Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

An International Comparative Case Study Master Thesis

Master Public Administration Accent: Democratic Governance Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Frank Hendriks

Rosaline Zeeman (131540) Tilburg University August 18, 2012

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 4 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Definition of the Problem ...... 7

2.1 Definition of the Goal ...... 7 2.2 Phrasing the questions ...... 8

2.2.1 Research question ...... 8 2.2.2 Sub question ...... 8

2.3 Relevance ...... 9

2.3.1 Scientific relevance ...... 9 2.3.2 Social relevance ...... 9

3 Theoretical perspective ...... 10

3.1 Definition of liberal democracy ...... 10 3.2 Influences on democracy? ...... 12

3.2.1 Asian Style Democracy ...... 13 3.2.2 Economy and democracy ...... 14 3.2.3 Islam and democracy ...... 15

3.3 Theory on organizing democracy ...... 16 3.4 Democratic patterns investigated ...... 18

4 Research approach ...... 22

4.1 Design ...... 22 4.2 Methodology ...... 23 4.3 Case selection ...... 23

5 Case studies ...... 25

5.1 Democratic comparison ...... 26

5.1.1 Equality and Civil Liberties ...... 27 5.1.2 Alternative information ...... 29 5.1.3 Transparency and Power Division ...... 30 2

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

5.1.4 Elections ...... 31

5.2 Conclusion on democracy ...... 32 5.3 Institutional comparison ...... 33 5.4 Indonesian Polity ...... 33

5.4.1 Indonesian Elections ...... 34 5.4.2 Indonesian Civil Society ...... 35 5.4.3 Indonesian Constitution ...... 36 5.4.4 Indonesian Judiciary ...... 36 5.4.5 Indonesian Bank ...... 37

5.5 Malaysian Polity ...... 37

5.5.1 Malaysian Elections ...... 39 5.5.2 Malaysian Civil Society ...... 41 5.5.3 Malaysian Constitution ...... 41 5.5.4 Malaysian Judiciary ...... 42 5.5.5 Malaysian Bank ...... 42

5.6 Majoritarian or Consensus? ...... 43

6 Placing in perspective ...... 45

6.1 Colonial History ...... 45

6.1.1 Dutch Colonial History in the East Indies ...... 45 6.1.2 British Colonial History in Malaya ...... 49

6.2 Drawing parallels and considering alternative causes ...... 54

6.2.1 Other independent variables ...... 58

7 Discussion & Conclusion ...... 61 Literature ...... 64

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Abstract The central theme in this master thesis is democracy development and the possible connections that can be drawn between the period of colonization and today’s polity in Indonesia and Malaysia. By means of a definition of liberal democracy (six points are given) and the models of Consensus and Westminster democracy of Lijphart (1999), two case studies have been carried out. These showed that certain parallels can be drawn between the colonial period and the polity of both countries. It also showed that these parallels are more difficult to find in the functioning of their democracies.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

1 Introduction “[E]very single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 57) This quote, which is originally given by Weiner in 1987, will give the central theme of this thesis: how democratic are former British colonies compared to colonies of other countries, in this thesis a former colony of the Netherlands. The quote is now about 25 years old, and a lot has changed the world since then. What remained is the call for democracy. This, together with the newer theme of good governance, is still one of the main goals to be achieved by “western” countries for huge parts of the world. The on-going discussion, however, continues to be about the content of this subject. What makes a country really democratic? Just free and fair elections? Different experts use different kinds of requirements to determine whether a country is democratic. This discussion about the definition makes the subject contested (Hendriks, 2006, p. 35). A more important question for several parts of the world is: how to get a good and well-functioning democracy? Despite the complexity of the subject, it stays an important goal. Different arguments are heard on the subject of democracy development. Some say culture and tradition are irrelevant, such as Sen (2000) in his article ‘Democracy as a universal value’. His examples are Asian countries like Japan. Democracy has developed in these countries, and they are not known for their democratic tradition (Sen, 2000). But does tradition and culture have no relevance at all? Zakaria (2003), on the other hand, claims that a substantial part of the lack of democracy can be found in economic development. He indicates that a higher GDP (Gross Domestic Product) improves the quality of democratic structures and can even make the democracy more stable (Zakaria, 2007, p. 79). However, a solution or definite outcome about the best path to democracy is very hard to give. A lot of countries still have difficulty putting democracy into practice. Apparently, many different factors are of importance. Another factor is given by the citation mentioned above. This quote comes down to the argument that history is relevant for the development of democracy. This historic argument will be investigated in this master thesis. Can a particular historical period of colonization still be of such an influence in today’s organization of democracy in former colonies? What did the British do, that made it more likely for the

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia colonies to transit to a functioning democracy? And is this quote, made in 1987 by Myron Weiner still valid or true after so many changes in the World Order after the ending of the Cold War? And is a continuous democratic experience important to reach a functioning democracy? This will be a central theme in this master thesis. In line with this theme is the research to a possible historic influence. If there is an historic influence, what can be noticed of that in the current polity and politics. To get a quick and rather (formally) complete overview in this the theory of Lijphart (1999) on Westminster and Consensus democracy will be used. This theory or model is a rather good instrument to see the differences between the Netherlands and Great Britain in the field of polity. Is this also the case when the case study countries are being compared with one another and with the former colony? The case selection (which is described in chapter 2) made it obvious that two countries are qualified for this research, these are Malaysia and Indonesia. Those neighbouring countries in Asia both experienced colonial rule until after the Second World War and have more than one million inhabitants (CIA World Factbook, 2011). Malaysia is a former British colony (independent since 1957) and is still part of the British Commonwealth (Index Mundi, 2012; CIA World Factbook, 2012). Indonesia is a former Dutch colony and has gone through a violent end of the colonial rule. It declared itself independent in 1945, but was recognized as such by the Netherlands in 1949 (Index Mundi, 2012). Hence, the two countries have a similar past of colonial rule, but have developed differently after the Second World War. One is still part of the symbolic empire of a former hegemon and with regular elections. The other one has not such a connection with the former ruler and has experienced authoritarian rule for quite a while, but has a higher democratic ranking than Malaysia. The above given quote will be related to this fact and this thesis will be used to explore the quote’s validity today. In this research, there will firstly be an explanation of the problem, the goals and the questions that are going to have a central position in this master thesis. Secondly, a theoretical foundation and an operationalization for this thesis will be provided in chapter 3. After that, the methodology will be clarified. Then the case studies will take place, beginning with grading the democracies and categorizing them according to the theory of Lijphart (1999). Setting the scene historically by means of an exploration to the possible causes of certain developments will take place. After that, the posed questions will be answered and a discussion on this theme will be held.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

2 Definition of the Problem Quite a few countries have been subjected to colonial rule. Most of them gained their independence in the twentieth century. This process of decolonization was not always a smooth process and sometimes included a lot of struggle. Afterwards, it was expected that these countries would end up with a functioning democracy. Some countries managed to have regular democratic tendencies. However, in some cases, the opposite was reality and authoritarian rule flourished. Examples of this can be found in Asia. In this master thesis, Malaysia and Indonesia are subjected to this study. When one looks to the recent history of this region, two kinds of remarkable situations took place in the 1990s that influenced political change. The first one was the Asian Miracle, four Asian countries, i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, rapidly developed economically. The development of these countries has also had positive consequences for other countries in the region. The newly industrializing economies (NIEs), that consist of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, showed some benefit of this and were also characterized by a remarkable economic growth in those years (World Bank, 1993). The turn came with the Asian financial crisis of 1997 (the second situation). This crisis hit the region hard, also Malaysia and Indonesia, and this did also have its political consequences (Quadir & Lele, 2004, pp. 3-6). It caused, mainly in Indonesia, social unrest among its citizens and the authoritarian leader resigned (Douglas, 2005). In Malaysia, another solution to this financial crisis was used, called Asian Style Democracy( (Hood, 1998), (Neher, 1994)). Thus, in both countries a new period ushered. This new period has been going on for the past ten to fifteen years. How is the situation now? What are the results of the period after the financial crisis? Has it lead to more democracy in both countries and is their colonial period still of any relevance to the point of where they stand now? Is the former British colony indeed more democratic as the quote from Zakaria’s book suggests? Are there still indications that show similarities with the former colony? So is the former colony an example to them, or quite the opposite and have the countries defined their own way? And what kind of conclusions and/or lessons can be drawn from this transition process?

2.1 Definition of the Goal The goal in this master thesis is to shed light on the status of democracy in Malaysia and Indonesia in order to contribute to the discussion on democracy in transition. Also, the 7

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia hypothesis on British colonial rule in combination with more democracy and the influences of the former colonizers to the polity will be validated and investigated. The way to reach these goals is study six formal aspects of democracy in order to elucidate the development of two countries in light of Zakaria’s quote and with the use of the theory of Lijphart (1999) to categorize both countries. The information that will be extracted through this technique will be compared to the colonial history of the two countries in order to find explanations and parallels. In short: The goal is to gain insights on the status of democracy and the transition of democracy in both Malaysia and Indonesia and to what extent certain parallels can be drawn between these two Asian countries and their two former colonizers/European countries in the field of formal polity and design of their democracy. The expectation is that democracy is still in development in both Malaysia and Indonesia, because transition is a process that takes a lot of time. Also, it is expected that the influence of Britain is greater on Malaysia, than the influence of the Netherlands on Indonesia. The reason for this could be found in the decolonization period, which went less smoothly in Indonesia.

2.2 Phrasing the questions To come to a sound analysis and conclusion, a few of questions will give guidance through the thesis. These are divided in one main research question and a couple of sub questions that first are descriptive, then empirical, and at last analytical. These sub questions are part of the evidence and argumentation to answer the main question.

