THE MAKING OF THE INDONESIAN MULTIPARTY SYSTEM: A CARTELIZED PARTY SYSTEM AND ITS ORIGIN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kuskridho Ambardi, MA * * * * * The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee Professor R. William Liddle, adviser Approved by Professor Richard Gunther Professor Goldie Shabad ______________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in Political Science Copyright by Kuskridho Ambardi 2008 ABSTRACT This study explores the phenomenon of party interaction in a new democracy. It seeks to provide a systematic understanding of the nature of the Indonesian party system created since 1999. It is widely accepted that a free election with more than one participant is a primary indication of a competitive party system. This study goes beyond the electoral arena to see whether political parties still maintain a degree of competition after the election. The premise of the study is that political parties may exhibit a different pattern of interaction in another arena. Competitiveness may disappear once the parties leave the hurly-burly of the election and enter a new arena of interaction. To capture this possibility, party interaction is examined in three arenas: electoral, governmental, and legislative. The key concept of the study, cartelization, is adapted from Katz and Mair’s concept of cartel party. In their original application, Katz and Mair use this concept to describe the emergence of a new type of political party. This study argues that the concept of cartel should be applied not at the individual but at the system level to capture the nature of party interaction. Cartelization is thus understood as a collective decision made by parties to give up their ideological and programmatic differences. It is the opposite of competition. ii The primary finding of the study is that party competition ended after the election, and was followed by the creation of a cartel. The origin of the cartelized party system was the parties’ collective dependence on rent-seeking to meet their financial needs. This, in turn, created a situation in which parties’ political and economic fates were tied together as a collectivity. Their survival as individual parties is thus defined by their ability to maintain the existence of the cartel. This study offers a new context in which to evaluate the importance of electoral competitiveness for understanding the nature of party systems. It gives us a more complex framework in which to assess their contribution to the development of new democracies. It does this by applying Katz and Mair’s concept of cartelization at the system level, not at the party level as they do. Finally, it goes beyond Katz and Mair by specifying the source of cartelization in the state’s non-budgetary funds, which encourage political parties to perform illegal rent-seeking activities because these funds are not intended for financing the parties. iii Dedicated to: Susanti Kusumasari (wife), Marsa Harisa Daniswara (daughter), Hafid Sasayuda Ambardi (son) iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is the culmination of a three-year effort to write a research design, to collect and systematize data, and finally to compose an intelligible and hopefully convincing argument and to weave evidence into that argument. Numerous individuals were involved in these processes. I want to express my gratitude to those who helped me most: • My dissertation committee: Professor R. William Liddle (adviser and chair), for his uninterrupted support and encouragement since the early stages of my journey. The many conversations that I had with him – academic and non-academic – were always inspiring. I am very thankful to have had him as my adviser and still to be able to count him as a friend; Professor Richard Gunther, who gave me suggestions on how to refine my argument and evidence; and Professor Goldie Shabad who encouraged me to revise the introductory part of this dissertation. I must confess that at first, I thought they added to my burdens, but in the end I found their comments invaluable. • The “Columbus mafia”: Rizal Mallarangeng, Saiful Mujani, Eep Saefulloh Fatah, and Bang Salim Said for helping reacquaint me with Jakarta during my fieldwork. Their vast networks helped immensely to enable me to obtain access to my sources. In addition, Rizal Mallarangeng and Saiful Mujani gave me lasting v friendships for which I will always be grateful. Their homes and their families were my homes and families while I was doing my fieldwork. Rizal Mallarangeng also set up an office for me in the Freedom Institute and arranged some financial assistance for my research. • Journalists: For the sake of confidentiality, not all of them can be mentioned