by President Suharto. Such
changes were followed by serious instability where the structure of the nation state was
scrutinized. The political changes in the country were caught between the debate between the
need of federal state in opposition of unitary state. The political instability stemmed from the
fact that old system of a gigantic country like Indonesia destabilized the foundation of the
state. Socialists reverted against the demand for a unitary system where the every power of
the system was invested with a centralized government. Problems involved certain regions
demanding autonomy over exploiting the natural resource of their region without any kind of
inhibition.
The need for reforming the regional central relationship can be viewed concerning
three major area that requires crucial focus. The center region relationship involves a concern
over the economy, as by granting autonomy to the regional parties and municipalities the
control and regulation of the monetary factors could have been decentralized. Second
problem involves the accountability of the regional forces of control and the final one
involves the redistribution of the authority among the decentralized regional power holders
(Erawan, 1999).
The tussle between central-region relationships had affected the economy to its core.
Any particular region are capable of deriving their revenue from state subsidies, their
individually generated revenue, loans and shares. The central subsidies being the most
important, contributed to maximum share. These subsidies have been granted to mitigate the
differences in the rates of growth. The differences in the .GRDP of the region and the SDO of

2
POLITICS OF SOUTH EAST ASIA
the country contributes in the financial imbalances that the region contributes to the country
economy (Erawan, 1999). However, the differences are not the only factor that are impacting
the economic disparities of the particular tregion. At times the distribution of SDO are not
equal in terms of the regions concerned as a result there are discrepancies in the differences
as well. The regions that encounters these disparities are South Sumatra, Riau and East of
Kalimantan. The example, which has been sited in the respect by the author is the 3% of
GRDP as it has been shared by Aceh while receiving only 2.74% of SDO (Erawan, 1999).
The disparities are also linked with the differences between the countryside and the urban
region. The urban side are backed financially by the virtue of their position. These urban
regions are backed by their advantages and their ability to contribute more to the economy of
the country. Certain regions enjoy advantages of being at the allocating position.
Scholars are of opinion that these regions gather their advantages because of the
support that they had received from previous political system. Allocation of the subsidy was
followed by the party’s involvement in the governing body. The period of President Suharto
followed the constitution to ensure equivocal division of monetary resource. The portions
allocated to the financially weaker states were lesser in number and can easily be considered
as a tokenistic approach (Erawan, 1999).
The political turntable of Indonesia has contributed to the political disparities of the
country. The changes in the government has resulted in an unequal distribution of wealth
among the concerned provinces. The wealthy provinces enjoyed their position of advantages
while the provinces with weaker economic background continued to remain in their position
of economic instability (Erawan, 1999). The economic causes has been joined by the political
factors to bring it to the present state of ambiguity. The demand for the decentralized state
has been to distribute the power equivocally among different stakeholders’ states (Rosser,
2013).

3
POLITICS OF SOUTH EAST ASIA
The situation at Indonesia is a situation of political and economic instability. With the
changes in the authoritarian rule to a Unitarian system of government, the country has
experienced several turmoil following the changes. The changes are not solely because eof
the economic factors but included factors of authority and distribution of power(Erawan,
1999). The stakeholders of the regional domains demand the distribution of power, however
such distribution might bring along its own repercussions. The distribution of authority is
closely linked with the distribution of states wealth between the states on the basis of the
power nurtured by the authorities in the central. As the case has exhibited political disparities
have contributed to the social and economic disparity of the country leading the imbalance its
nation state.

4
POLITICS OF SOUTH EAST ASIA
References
Erawan, I. K. P. (1999). Political reform and regional politics in Indonesia. Asian Survey,
588-612.
Rosser, A. (2013). The politics of economic liberalization in Indonesia: state, market and
power. Routledge.