2.2.1 Research question The research question will be: ‘What is the status of democracy in Malaysia and Indonesia and how can the distinction in the field of polity and the structure of democracy between both countries and their former colonizers be defined?

2.2.2 Sub question Five sub questions have been formulated in order to answer the research question. The first will be set out in the theoretical framework. After that, the case studies will take place and then a historical setting will be given.

1. How can democracy be defined, what are external factors that can have influence on democracy and how can democracy be exploited in different models? 8

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

2. What is the status of democracy in Malaysia and Indonesia now? 3. Can Malaysia and Indonesia be categorized in the democratic model that is provided for in the theoretical framework? 4. How did the British and Dutch colonizers shape Malaysia and Indonesia respectively on the issues of democracy during the period of colonization and when they left the countries after the Second World War? 5. How did the country develop after the period of decolonization until now?

In the analysis the case studies will be placed in perspective of the research question, in order to formulate an answer.

2.3 Relevance Doing research to a particular subject can have value for future developments or investigations. It can add knowledge to already existing knowledge. That is what makes it worthwhile to look for new explanations and solutions. And that is what is looked after in this master thesis.

2.3.1 Scientific relevance In the scientific world many theories about democracy in general and democracy in countries other than the United States and Europe can be found. In this thesis some of these theories will be tested. In particular the link between former British colonial rule and the development of democracy stands to the tests. The two case studies that have a central place in this thesis may be of influence on the theory about this phenomenon. Are there exceptions on the quote that has been given in the introduction and can the theory be modified for that matter? And more general, can history give new insights on the status of democracy? Hopefully, this thesis will give a contribution to the on-going discussion about the development to democracy, that is a hot item in today’s changing democratic world.

2.3.2 Social relevance In light of the current situation in various countries in the Middle East, the development of democracy is an up-to-date debate. If this thesis gives insights in the development of democratic processes of countries with a certain background, it can be valuable for the further stadia of development of democracy for these countries. What can be learned from mistakes or developments in the past? Also, it might give an insight in the influence of today’s democracy promoters in non-western countries, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. 9

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

3 Theoretical perspective In this theoretical framework, core concepts of this master thesis will be formed, and they will lay down the basis for the perspective taken here. Therefore, it will contain some “abstract” definitions such as (liberal) democracy, representation and possible influences of history, economy, religion, and culture on democracy. Subsequently, the model of Lijphart (1999) will be set out to give a basis for comparing formal government aspects. After this, these ideas will be transformed into variables that make the subject researchable.

3.1 Definition of liberal democracy As already mentioned in the introduction, defining the concept of democracy is a difficult task, even when only the view of west European democracy is given. Choices have to be made. To be as complete as possible the view of different authors, i.e. Zakaria (1997), Dahl (1998), Burkens, Kummeling, Vermeulen, & Widdershoven (2006), and Hendriks (2006), on democracy will be given and combined. The general accepted part of democracy is the translation of the word, that holds the idea that the people rule, by themselves or through others who are elected, and that they are also influenced and checked by the people. The people are thus the cornerstone of democracy in the public domain (Hendriks, 2006, p. 35). Inevitably, the rest of the definition will be formed by the west European idea of what democracy is. Zakaria (2007) calls this liberal democracy. Dahl (1998) has his own idea about democracy. He believes that there are five identifiable criteria for a democratic process. These are: effective participation, which means ‘equal and effective opportunities’ for members; voting equality, every member should have an equal vote; enlightened understanding, about having the opportunity to learn about other relevant arguments; control of the agenda, members should be able to decide the topics that are to be discussed; and the last one is the inclusion of adults, all adults should have these four rights (Dahl, 1998, pp. 37-38). According to Dahl, these criteria are ideal standards. They can never be fully implemented, but they ‘(…) provide standards against which to measure the performance of actual associations that claim to be democratic’ (Dahl, 1998, p. 42). In short, they are guidelines for those who seek after democracy. Other authors who wrote about requirements for democracy are Burkens. Kummeling, Vermeulen & Widdershoven (2006). They presented a list of basic requirements for democracy in their book. This list consisted of the following points: active (voting) and passive (eligibility) suffrage; the right to strive for political power; existence of political 10

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia fundamental rights (e.g. freedom of speech, press and association); a system of checks and balances with co-decision and/or verification possibilities; transparency of decision-making procedures; majority rule; and respecting the right of minorities (Burkens, Kummeling, Vermeulen, & Widdershoven, 2006, p. 196). Hendriks (2006) adds another important point to the definition that is indissoluble connected with the idea of democracy: equality. Every citizen should have the possibility to have equal opportunities to contribute to the democratic decision-making process (Hendriks, 2006, p. 35). He gives some minimum requirements too. The first one is focussed on representation of the people, assuming that most democracies are indirect democracy. The second one is free, fair and frequent elections to give the people the opportunity to speak freely. A third one is alternative information, the presence of information outside government sources. The fourth and fifth requirements are freedom of speech and association. People should be able to speak their mind freely and organize themselves. The last one is inclusive citizen rights, all adults should be included in the process of the political community (Hendriks, 2006, pp. 37-38). The awareness of the distinction between “just” democracy and liberal democracy is made by Zakaria. The concept of the rule of law and an extra emphasis on the separation of power makes the difference (Zakaria, 1997, p. 22). These points are actual part of the idea of the constitutional state. Hence, this concept is closely linked to the term constitutional liberalism, which emphasizes the ‘government goals’ (Zakaria, 1997, p. 25), rule of law and the protection of individual rights (Zakaria, 1997, p. 26). Although closely attached, there is a contradiction (or paradox?) between liberal democracy and constitutional liberalism. The latter one means that government power is restricted or limited, while the former says the people should decide unrestrictedly. The argumentation behind this, is that the people should be protected against the government (and its extremes), so that certain natural rights remain reserved (Zakaria, 1997, p. 26). It has all to do with balancing and sharing power, and the prevention of power concentration (Zakaria, 2007, p. 102). For most west European people these points are taken for granted. But as Zakaria pointed out, democracy can also exist without constitutional liberalism. This is what he calls an illiberal democracy. Those illiberal democracies have some democratic tendencies, such as elections and institutions. This, however, does not mean that they function well. Zakaria (1997, 2007) distinguishes illiberal democracies for they often have a strong centralized state, whereas this characteristic does not guarantee a good functioning government and lack the 11

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia part of constitutional liberalism. Presidential decrees (without consulting a parliament), a lack of civil liberties and human rights and strict central rule are common examples in a lot countries that call themselves democratic (Zakaria, 1997, p. 23). Even for some countries, the transition to democracy has made them evolve into a dictatorship. This is not what the West (i.e. Europe and the US) meant when they wanted to democratize the whole world (Zakaria, 1997, p. 22). Different views on democracy have been given. A lot of these views have points in common, but are formulated differently. In order to be as complete as possible, a combination will be made of these different views. Firstly, what seems to be an important idea is the concept equality. Several times and in different ways it is mentioned. Equality should be interwoven in the whole concept of democracy. Equality is civic and human rights for all adults, including respect of minority rights. It is equal active and passive suffrage and the opportunity to participate in the process. A second point that is important for a good functioning of democracy is the availability of information. Not just any information, but alternative, as in other than the opinion of the state, information. This is closely related to freedom of speech and free press. Only if the latter two are available, alternative information is possible. A third important characteristic is transparency and, connected to that, agenda setting. A transparent process of decision-making can make the system more clear, and gives everybody the opportunity to co-decide the agenda. A fourth point is free and fair elections, with representatives, multiple parties (with the ability to have an opposing view) and a majority rule. The majority wins, and decide through elections who will represent them. A last characteristic deals with the system of checks and balances and the division of power. This last point is what makes this definition really liberal. Checks and balances mean a system of co-decision and control, where there is a set of rules, that is called a constitution, and to which everyone has to abide and comply with, also the government and a president. In this thesis, these five points are used as the definition of liberal democracy. It showed that liberal democracy is more than just holding elections, it is a whole set of characteristics, that organizes the public life.

3.2 Influences on democracy? The influence of history on the development of democracy is the central subject of this master thesis. However, according to some political scientists, this is not the only influence on development of democracy. Some people believe that democracy can evolve independently of

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia cultural traditions, others claim that specific continents can have their own style of democracy. Especially the Asian style democracy, that is accentuated by the president of Singapore (Kim, 1997) seems relevant in this research. Does there exist such a thing as a cultural dependency in cases of democracy? A second element is the influence of the economy. According to some scientist, for example Zakaria (2007), GDP is of importance to create a stable democracy. A third, often heard argument that is given in this debate on democracy is the influence of religion, specifically Islam. In both Malaysia and Indonesia a significant part of the population is Muslim. Is that of any relevance for establishing democracy? Below, these three arguments will be discussed briefly and at the end of this thesis will be determined what the actual relevance of these arguments are in the matter discussed.

3.2.1 Asian Style Democracy Scientist have not yet agreed whether the Asian Style Democracy really exists, or that it is just created in order to resist against the western view of democracy or economic and social problems that occur in the west( (Neher, 1994), (Kim, 1997), (Hood, 1998)). Whether it exists or not, there is discussion about it, which makes it relevant to give a brief explanation on the subject. Asian Style democracy is based on the Confucian philosophy. The basic idea is that the individual is primarily part of the group instead of just the individual (Neher, 1994). This Confucian wisdom says that the prosperity of the group suffers if individuals are only concerned with their own interests (Hood, 1998). When it comes to democracy, it means that social order and political stability are also placed above the individual rights. As Kim (1997) explains in his article: ‘Democracy is not something to be placed above other social values or taken as an end in itself. Rather, it is an instrument to serve higher social goals such as order and economic well-being’ (Kim, 1997). This already shows some typical features of Asian Style democracy. Patron-client communitarianism is an important aspect of this style (Neher, 1994) and comes down to the emphasis on hierarchy and loyalty. People have certain roles in their network and family that establish a certain of predictability in socio-political patterns (Neher, 1994). To this role, one is loyal. These roles can also be found in the political area, for example: citizens are loyal to the leader, because he provides goods and services (Hood, 1998). In this way, hierarchy and respect for authority is also part of organizing the society. Personalism, i.e. emphasis on personality of the leader, is also an important factor. A leader

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia often established a whole structure of government around him that is built on his personality. This is also related to the idea of patron-client communitarianism: the leader is the patron of the society/country and has full authority (Neher, 1994). Because of the lack of civil liberties, the style is also regarded as soft-authoritarianism. According to Hood (1998), Asian Style Democracy is just an authoritarian way of ruling over the people, in order to keep up the leader’s power. Hood says that this is the reason why they emphasize the special situation of the region, so that the establishment of democratic values can be prevented. He regards Asian Style Democracy as a regime that has not yet finished its transition period to full democracy (Hood, 1998).