here. Two must be singled out, however, because they opened critical gates to my sources: Karaniya Dharmasaputra and Prasidono “Inod” Listiaji. • Several individuals who directly or indirectly helped me to finish this dissertation. Professor Mohtar Mas’oed, Dean of the College of Social and Political Sciences, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, who has always expected me to come back to Gadjah Mada and his faculty; Yohanes Sulaiman for his friendship in Columbus; Agus Sudibyo who helped me with the process of collecting documents in Jakarta, and Djayadi Hanan who helped me in the last stages of completing my data analysis; to all of them, my deepest thanks. • The Jakarta circle: Hamid Basyaib, Jeffrie Geovanie, Luthfi Assyaukanie, Ahmad Sahal, Ulil Abshar Abdalla, Nong Darul Mahmadan and Sarah “Aci” should be mentioned for their hospitality during my Jakarta fieldwork. They stimulated my thoughts and helped me to relax whenmy fieldwork began to wear me down. Included in this circle are Freedom Institute personnel who embraced me in their office. • My extended family in Batu, Malang, East Java, from whom I found more encouragement. My parents, Hari S. Singgih and Sutjiati, my brothers Himawan Bayu (he won the sibling race by completing his Ph.D. earlier than me) who vi helped me to acquire KPU data and Yos Puntohadi, and my sister Wilis Purnadewi, who patiently waited for me to come back to Indonesia. They all make my life more meaningful. • My other extended family, the Budiman family, who gave continual support in various forms. This included Leila Budiman, who babysat my new born son when I was carrying out my fieldwork, and Arief Budiman, who let his wife Leila spend an extended period of time with his grandson on a different continent, and Adrian Budiman’s family in Athens, Ohio, who cheerfully let my family stay with them on many weekends; for all of them I cannot say thank you enough. • Lastly, I owe special gratitude to my own family: my wonderful wife Susanti Kusumasari, my kind-hearted daughter Marsa Daniswara, and my energetic son Hafid Ambardi. My wife constantly had to juggle between her full-time job and her family which could be very stressful. Her success in handling both made it possible for me to concentrate on my dissertation. Marsa and Hafid were not thrilled with my dissertation project, which they saw as an incomprehensible burden – especially when they had to give up their playtime with the computer. But I think they knew intuitively that this burden would eventually make their life better. In any event, their smiles made every day cheerful. vii VITA 2003 Master of Arts (M.A.), Political Science The Ohio State University, Department of Political Science 2000 Master of Arts (M.A.) , Telecommunications The Ohio University, College of Communication 1992 Doktorandus (Drs.), Communication Science University of Gadjah Mada, The College of Social and Political Sciences * * * * * 2003-2007 Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University Department of Political Science 2000-2003 Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio State University Department of Political Science 1998-2000 Fulbright Scholarship recipient 1995- … Teaching Staff, Gadjah Mada University College of Social and Political Sciences FIELD OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science (Comparative Politics) Minor Field: Political Sociology Regions of Specialization: Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………. v Vita ……………………………………………………………………………………… viii List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………… xii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………… xiv Chapters: 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………... 1 1.1 Research Question …………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………… 3 1.3 Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………………... 6 1.3.1 Sartori’s Model of Party System ………………………………….. 7 1.3.2 Dividing the Arena of Competition: A Justification ……………… 11 1.3.3 Competition and Cartelization ……………………………………. 13 1.3.4 Content of Party Competition: Two Approaches …………………. 18 1.3.5. Source of Cartelization …………………………………………… 27 1.4 Research Method ……………………………………………………………. 30 1.5. Structure of Analysis ……………………………………………………….. 32 2. Cleavages, Collective Interests, and Political Parties A Historical Overview ………………………………………………………….. 35 2.1 Formation of Two Cleavages ……………………………………………….. 36 2.2 Party Politics in the 1950s: Multiple Political Oppositions ………………… 39 2.2.1 The Campaigns and Issue Positions ………………………………. 43 ix 2.2.2 Two Views of Party Politics ………………………………………. 50 2.2.3 Cross-class Strategy: Case of PKI ………………………………… 56 2.3 Guided Democracy Interlude ……………………………………………….