Autonomy and Disintegration in Indonesia

Autonomy and Disintegration in Indonesia. Edited by Damien Kingsbury and Harry Aveling. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Pp. 219. the passage of regional autonomy laws in Indonesia, that country has moved headlong into one of the most massive transfers of political power in recent history. But Indonesia choose not to grant autonomy to the provinces but to the almost 400 regencies across the archipelago. Jakarta has also made special deals with the two most troublesome and independence-minded provinces of Aceh and Papua, granting them exceptions with the devolution of power to the provincial level. Autonomy and Disintegration in Indonesia is an exploration of this. It also grants considerable space to the problem of independence and communal-related conflicts. A central theme that runs through this book is whether Indonesia will be able to continue in its current form - the book's title gives the first hint. A number of authors raise question marks over Indonesia's future. Kingsbury writes in the introduction: Since 1997, Indonesia has been heading down a path towards what has very often seemed like disintegration. (p. 1). Ruth McVey ponders whether or not Indonesia has lost some cohesion in recent times (p. 11) and Ann Kumar leaves the question hanging: Can the central government hold Indonesia together? (p. 45). Rizal Sukma, Indonesian academic and political advisor, also mentions that Indonesia is in danger of breaking up into a collection of smaller units (p. 66). Certainly the spectre of Indonesia's coming collapse is a national obsession among the Indonesian political elite. The reader gets a slightly different reflection on this problem in Edward Aspinall's chapter, which, although largely on the problem of Aceh, indicates that Indonesia as an entity may have stronger bonds than the others suggest. Otherwise how can Indonesia's cohesion outside of Aceh and Papua be explained? Aspinall notes for example that anti-Jakarta sentiment in Riau and Banten failed to generate widespread independence movements in both cases because they lack the history of military repression, which is highly evident in Aceh and Papua (p. 145). The barriers to Indonesia's dissolution are still formidable, and range from the strength of Indonesian nationalism outside of Aceh and Papua, and the extreme reluctance of the international community to see Indonesia fail. There are other differences between the chapters of this book. The book starts with three theoretical overview chapters on the nature of state in Indonesia and in developing societies in general. Paul James, in a very thought-provoking essay, has clearly had the advantage of seeing an advance version of Ruth McVey's paper, which he systematically critiques and criticizes - apparently McVey declined to enter into the fray. Missing from this theoretical discussion is a clear explanation to the reader of terms and conceptions surrounding federalism and autonomy. The fundamental difference between the two being that federalism, or the rights of states, are constitutionally embedded, while regional autonomy remains at the discretion of the national legislature. (Although in actual practice the distinction can become blurred.) The chapters in the second half of this volume dwell largely on case studies. …