3.2.2 Economy and democracy The influence of economy on the stability of a democracy is also a factor. Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, & Limongi (1996) investigated the influence of economy and found out that the wealthier a country is the likelier it is a democracy will survive. Even poor countries can have a rather stable democracy or make their country more stable if they have economic growth (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, & Limongi, 1996). They even state that: “Above $6,000, democracies are impregnable and can be expected to live forever: no democracy has ever fallen in a country where per capita income exceeds $6,000.” (Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, & Limongi, 1996, p. 41). According to this research, the sustainability of a democracy is directly dependent on the economic development of a country, and democracies do always better than dictatorships. Zakaria (2007) agrees with Przeworksi et al (1996). He even makes an addition to it. That is, the economic development and affluence should be sophisticated and “earned” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 73). He talks about at the oil-rich states of the Middle East, where a lot of oil and other natural resources are exploited, but where autocracy and dictatorship is common to politics. The presence of natural resources makes economic development and political change unnecessary. A cause and consequence is that there is a lot of inequality of wealth, inequality between sexes and lack of education, which keeps the society “primitive” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 73). The reasoning behind this is that when there is too much easy money for the government, taxes are not needed. Thus, the democracy is not “earned” and the government does not have to take responsibility for it and has no obligation to its citizens. This is why modern political institutions, bureaucracies and laws are not needed and therefore not being established.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

3.2.3 Islam and democracy Another argument that is often heard is that Islam cannot be combined with democracy. However, different authors do not yet completely agree with each other about the extent of the influence of Islam on democracy. Quite some arguments are closely related to the economic argument: oil and poverty impede democracy, as for example Rowley & Smith (2009) argue. But what does that have to do with Islam? One of the main arguments that Voigt (2004), Rowley & Smith (2009) and Zakaria (2007) put forward is that Islam wants to take part in all aspects of life, not only spiritually, but also politically. Religious leaders are also “worldly rulers” (Voigt, 2004). This aspect is seen as not quite different from how it worked in Europe with the Catholic church an era ago (Rowley & Smith, 2009). This is the reason why Voigt and Rowley & Smith are looking deeper into the matter of why Islamic values seem incompatible with democratic values. Both articles come quickly to one of the basic definitions of the rule of law: equality. The Islam is considered to be an hierarchical religion. Therefore people do not think that everyone should be handled equally. This notion comes to the fore in some of the parts of the Islam, e.g. “relation between master and slave, relation between man and woman, and the relation between believer and unbeliever.” (Voigt, 2004). This basic inequality is seen by Voigt as the main reason for the underdevelopment of the rule of law in the Muslim world. Therefore, it is considered to be one of the major problems for the lack of democracy in the Middle East. Is therefore Islam an argument for not being democratic? When the authors go even deeper into the matter, they come to a more detailed difference between Islamic countries. Looking at the Freedom House statistics of 2007, Rowley & Smith (2009) noticed that no country in the Arab core1 had a democracy2. In addition, these countries scored very bad on the political rights and civil liberties rankings (Rowley & Smith, 2009, p. 289). On top of that, the location of the Islamic historic heartland is, according to the data of the Polity IV Project (Rowley & Smith, 2009), a significant variable. Muslim countries in the

1 According to the article, the countries that include the Arab core are in alphabetic order: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrein, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, UAE, Uzbekistan, Yemen. 2 The definition of the Freedom House is used in this article. What this definition is can be found at www.freedomhouse.org.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

“periphery” seem not significantly less free or less democratic (Rowley & Smith, 2009, p. 285). But again, the oil resources can have an important influence on this, since in the “periphery” less natural resources are found. This is why Rowley & Smith (2009) ask themselves another interesting question: “are majority-Muslim countries that are democratic in some sense “less” Muslim than countries that are not?” (Rowley & Smith, 2009, p. 287). Both Malaysia and Indonesia are considered to be part of this question. The answer to this has been found in the Library of Congress Country Studies, where it was said that Islam, in for example Indonesia, is interwoven with the local culture. This means that both local culture and the religion are adapted and mixed in order to make local acceptance possible (Rowley & Smith, 2009, p. 287). So are they less democratic? In a way yes. These countries have more often large non-Muslim minority groups, and a different or an adapted-to-the-local-culture version of the Islam (Rowley & Smith, 2009, p. 289). What has been pointed out in the articles mentioned above, is that in some Muslim countries democracy is not present and that there are aspects in society, related to Islam, but also related to other factors, that make democracy less compatible with democracy. However, public opinion polls show, that citizens from these countries are actually quite in favour of democracy, but the topic of religious freedom seems to form the heated debate3 ((Rowley & Smith, 2009), (Voigt, 2004)).

3.3 Theory on organizing democracy Democracy has been given a definition and several additional factors that may be of influence are given. But what does a democracy look like in practice? Arend Lijphart (1999) has been studying democracy for a long time and distinguished two possible models of organizing democracy. These two models underline a different and important aspect of democracy, namely majority. The first model, the consensus model, has the intention to involve as much people as possible. In this sense, majority is a ‘minimum requirement’ (Lijphart, 1999, p. 2). Key words are inclusiveness, negotiation, bargaining, and compromise. The second model,

3 The opinion polls used in the articles of Voigt (2004) and Rowley & Smith (2009) are carried out by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2003 (Voigt, 2004) and the World Values Survey (Rowley & Smith, 2009). Though, there are some doubts about the reliability of these polls. Some countries are rather repressive, i.e. surveys have been adapted in order to ask the questions anyway, or citizens give answers that are politically correct. Another doubt is about what people hold as a definition of for example democracy. The survey is not clear on that one. So despite the remarkable outcome, some suspicion is in place.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia the Westminster or majoritarian model, emphasizes the bare majority, as in 50% + 1. Key words are exclusive, competitive, and adversarial (Lijphart, 1999, p. 2). Lijphart found the differences in the variety of formal governmental institutions that countries have. He made these differences visible by establishing ten variable, five of them can be found in the executive-parties dimension and five in the federal-unitary dimension. The ten points of the two models are given in the figure below. Consensus model Westminster or majoritarian model 1. Executive power-sharing in broad Concentration of executive power in single- coalition cabinets party and bare majority cabinets 2. Executive-legislative balance of power Cabinet dominance 3. Multiparty system Two-party system 4. Proportional representation Majoritarian and disproportional system of elections 5. Interest group corporatism Interest group pluralism 6. Federal and decentralized government Unitary and centralized government 7. Strong bicameralism Concentration of legislative power in a unicameral legislature 8. Constitutional rigidity Constitutional flexibility 9. Judicial review Absence of judicial review 10. Central bank independence. A central bank controlled by the executive

Table 1 Lijphart's models of organizing democracy According to Lijphart, the view that the majority rules and the minority opposes is challenged by the consensus model (Lijphart, 1999, p. 31). This can be traced back to the ten points. Broad coalitions (1) suggest that more than one party makes the cabinet, hence also more than two or three parties are involved in elections (3). The balance of power between executive (cabinets) and legislative (parliament) (2) suggest that they have their own tasks in order to prevent power dominance. This balance is established through proportional representation (4) (the number of votes for a party divided through the total number of casted votes times the number of seats of the parliament equals the number of seats a party has). So both the cabinet as well as the parliament consist of representatives of the people. The balance of power can also be seen in the structure of bicameralism (7) and the degree of decentralization (6). This is also closely identified with the independence of the central bank (10) and the power of a

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia judge to review on laws (9). All these fixed roles make sure there is a system of power- sharing. These roles are more or less fixed, because the constitution (8) cannot or can hardly be changed. The predefined roles provide stability for interest groups (5), to organize themselves. This can be seen in a more or less corporatist system. The second model, the Westminster model, is in many ways the opposite. The leading party dominates (2), which basically means that in a two party system (3) the other party is in the opposition. This “winner takes it all” view can also be found in the electoral system (4), e.g. a district system. The leading party has a lot of power (1), which often implicates that the power is concentrated in one chamber (7). The government decides and is centralized with less delegated tasks for the decentralized governments (6) and often not the right for a judge to review the law (9), because of the flexibility or a lack of the constitution (8). The central bank(10) is often influenced by the executive cabinet. The flexibility of the system, with one period a leading party and the other period another ruling party, makes the system of interest group also less fixed and more pluralistic (5). According to Lijphart (1999) these two models hang together with diversity of the people in society. Pluralism in society, i.e. division along religious, ideological, cultural, ethnic, or racial lines, can have consequences for the way governmental institutions are organized. Lijphart claims that for these diverse societies the consensus model is a good option in order to have the minority involved in decision processes. He even mentions that in such a case a majoritarian model is not only undemocratic, but also dangerous. This is because minorities, who feel then excluded, are denied access power (Lijphart, 1999, pp. 32- 33). In practice these models cannot always be found in its purest form. After all, it is a model. Despite this, it is possible to categorize countries. For example, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are classified in opposing categories. The Netherlands have most points in common with Consensus democracy, and the UK with Majoritarian or Westminster Democracy. This model can therefore be used as a guideline to trace back the potential historic influence on the organization of democracy in Indonesia and Malaysia respectively.

