The struggle for customary land rights in Indonesia gained prominence following the collapse of Suharto’s authoritarian regime in 1998 and the country’s subsequent transition to democracy and decentralization. While these changes seized new political space to (re)claim rights over land previously appropriated by public authorities and companies, the realization of these rights has remained limited in practice. This study examines why recognition of customary land rights has succeeded in some communities but not in others by comparing three districts in Sulawesi. We identify four main findings: while various national laws have formally recognized customary land rights of adat communities, in all cases, adat communities struggled with legal fragmentation. Second, those who were able to establish close connections with influential politicians and did not face alliances of predatory interests between state and business elites were best positioned to get their adat claims recognized by local authorities. Third, the local presence of NGOs is crucial in helping the communities navigate complex government procedures, but most importantly, in cultivating and maintaining close ties with state actors. Finally, reform-oriented leadership can facilitate recognition, particularly when communities have established strong informal ties with this leader. Based on these findings, we propose several measures to enhance the prospect for recognition: simplifying bureaucratic procedures; strengthening the capacities and outreach of local NGOs to support adat communities; emphasizing the importance of developing close, informal ties by adat communities with local leaders; and reforming the electoral system to reduce politicians’ vulnerability to co-optation by extractive interests. • Entrenched alliances of predatory elite interests narrow the prospect for successful customary land rights struggle. • Customary land rights struggle is shaped by dynamic constellations of various contextual factors. • Comparison provides nuanced insights of the prospects and limits of democratization and decentralization on land struggle.
Hidayat et al. (Tue,) studied this question.