3.4 Democratic patterns investigated The theoretical aspects have been set out now. The next question is: how are these aspects going to be examined? Operationalization means making the theoretical concepts measurable. This process will be discussed below.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Several concepts have been put forward, including a definition of democracy, a model for organizing democracy and possible influence on the path to democracy. In this master thesis there are two main sub questions to be answered before the research question can be put in perspective. The first is: what is the status on liberal democracy in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to the definition given above, liberal democracy (Y) should have at least five characteristics. These are the following dependent variables (DV):

1. Equality 2. Alternative information 3. Freedom of speech and free press/ civil liberties 4. Transparency of the government structure 5. Free and fair elections 6. Checks and balances/division of power

The first three variables, equality (DV1), availability of information (DV2), and civil liberties (DV3) are closely linked to each other. All these three aspects have found basis in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (European Union, 2007). In this charter, the basic liberties and rights have been set and are in line with the universally accepted human rights. Therefore the liberties described have often been used in further research on the status of civil liberties in different countries. When comparable variables are used in other studies, they can give a good overview to sketch the situation on this topic in the concerning case studies. Studies that are used for researching this topic are for example from the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Economist Intelligence, and Freedom House. The fourth variable, transparency of the government (DV4), will explain on the one hand the degree of accountability, and on other hand the degree of information provision. To what extent is honest government information available for the public? For the fifth variable, free and fair elections (DV5), special organizations or departments are set up to investigate on how elections are run. These data from these organizations are examined to draw a picture of the situation in Indonesia and Malaysia. The division of power (DV6) depends on the organization and structure of the government. This will be examined on the basis of facts given by CIA World Factbook, scientific articles and other useful databases, like Transparency International. These six variables will be likewise set out and compared to come to a nuanced answer on the sub question on the status of liberal democracy.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

The independent variables (ID) are the possible influences that are indicated in the theoretical framework on democratic development beyond the variables that lead to liberal democracy, i.e. history, culture, economy, and religion. Since the research question is about the influence of the period of colonization on today’s democracy of Indonesia and Malaysia, history is the main independent variable here. The other three independent variables may be used as an additional explanations that may appear along in the research process. The independent variables can hardly be seen as having a causal relationship with the subject. What is aimed for are similarities and parallels between the subject, polity, and an explanation by means of the independent variables. A goal in this thesis is to find parallels between history and the democracy development in the subjected countries. The models of Lijphart are not to be defined as variables, but rather as a possible ways to organize a democracy. The aim of using this model is to be able to trace back certain formal governmental traditions to the former colonial tradition. Although it may be possible that these traces cannot be directly linked, they may provide a partial explanation. The ten points that cover the differences between the Consensus model and Westminster model can be turned easily into measurable concepts. Some of the points overlap with the above mentioned points of democracy, because, after all, it belongs to the same concept. The following ten questions will mark the differences between the two models:

1. How are the cabinets organized? 2. Does the cabinet have to share her powers with the parliament? 3. How many parties are involved in the elections and can be found in the parliament? 4. How is the electoral system organized? 5. To what extent are interest groups organized? 6. Is there a subdivision in governmental tasks between the federal and decentralized government? 7. How is the central government organized? 8. Is there a constitution and is it possible to change it? 9. Is judicial review allowed? 10. Is the central bank independent of dependent of the government?

These questions will be answered studying factual information, scientific articles and reviews of international organizations on the concerning countries.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Figure 1 shows the concept of the operationalization. The six dependent variables are related to the main concept (Y) of Liberal Democracy, that can be split into two models, Consensus or Westminster democracy. The independent variables, i.e. Culture, Economy, History and Religion, can have influence on this liberal democracy concept, but do not have to be present or have the same consequences in each country. By answering the above mentioned questions on liberal democracy and the model of Lijphart (1999) and combine this with the historical setting that will be given, it is aimed to look for comparisons and lessons between the countries and the models given.

Figure 1 Connecting the definitions and theories of democracy

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

4 Research approach

4.1 Design In this master thesis, a research of the ‘real world’ will take place. This means that a situation will be examined in its natural status of how it exists (Robson, 2002, p. 3). In this particular thesis, a method of flexible qualitative design is chosen. The characteristics of such a design are the use of qualitative data (mostly in words) and the fact that ‘less pre-specification take place and the design evolves, develops and ‘unfolds’ as the research proceeds’ (Robson, 2002, p. 5). In general, fixed designs (e.g. experiments) are seen as more scientific, but as Robson argues flexible designs can be of the same value if ‘carried out in a systematic, principled fashion’ (Robson, 2002, p. 5). As described below, the flexible design will contain several methods. A systematic fashion is going to be carried out through an international comparative case study research. This implies the following. As the name already shows, it will be an analysis that is internationally orientated, i.e. the national border will be crossed, for two countries in Asia will be examined. The second word, comparative, means that the different cases will be compared to one another as a way of learning. Three types of learning can come across while comparing. Comparing helps to perceive certain affairs. What looks normal in one situation can look absolutely out of place in another situation. This can only be learned by perceiving. The second type of learning by comparing is that it helps grasping variety. It can give insights in the differences between countries. Comparing will make those variations clear. The last one is that comparing helps to act. After perceiving and grasping the information, one have to translate this into a solid case of action. How can the acquired information be turned into practice? (Hendriks, Guestlecture, 2011). Then lastly, the main term: case study. Case study is a common method used in political science and public administration (Robson, 2002, p. 165). Case study research is a qualitative research that takes shape by intensive rigorous analytical investigation. Robson gives the following description: ‘Case study is a strategy for doing research, which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence.’ (Robson, 2002, p. 178)

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Cases will be closely examined on several issues. Also setting and context is important for understanding particular phenomena. The goal is to come to understand and generalize through an analytic generalization (Robson, 2002, p. 183). Understanding or Verstehen means that intensive study will gain insights that have a learning effect. This understanding can then be formed into a generalization, a theory or an amplification of a theory, that can be falsified in other cases. This method of research will hopefully learn us about the development process of democracy. The case study is focussed on the development of two countries and on how they developed as (non-)democracies. Because of the fact that a lot of aspects can be investigated of countries certain issues will be accentuated. These accents have already been showed in the previous chapter.

4.2 Methodology A systematic research will mainly be shaped through the search, study and interpretation of written sources and documents. The knowledge that is gained from these different interpretations of different authors on the same subject will contribute to the validity and reliability of this research (Van Thiel, 2010, p. 123). To guarantee this, a couple of things will be taken into consideration. These are the bias of the authors, the sources or measuring instruments that are used and the subject/research unit (Van Thiel, 2010, p. 61). The consequence is that a large amount of documents will be contemplated. Extensive desk research stands at the basis for this process. Despite the inevitable bias that comes with this research, a value-free perspective is pursued. A variety of documents will be consulted in order to give an answer to the main question. This variety consists of existing scientific research on the central countries, i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, and when necessary the Netherlands and United Kingdom, as well as on democracy, policy documents of the various and relevant governments, and on reports of different kind of organizations, such as the World Bank, Amnesty International, United Nations, etcetera. The combination of the different sources will also contribute to the validity of the investigation.

4.3 Case selection “[E]very single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all the

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 57) The above cited is the beginning of this thesis, and the objective is to determine the validity of the value of democracy in a former British colony. That is why it is necessary for a country to fall within some of the requirements that are imposed by the quote. This comes down to the following points: - At least one former British colony (in this thesis compared to a non-British colony) - At least one million inhabitants - Decolonized after World War II The criterium of a continuous democratic experience is not considered here, because the question is more focussed on how democratic these British colonies actually are. A continuous democratic experience is seen as elections on a regular basis in this case, but within this thesis more requirements are ascribed to liberal democracy. Considering the three requirements, the case selection narrowed itself down. For comparing two countries of a particular region seemed relevant too, because in such a case the cultures could be rather alike. That is why South-East Asia is chosen, and more particularly the neighbouring countries Malaysia and Indonesia. Indonesia lacks a continuous democratic experience in the history after the Second World War, but when a look is taken at the democratic rankings Indonesia is placed higher than Malaysia. This fact, and considering the above quote, make these countries interesting as research objects.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

5 Case studies Above a broad theoretical framework and an explanation of the methodology have been set, therefore, it is now time to start the actual case studies. Before turning to the core of this master thesis, a short introduction on Malaysia and Indonesia will be given. This introduction will contain some facts in order to make a first start putting the two countries into perspective. Malaysia Indonesia Official Name Malaysia Republic of Indonesia (Republik Indonesia) Capital Kuala Lumpur Jakarta Population 29,179,952 (2012) 248,216,193 (2012) Different ethnic groups Malay (50.1%), Chinese Javanese (40.6%), Sundanese (23.7%), indigenous (11%), (15%), Madurese (3.3%), Indian (7.1%) and other (7.8%). Minangkabau (2.7%), Betawi (2.4%), Bugos (2.4%), Banten (2%), Banjar (1.7) and various other smaller groups (29.9%) Religions Muslim (60.6%), Buddhist Muslim (86.1%), Protestant (19.2%), Christian (9.1%), (5.7%), Roman Catholic Hindu (6.3%), (3%), Hindu (1.8%), other Confucianism/Taoism or other (3.4%) Chinese traditional religions (2.6%), other (1.5%), none (0.8%) Languages Bahasa Malaysia, English, Bahasa Indonesia, English, Chinese, Tamil, Telugu, Dutch and local dialects Malayalam, Panjabi, Thai Provinces 13 states, one federal territory 30 provinces, two special regions, with more autonomy, and one capital city district Independent since 31 August 1957, still part of the 17 August 1945, but was only

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Commonwealth recognized by the Dutch as independent in 1949. GDP in 2011 $15,800 $4,700

Table 2 Factsheet Malaysia and Indonesia (CIA World Factbook, 2012) (CIA World Factbook, 2012). In these given facts a few things stand out. For example, Indonesia is much bigger than Malaysia in terms of population. Also in terms of the structure of the country differences can be seen, i.e. Indonesia is an archipelago consisting of many small and big islands, that is probably the cause of the multiple ethnic groups living in the country, whereas Malaysia has a small Malay majority and bigger groups of other ethnicities. Also in terms of religions, one can see that Malaysia has a lot of different religions or religious traditions, whereas Indonesia mainly has an immense Muslim majority. This can also have its consequences in how the country shape their governmental structures. Now, a deeper look will be taken at the cases. Firstly, both Malaysia and Indonesia will be graded on their level of democracy using the definitions that have been given in the theoretical framework. To what extent are both Malaysia and Indonesia democratic? Secondly, the model of Lijphart will give guidance in categorizing the two countries.

5.1 Democratic comparison In the theoretical framework, a new definition of democracy has been given. Both Malaysia and Indonesia will be subjected to this definition in order to find out how democratic the countries are at the moment. While it is hard to be objective about these numbers, Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence and Transparency International will be used to determine the degree of democracy. Malaysia Indonesia UK Netherlands Ranking 71 60 18 10 Overall Score 6.19 6.53 8.16 8.99

Figure 3 Ranking of democracy in countries according to the Democracy Index 2011 (Scale 1 to 10, with 10 being the best) (The Economist, 2011). In this ranking of the Economist one can state that Indonesia is more democratic than Malaysia and the Netherlands are more democratic than the United Kingdom. The overall score shows the average number (that goes from 1 to 10) the Economist has checked on the

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia different points the democracy.4 Those numbers will also be used and showed into more detail below and in accordance with the definition that is given in this thesis. The scores of the UK and the Netherlands will also be projected, but only for comparison, they will not be discussed in detail. Some of the six points on democracy will be analysed together, because they are so closely related to each other.

5.1.1 Equality and Civil Liberties Equality can be established by several freedoms. Most important is equality between men and women, religions, etc. Civil liberties stand for certain rights or liberties, i.e. freedom of association, expression, assembly, education, and religion. It has to deal with what people can do individually and in society. Civil liberties are interconnected with equality, because only the latter can make sure that civil liberties can be established at best. Malaysia Indonesia UK Netherlands Status Partly Free Free Free Free Political Rights 4 2 1 1 Civil Liberties 4 3 1 1 Civil Liberties 5.88 7.06 9.12 9.41 (Democracy Index 2011) Political 5.56 5.56 6.11 8.89 Participation (Democracy Index 2011)

Figure 4 Freedom in the World, on Civil liberties and Political Rights (scale: 1 being very good, 7 is worst) (Freedom House, 2012) (The Economist, 2011). Malaysia is graded by the Freedom House as partly free (Freedom House, 2012) and also in the index of The Economist, it lays behind. There are a number of reasons to be found for this. In case of equality, unequal rules exist, an example is the existence of two different courts. Next to the court that is based on the English common law, Sharia courts exist and Muslims have to go to this court in some specific cases (that are captured in the constitution),

4 These points are: Electoral Process and and Pluralism, Functioning of Government, Political Participation, Political Culture, and Civil Liberties.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia for example divorce. This is one example of inequality, but in these matters that touch the personal field, women are often extra disadvantaged before these courts. A second inequality is the status of the ethnic Malay people. They are advantaged in a number of fields over Indian or Chinese people. These matters will be discussed in more detail below (Freedom House, 2011). In the field of civil liberties there are also two examples of abuses. The first is that freedom of association can be restrained under the argument of public order and security, what is more, gatherings are forbidden during election campaigns anyway. Another example is the possibility to get arrested without a clear warrant and that one can be detained for about two years without a trial (Freedom House, 2011). These are just a few examples that explain the number on the part of Malaysia. Indonesia is graded as free. Since the regime change of 1998, civil and political rights have improved. Two covenants, i.e. UN Covenant on Civil Rights and the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have been signed. Political rights have been adopted in the constitution (National Endowment for the Humanities, 2012), but especially civil rights remain a problem. Not every part of the freedoms is respected in practice, there are some problems found in the area of gender differences. For example, although equality for women is established in the constitution and special programmes have been set up to improve the situation, in some parts Sharia-regulations have been adopted, so some inequalities have deepened or remain (Freedom House, 2010). Freedom of religion is officially recognized, but also in practice not always respected. Violence against Christians and a smaller (alternative) Islamic group occur, and also the Islamic belief has been forced upon others. Again, this is partly because of Sharia-regulations. Mainly in Aceh, but also in Papua, other rights have been violated, for example the freedom of association does not always apply and military operations that violate the Human Rights take place (Human Rights Watch, 2012). Both countries score equally bad on Political Participation. Political Participation is seen by the Economist as a vital aspect of democracy. It states: “Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. However, a healthy democracy requires the active, freely chosen participation of citizens in public life.” (The Economist, 2011). Thus the degree citizens are stimulated to take part in political life. The numbers show that this part is not yet very developed in both Malaysia and Indonesia. 28

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

5.1.2 Alternative information The Freedom of Press and Speech is an important part of being democratic. The main idea of this is to give rise to an opposition voice or to check the government, i.e. is it allowed to criticize the government or produce alternative plans? This voice of opposition can be produced by citizens itself, by the press or the degree of accountability the government gives on its own activities or the degree of accountability the Parliament asks of the government on those activities . In the case of Malaysia, Indonesia, the UK and the Netherlands the following results of perceptions are given by Transparency International. Malaysia Indonesia UK Netherlands Voice & 48% 31% 92% 96% Accountability5 Press Freedom 122/179 146/179 28/179 3/179 World Ranking Press Freedom 56.00 68.00 2.00 -9.00 Score6 Figure 5 Freedom of the Press (Transparency International, 2010). According to the numbers given above, neither Malaysia nor Indonesia score well. In Malaysia the main problem is that the freedom of the press is limited. Newspapers need licenses to publish, and there is censorship by several acts, such as the Control of Imported Publications Act (that can refuse foreign publications) and the Broadcast Act (to monitor radio and television), because of this self-censorship is being applied by journalists. Most of the television stations are also owned by the government (Freedom House, 2010). The upcoming internet provides a whole new dimension for the Malaysian government and they responded very strict on this development. At the 2008 elections bloggers were arrested, and together with newspapers that are too critical, they take the risk at being accused of defamation (Freedom House, 2010).

5 ‘Voice and Accountability captures perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media.’ (Transparency International, 2010) 6 ‘This index measures the violations of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.’ (Transparency International, 2010). The lower the score the better the press freedom.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

In Indonesia there are some regulations and legal restrictions. Even though citizens have access to television news sources that compete with the state television, being a journalist can be dangerous. Especially in conflict areas, journalists are being murdered or harassed for being too critical. They can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code for defamation and blasphemy and indecency is punishable (Freedom House, 2011). Further restrictions that can be executed by the government are repealing broadcast licenses (Freedom House, 2010).

5.1.3 Transparency and Power Division Transparency and the division of power contribute to the well-functioning of the government. It shows accountability and liability, moreover the numbers also show the reliability of a government in terms of checks and balances. Although as will be seen, corruption can ruin a well-functioning of the government. Malaysia Indonesia UK Netherlands Functioning 6.79 7.50 7.86 8.93 Government Corruption 60/183 100/183 16/183 7/183 Perception Index Ranking Judicial 43/142 76/142 11/142 6/142 Independence7 4.7/7 3.6/7 6.2/7 6.3/7 Control of 61% 27% 95% 97% Corruption8 Open Budget 39 51 87 - Index9 Minimal Some Extensive

7 ‘Judicial Independence is an indicator in the Global Competitiveness Index produced by the World Economic Forum. It measures the perceived extent in which the judiciary of the country is independent from influences of members of government, citizens, or firms.’ (Transparency International, 2010) Score from 1 (dependent) to 7 (fully independent). 8 ‘Control of corruption reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain. This includes both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests.’ (Transparency International, 2010) Percentage indicates the extent of control of corruption. 9 ‘The Open Budget Index assesses the availability in each country of eight key budget documents, as well as the comprehensiveness of the data contained in them. It also examines the extent of effective oversight provided by legislatures and supreme audit institutions, as well as the opportunities available to the public to participate in

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Figure 6 Numbers on functioning of the Government, Power division and Corruption (The Economist, 2011) (Transparency International, 2010). A couple of things can be read from the figure showed above. Malaysia scores rather well on the theme of corruption, and also better than Indonesia in the field of judicial independence, but the functioning of the government lies behind. The control of information and budgets in Malaysia stays low. On websites, information lacks and due to the composition of the Parliament, checks and balances are difficult to exploit to the fullest (Freedom House, 2010). However, the 2008 elections showed some improvement, as will be showed below. On the part of Indonesia it is apparent that it scores rather well on the functioning of the government (a little less than the UK), and that the budget is rather open, while corruption remains a major problem. Corruption, judicial independence, and the control of corruption are perceived as not functioning in the right way. More information on decision-making processes and the division of different tasks between the cabinet and the Parliament will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph.

5.1.4 Elections A vital and substantial part of a liberal democracy are the elections. They are held to show the positive or negative opinion of the people, to enable the people to take part in politics and to decide who will lead the country. The number below show how The Economist grades the Electoral Process & Pluralism and the Political Culture. Malaysia Indonesia UK Netherlands Electoral 6.50 6.92 9.58 9.58 Process & Pluralism Political 6.25 5.63 8.13 8.13 Culture10

Figure 7 Scores on Electoral Process and Pluralism and Political Culture (The Economist, 2011)

national budget decision-making processes.’ (Transparency International, 2010) Scale 0 (no information) to 100 (extensive information). 10 ‘Political culture is also crucial for legitimacy, smooth functioning and ultimately the sustainability of democracy. A culture of passivity and apathy, an obedient and docile citizenry, are not consistent with democracy. The electoral process periodically divides the population into winners and losers. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power’. (The Economist, 2011)

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

In this figure it is showed that Malaysia’s electoral process is not yet good. It is characterized by severe influence of the coalition cabinet, who can appoint the not fully independent Election Commission (Freedom House, 2010). This can also be seen in the tactics that are used to sabotage the election system, as will be showed in more detail in the next chapter. However, the system or political culture of ‘first past the post’ makes a clear division in winners and losers after the elections, where district seats are to be won. The figures of Indonesia show that the electoral process is a little better than that of Malaysia, but the political culture stays behind. As will be explained below in more detail, the reason for this can be found in the fact that broad cabinets consist of six out of nine parties that are in the Parliament, which makes the opposition rather small. Elections in Indonesia are being judged by the Freedom House (2010) as rather free and fair and a lot of parties participate in the elections. (Freedom House, 2010). Although progress is made, some irregularities were reported, but investigation showed that this was not of influence for the outcome (The Asian Network for Free Elections, 2009).

5.2 Conclusion on democracy To recapitulate the above, it can be concluded that Indonesia scores better on the points of civil liberties, political liberties, the functioning of the government, budgetary openness and the overall democracy score. Malaysia scores better on the perception of the functioning of certain institutions, the political culture and alternative information. The judicial system of Malaysia seems to operate more independent (although, examples are to be found in the news that this does not always apply), corruption is less prevalent and the press can, although suspected of stricter self-censorship and incidents here and there, report. In both Malaysia as in Indonesia, the government needs to give the press a licence to publish or broadcast. What can be concluded from these numbers is that the government in Malaysia seems stricter when it comes to civil liberties and political rights. The government functions well, but is not yet open and transparent. Indonesia is, according to the numbers, more open and freer. However, it has more problems with regard to (the control of) corruption, for example when it comes to the judiciary.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

5.3 Institutional comparison In the institutional comparison Malaysia and Indonesia will be compared on the ten points of the model of Lijphart (1999), which has been explained in the theoretical framework. Afterward the two countries will be categorized accordingly. Here again, some points will be looked at integrally.

5.4 Indonesian Polity Indonesia is a republic and, according to the CIA’s fact book, a unitary state. This means that most of the power is centred at the national government. Indonesia has a President as head of state, who is also the Commander-in-Chief for the armed forces. Since 2004, the President is Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Re-elected in 2009, he is serving his last five-year term now (a president can only have two successive five-year terms). The President is directly elected by the people, this has been done for the first time in 2004. One of the tasks of the President is to appoint the Ministers, who form the Council of Ministers together. The Ministers do not necessarily have to be elected to the Parliament (CIA World Factbook, 2009). In 2004, but also in 2009, most parties who had won a seat in the Parliament, entered the cabinet. In 2009 six out of nine parties were given a ministers post. This makes the accountability to Parliament and the system of checks and balances between the cabinet and the Parliament rather weak (Freedom House, 2010). The institution that represents the people is called People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat or MPR). The main tasks are to support and amend the constitution, to inaugurate, and impeach the president. The MPR is subdivided in two houses, and all the members of these houses are seated in the MPR. The first house, the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR), consists of 560 members, who are directly elected and serve a five-year-term. The main tasks are making and approving legislation at national level. In order to keep the local or regional interests in mind and improve the democratic system, the second house was established in 2001. This is the House of Regional Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah or DPD) and consists of 132 members, four representatives from every province or special region. The main task is to give legislative advice and input to the DPR on issues that are also related to the regions (CIA World Factbook, 2009). Although there are two houses, one cannot speak about real bicameralism. The DPD does not have the function of an upper house that can serve as a counterweight to the DPR. 33

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Rather, local representatives can have a say in the consequences for subnational levels. At subnational level, there are the provinces and local governments. After the fall of Suharto, a process of decentralization has been set up (Hadiz, 2004). A 1999 law talks about the division of tasks between the national and sub national government. The central government has key functions in certain field, “such as: defense, judiciary, foreign relations and the monetary and fiscal system, while devolving most authorities directly to local governments (city and district).” (Hadiz, 2004, p. 707). For provincial governments, it does not have a clearly defined task. However, local governments, such as municipalities and cities, have the authority on the following subjects: subjects that “affect people most directly, including urban services, primary and secondary education, public and basic health services, environmental management, planning and local economic development.” (Hadiz, 2004, p. 707). This looks like a clear division of tasks, however the author of this article on democracy and decentralization in Indonesia is very worried about the impact of it. There seems to be a struggle between the national government and local governments on the power of policy fields, such as the investment policies, local resources, and taxes (Hadiz, 2004, p. 705). The main problem herein is the high level of corruption. It is pointed out that the people who are in charge seem to be the same as under Suharto’s New Order. Old networks have been reinvented and re-established (Hadiz, 2004, p. 711). According to Hadiz, money and establishing authoritarian ways of control can provide security for local private interests.

5.4.1 Indonesian Elections Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, elections take place on a regular basis and have been found rather free and fair, although with some incidents reported (Freedom House, 2010). The first years have been rather turbulent, and in a period of six years, three presidents passed. In 1998, the vice-president of Suharto, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie became president, but only for a year (Thompson, 1999, p. 3), because the first elections that had some sort of democratic legitimacy were held in 1999. 48 parties joined the election, and after a tumultuous fight, Abdurrahman Wahid won the election. His vice-president would be a woman: Megawati Soekarnoputri (daughter of the first president of Indonesia after its independence in 1945, Sukarno) (Thompson, 1999, p. 10). After two years, president Wahid was impeached for corruption and incompetence. The vice-president succeeded him, and thus a woman became president for the first time. After the 2004 elections, she could not continue her term and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono became president. He was re-elected for his second five-year

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia term in 2009. At the same time, the elections for the People’s Consultative Assembly were held (Election Guide, 2010). The number of parties that included national elections were up to 48 different parties in 2004 and 38 in 2009, so it can be said that there is a multiparty system. The election system follows proportionate representation, but with a threshold of 2,5% for taking seat in the MPR. Another requirement is that at least 30% of the candidates on the list of the party need to be female (Election Guide, 2010). The ability to vote is universal from the age of seventeen, or regardless the age in case of married people (CIA World Factbook, 2009). So many parties are involved in the elections, but so little actually get in the Parliament. That is why only the nine parties that are now involved will be showed below. Six of them have a minister in the Cabinet. They are marked with an asterisk (*). Party Number of Seats Partai Demokrat, or PD (Democractic Party)* 148 Partai Golongan Karya, or Golkar (the Party of Functional 106 Groups)* Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, or PDI-P (Indonesian 94 Demoratic Party-Struggle Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, or PPP (United Development 38 Party)* Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa, or PKB (National Awakening 28 Party)* Partai Amanat Nasiona, or PAN (National Mandate Party)* 46 Partai Keadilan Sejahter, or PKS (Prosperous Justice Party)* 57 Partai Gerkan Indonesia Raya, or Gerindra (Great Indonesia 26 Movement Party) Partai Hati Nurani Rakyat, or Partai Hanura (People’s 17 Conscience Party)

Table 2 Parties and Seats of the Indonesian Parliament (Election Guide, 2010).

5.4.2 Indonesian Civil Society Civil society (“providing voices for the disenfranchised and creating centres of influence outside the state and the economy” (Nugroho & Tampubolon, 2008)) has developed 35

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia substantially in the year after the turmoil of 1998, according to Nugroho & Tampubolon, who investigated a possible positive link between the (global) civil society and democracy. The results after the period of ‘bloody transformation’ (1995-1998) is that the organization of civil society became more organized and more intense. Remarkably, after this period also the number of international donors has increased, but mainly through providing financial resources and not by active involvement (Nugroho & Tampubolon, 2008). The Freedom House also sees improvements in the possibility to establish a civil society, but stays critical about flaws or defects in laws. For example, the administrative burden for NGOs to get foreign funding is rather high, because the Ministry of Home Affairs has to provide an approval for this. The aim of this rule is to prevent funding for terrorist organizations, but the possibility for governmental abuse or arbitrariness is a likely threat in the corrupt Indonesian government (Freedom House, 2010). However, the number of NGOs and the extent of civil society in Indonesia has been increased and shaped in the years after 1998.

5.4.3 Indonesian Constitution The Indonesian Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945) is not rigid, but flexible. Since it was established in 1945, it has been annulled between 1949 and 1959, but was restored (CIA World Factbook, 2009). Under Soeharto’s regime, it has never been amended, however, between 1998 and 2002 four rounds of amendments have been achieved in order to make Indonesia more democratic (People Consultative Assembly, 1945). The Constitution can be amended with the attendance of at least two thirds of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), and at least two thirds of them should approve (Chapter XVI, article 37) (People Consultative Assembly, 1945).

5.4.4 Indonesian Judiciary It is said that the Indonesian judicial system is based on the Dutch civil law tradition (Tabalujan, 2002). The judicial system is a pyramid system that consists of 250 State Courts throughout the country, also called the court of first instance. Appeals can be directed to the High Court, of which there are twenty in the country. The last and final appeal is to the Supreme Court in Jakarta, but this is only for case reviews and cassation (Tabalujan, 2002). Next to the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung), and different from the Dutch system, a Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) was established in 2001, after one of the amendments of the Constitution (Mahfud, 2009). The roles between the Supreme Court and 36

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia the Constitutional Court are well-defined. According to Mahfud (2009), the Constitutional Court has four tasks. These are: (1) the ability to review law against the Constitution; (2) make the final decision on conflicts between state institutions, also in order to insure the checks and balances and prevent accumulation of power; and (3) decide on the decomposition of political parties, which means that there has to be a balance between freedom of speech, association and belief and the constitution. Political parties have to abide by the law. The final task is to decide on the election results, which means that the court has to judge whether the elections are held free and fair, and make sure that every vote counts. The Supreme Court cannot decide on the constitutionality of laws, but can decide about regulations under a law and about appeals, that have been described above (Mahfud, 2009). According to the review of the Freedom House, a gap between the judicial review of local laws exists. A couple of provinces have been adopting Sharia regulations that go against women’s rights, or obligate zakat (collection of alms), Quran readings and Muslim dress codes. Some of these regulations are contradictory to the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court has decided so too. But once adopted, some laws are difficult to withdraw in the Indonesian legal system (Freedom House, 2010).

5.4.5 Indonesian Bank According to the webpage of Bank Indonesia, they are fully independent of the national government since 1999 and interference from a third party or the government is not allowed (Bank Indonesia, 2008). This is regulated in the law, which has been amended in 2009 for the last time. Annually, a report on accountability has to be sent to the President and the DPR, and also the State Auditors are supervising. A lot of information about transparency, etcetera, can be found on the website of the bank (Bank Indonesia, 2008).

5.5 Malaysian Polity Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy with King Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah as head of state since 13 December 2011. The position of King or Yang di-Pertuan Agong is taken by elections from ‘hereditary rulers’ from nine states of the Malaysian peninsula. Practically, the selection is based on rotation. Every five years a King-switch takes place. The function is mainly ceremonial, but the King appoints 44 members of the Senate (CIA World Factbook, 2011). A bicameral parliament divides the Senate or Dewan Negara from the House of Representatives or Dewan Rakyat. The Senate is an unelected house of 70 seats of which 44 37

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia members are elected by the King. The other 26 seats are taken by two representatives of each of the thirteen provinces, they are elected by the legislature. The Dewan Rakyat consists of 222 seats and is directly elected by the Malaysian citizens for a period of five years (CIA World Factbook, 2011). The cabinets consist of members of the Parliament and functions with the consent of the King, although they are appointed by the Prime Minister (since 2009 Mohamed Najib bin Abdul Razak) (CIA World Factbook, 2011). Malaysia has an alternative two-party system, which Saravanamuttu (2012) names twin coalition politics. The main group who has had a two third majority in the Parliament until 2008 (Saravanamuttu, 2012) is the National Front (Barisan Nasional or BN). The BN- coalition is formed by thirteen parties of which the UMNO (United Malays National Organization) and the MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) are the biggest. The UMNO is the party of the Prime Minister and also from his predecessors, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (2003-2009) and Mahathir Mohamad (1981-2003) (CIA World Factbook, 2011). The opposition has been more united and organized since the elections of 2008. The People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) is formed by four parties, and since the 2008 election it has 82 of the 222 seats (which is 36,9% of the seats, while they had 46,41% of the votes) (Saravanamuttu, 2012). With the BN in the majority position, it can pretty much do as it pleases, especially until 2008. Laws were being made and of serious accountability one could not speak. Since the 2008 elections, a slight change has occurred. The UMNO lost a lot of votes and the position of the opposition improved. However, a real turn is difficult, since the BN has been organized for so long so that they have enough resources. And it has also built an immense state apparatus, on which they have a big influence. This is the with for example the media and the judiciary. This influence can be seen in for example the judicial harassment of the opposition leader, who has again been accused of sodomy in 2011 (Slater, 2012). An important subject in politics remains the special status of the Bumiputera. These “sons of the soil” are the ethnic Malaysian or indigenous inhabitants (Pepinsky, 2007). They have special rights that are founded in the constitution. Examples are the ethnic quota for employment in the public sector, placement at universities, contracts, licences, etc (Freedom House, 2010). The reason for this is that after the colonial period, the UMNO party wanted to improve the position of the ethnic Malays (Pepinsky, 2007).

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Delegation of tasks from the national government to the local government hardly happens. Since the 1960s municipal and district-level elections have been suspended. The government is thus mainly based on the central state. (Freedom House, 2010)

5.5.1 Malaysian Elections The election system used in Malaysia is a “single-member constituency with plurality vote” (Heufers, 2002, p. 6). The person with most of the votes in a district is elected. This is also called ‘first past the post’ or the ‘winner takes all’, because only the person with the bulk of the votes is elected. This system is seen as more simple and straight forward than the system of proportional representation (Heufers, 2002). On the democratic status of Malaysia, the literature has its doubts. Freedom House (2012) does not indicate Malaysia as an electoral democracy, and Slater (2012) calls it electoral authoritarianism. Also “syncretic state” is an alternative name (Heufers, 2002). All these names show that although elections are held and democratic elements are present, certain authoritarian aspects remain. This syncretism of the state is also the case in the elections. Although suffrage is universal from the age of 21 (CIA World Factbook, 2011), limitations come to the fore for political parties. The election campaign period lasts up to two weeks, but public meetings are forbidden during that period. There are rules about finance of the political parties, opposition parties are interdicted to the process of vote counting, students cannot join a political party, and the Election Commission is appointed by the government. On top of that, the government parties usually do not abide by these rules, and almost always go unpunished (Freedom House, 2010). The elections are thus rather restrained and the BN has considerable advantages, especially in resources. Pepinsky (2007) discusses manners the BN coalition uses to secure votes. The most obvious one is the casting of the so-called phantom votes, these are people who go voting in another district and show up at the election day to a polling station unexpectedly. Other ways are the head of ten (or kepala sepuluh) and adopted children (or anak angkat). In the system of head of ten, an UMNO representative has the responsibility over ten people in a district, and he has to make sure that they will vote favourably, and if they do so, make sure the right people get rewarded. Adopted children are an example of people who take in a party member and get paid for it. These party members have to make

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia sure they vote favourably and otherwise stimulate the “parents” or hosts not to vote at all (Pepinsky, 2007). Besides these examples of election fraud, the last election in 2008 made a change in the political landscape. The BN coalition lost its two third majority in de Parliament and the Pakatan Rakyat got about 46% of the votes. In number of seats, the House of Representatives looks like this since this election. A division is made between the coalition and the opposition. Parties with no seats at all are not included. Party Vote percentage Number of seats Barisan Nasional 50.14% 138 United Malays National Organization (UMNO) 30.23% 79 Malaysian Chinese Association (Persatuan Cina 10.67% 15 Malaysia or MCA) Malaysian People’s Movement Party (Parti 2.34% 2 Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia or Gerakan) Malaysian Indian Congress (Kongres India Se- 2.28% 3 Malaysia or MIC) United Traditional Bumiputera Party (Parti Pesaka 1.67% 14 Bumiputera Bersatu or PBB) Sarawak United People’s Party (Parti Rakyat 1.51% 6 Bersatu Sarawak or SUPP) United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusum Murut 0.75% 4 Organization Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (Parti 0.67% 4 Demokratik Progresif Sarawak or SPDP) United Sabah Party (Parti Bersatu Sabah or PBS) 0.51 3 Sarawak People’s Party (Parti Rakyat Sarawak or 0.42 6 PRS) Liberal Democratic Party (Parti Liberal 0.11 1 Demokratik or LDP) Pakatan Rakyat 46.51% 84 People’s Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat or 19.15% 31 PKR)

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Islamic Party of Malaysia (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia 14.48% 23 or PAS) Democratic Action Party (Parti Tindakan 14.19% 28 Democratik or DAP) Sabah Progressive Party (Parti Maju Sabah or 0.39% 2 SAPP)

Figure 8 Election Result of the 2008 Parliamentary elections ( (Election Guide, 2012) (Saravanamuttu, 2012)). Most remarkable about these results are the fact that the number of votes is not always consistent with the number of seats in the House of Representatives. This is explained by the fact that certain areas, especially the Malay populated rural areas, put more weight to the votes (Ryan, 1976).

5.5.2 Malaysian Civil Society The civil society in Malaysia is also mainly dominated by the central (authoritarian) state: the state tries to stay in control over organizations and uses several ways to obstruct the development to a full civil society. A first example is by means of privileging ethnic Malays. This puts limitations on the possibilities of other ethnicities to organize themselves with a certain power, because a permit of the national government is needed to set up an organization. This process is often politically influenced. For this reason non-political organizations are allowed to function in a limited way (Ramasamy, 2004). However, it also explains why Human Rights organizations are often not present in Malaysia (Freedom House, 2010). Another example are the labour unions. They represent about 500,000 workers, but do not seem to have real power to change matters politically. For example, in 2007 an attempt for minimum wages has been rejected. Also, strikes and other actions are prohibited or regulated (Freedom House, 2010). The civil society is still developing and has with the turn in the 2008 election (with a bigger opposition) new possibilities. The government, however, will try to maintain control.

5.5.3 Malaysian Constitution The constitution of Malaysia is established on the day of independence: August 31, 1957 (CIA World Factbook, 2011). Afterwards, it has been amended multiple times. According to article 159 (3) two thirds of the votes of all the seats in the Parliament (both Senate and House of Representatives) is needed in the second and third readings to change the Constitution 41

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

(Malaysian Parliament, 1957). Between 2004 and 2008 this rule made the constitution very flexible, since the BN Coalition had over two thirds of the seats in the Parliament.

5.5.4 Malaysian Judiciary According to article 121 to 131A of the Malaysian constitution (Malaysian Parliament, 1957), the Malaysian judicial design can be divided into two parts. The first part follows the tradition of the English common law (CIA World Factbook, 2011). On the lowest court level, there are the subordinate courts, who are supervised by the High courts. There are two High courts, one on the peninsula of Malaya and one on the Borneo island (Sabah and Sarawak provinces). These High courts consist respectively of four to twelve judges or four to eight judges. The highest judicial authority is the Supreme court or Mahkamah Agung. Appeals from the High court are being reviewed at this court for a final judgment. The Supreme court consists of six judges, who are appointed by the King on advice of the Prime Minister. Judicial review of legislation to the constitution is not allowed (Freedom House, 2010), however, the Supreme court can be asked for advice by the Prime Minister on the constitutionality of laws that are to be made (CIA World Factbook, 2011). Nowadays, the independence of the courts is questioned because of the political influence (Heufers, 2002, p. 54). The second part of the Malaysian judicial system has to do with its state religion, the Islam. Special Sharia courts have authority in certain fields, that deal with Islamic law,. These field are, according to the Legislative List in the Constitution article (1)(4)(e)(ii), related to the personal life of Muslims, such as marriage, divorce, guardianship, family law, guardianship, and adoption (Malaysian Parliament, 1957, p. 175). The Sharia courts are only for the Muslim believers, non-Muslims do not have to come before this court. Malay people, who are people that follow the Islam, speak the Malay language on a regular basis and follow Malay customs, will always have to come before this court on matters just mentioned, and no appeal to the common courts is possible.

5.5.5 Malaysian Bank According to the webpage of the Central Bank of Malaysia (Bank Negara Malaysia), the bank is a part of the Malaysian Government and has to report to the Ministry of Finance. The bank was established between 1958 and 1959, and renewed its tasks in 2009 by the Central Bank of Malaysia Act (Central Bank of Malaysia, 2012).

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

5.6 Majoritarian or Consensus? The result of the above executed case studies will be shortly recapitulated in order to categorize the two countries according to the model of Lijphart(1999). The countries are either more Consensus democracy of more Westminster democracy. The questions that were posed in in chapter 3.4 Democratic patterns investigated are answered and organized below according the scheme that was presented in the chapter on theories. At the same time the countries are put next to each other and graded (Consensus democracy (CD) or Westminster democracy WD) to have a good overview and to compare the two countries. Indonesia Model? Malaysia Model? 1. Broad coalition that will be CD Majority coalition WD/CD held accountable by the dominance, since 2008, Parliament bare majority 2. Power-sharing with the CD BN coalition WD Parliament dominance 3. Multiparty system CD Twin Coalition system WD/CD with multiple parties 4. Proportional system? CD Majoritarian system WD (First past the post) 5. Still developing: to CD Still developing: to CD corporatism? corporatism? 6. Decentralization CD Central state WD 7. Semi-bicameral WD/CD Bicameralism CD 8. Flexible Constitution WD Flexible Constitution WD 9. Judicial review is allowed CD Judicial review is not WD by the Constitutional Court allowed 10. Independent bank CD Central state-owned WD bank

Figure 9 Recapitalizing the aspects and categorize them to either Consensus Democracy (CD) or Westminster Democracy (WD). What can be derived from this figure (9) is rather fascinating. Indonesia has the most (eight out of ten) points in common with a Consensus democracy. Only on the part of the constitution’s flexibility, a clear majoritarian characteristic is present. On the part of the design of the Parliament, it is not really straight forward. On the one hand, it has two 43

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia chambers, but on the other hand, it does not really operate like a “traditional” bicameral Parliament. That is, the Indonesian DPD has merely an advising function in the area of regional or local interests, but must be heard on these subjects. Establishing this national chamber for the regions was a move in the direction of bicameralism, but a true bicameral system has not yet been fully implemented. Malaysia’s position is less clear, although six out of ten points can be connected to Westminster democracy. There are two important points, that make placing Malaysia in the Westminster category less clear. On the first part, there is cabinet dominance. Although, this fact still inclines a majoritarian democracy, since Barisan Nasional is very dominant and has been dominant since 1981. But it is not a single party, it is a coalition of several parties that hardly varies in composition. This makes it less majoritarian. Also the party system is semi- majoritarian, Saravanamuttu (2012) spoke about twin coalitions. This explains the situation of Malaysia rather well. Essentially, Malaysia is a multiparty system, but the parties join one of the two coalitions as soon as they come into the Parliament. These coalitions barely change of composition, so that basically a two-party (or better coalition) system is being formed. However, until now, the current opposition has not been in the cabinet position, because of the characteristic of the regime as an authoritarian democracy. Thus one cannot talk about a swing from one coalition to another coalition yet. Because of this twin-coalition system that is rather stable, interest groups are more or less able to develop in a more corporatist way. Whether they will really develop in this direction, is still a question that the coming years will have to prove. The last point, bicameralism (7), is also more a characteristic of the consensus democracy, because a clear division between the Senate and the House of Representatives is established. What is fascinating about this result? From the information thus far, and from figure 9, the assumption arises that former colonies continued the system that was established by the colonizers. This assumption is based on the fact that, according to Lijphart, this division can also be made between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Lijphart based his Westminster democracy model on the United Kingdom (Westminster Abbey). The Netherlands score particularly well on the points of the consensus democracy. But can these similarities really be drawn and explained by history, or are they just a coincidence?

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

6 Placing in perspective The empirical part, that has found its basis in the theoretical framework, has been finished. These data are all mainly based on factual material. Other points that have been mentioned, the independent variables, are less clear. The second concern in this thesis was whether the colonial past still has a certain consequence for the current development of the two countries. A lot of studies have been investigating this subject and the outcomes are sometimes positive, but of course the negative aspects of colonization will never be forgotten. Although it is hard to make a substantiated argument after 67 years, a review will be made of the formal institutions that the colonial ruler has left. The sub questions that will guide through this process, are: (1) how did the countries (i.e. the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) colonize Indonesia and Malaysia respectively; (2) what were the politics of this colonization?; (3) How did the country become independent?; and (4) what happened afterwards with these newly independent countries?.

6.1 Colonial History A lot of research has been done to the consequences of the colonial era. Studies have observed the different ways of colonization and also the different kind of outcomes have been compared (Olsson, 2009). Also a lot of theories have been established on the link between colonialism and development. A theory that appears to be of interest is about the direct and indirect rule of colonization and the long term effect. “Direct and indirect forms of rule are often defined based on who runs what position within the colonial state.” (Lange, 2004). Lange (2004) explains it as follows. Direct rule is interpreted as a centralized colonial administration with formal rules. What can be added to make this more specific is that it is a complete system of colonial rule, with hardly any or none autonomous freedom for indigenous people at local level. Indirect rule, on the other hand is based on predefined rules between the colonizer and the local chiefs. Some sort of tripartite between colonial administration, local rulers and the population. Local heads stay in power and can personally benefit from this position (Lange, 2004).

6.1.1 Dutch Colonial History in the East Indies Colonial rule has been a substantial part of the history of Indonesia. What started as trade connections with Arabs, Indians, and Chinese, ended with Portuguese and later Dutch rule. The Portuguese started the trade of exotic spices to Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia century. At that time, they were the only importer of these products in Europe. Later on, from 1596, the Dutch people wanted to establish their own trade line. This started with the foundation of the VOC (East India Company). The VOC had a special status with octrooirecht, which meant that it was a sovereign state within the Netherlands that was for example allowed to declare war. This Company made the Dutch trade flourish (Dalhuisen, van Selm, & Steegh, 2006, pp. 46-54). The form of colonization had a more mercantilist view (Olsson, 2007): trade was established through contact with local or indigenous people, and they wanted to exploit the goods the country had to offer. This merchandise was not only restricted to spices, also slaves were traded. 1799 was the end of the VOC, but not the end of the era of colonization. After the Batavian Republic (1795-1806), the French Period (1806-1811), and British interim period (1811-1814), the Convention of London gave Indonesia back to the Dutch government (Vlasblom, 2005). From then on, the politics of colonization changed. The colonization politics before the Second World War can be divided into three main lines: the Culture System, Ethical Politics and Decentralization. These three lines will shortly be discussed further to discover what the Dutch colonizers established politically. The culture system is characterized by a trade monopoly in export products for the Dutch government and the mandatory aspect for local farmers to make a part of their farmland available for export crops. In this system the farmer had to use 1/5 of their land to grow for example coffee for export. The idea was that local farmers were able to learn about the culture of export products and make money out of it, instead of spending their time growing rice (Jonkers, 1947, p. 37). The system also provided a percentage of the earnings to the indigenous administration (Inheems or Inlands Bestuur) and the domestic administration (Binnenlands Bestuur): the culture percentage (cultuurprocenten). The head of the villages, or the indigenous aristocracy, had contact with the colonial domestic administration and had control over the products (Vlasblom, 2005). The consequences of this system were huge, especially for the local farmers. The balance between crops for local consumption and crops for the export was lost. Financially, this system was a big success. In particular for the civil servants, who profited from the culture percentage ( (Jonkers, 1947, p. 38), (Vlasblom, 2005, p. 15)). Since the 1860s the situation improved slightly, because of Multatuli’s Max Havelaar and the abolition of the state monopoly. Private initiative was from then possible, but only by land leased from the local farmers. It meant the end of the culture system eventually (van 't

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Veer, 1980). This system is thus characterized by central, though indirect rule, but still with a significant role for local indigenous leaders. The ethical policy, as from 1901, provided a new dimension in the colonial policy. The government was more active in certain areas, such as education, welfare care and mission work. And also infrastructure and irrigation were improved (van 't Veer, 1980, p. 20). Some spoke of the “debt of honour” (Niessen, 1999, p. 45), but in practice it meant more direct rule in Indonesia. The sincere interest in the local situation increased, this was for example showed with education. Dutch education was provided, but only for children from the Europeans, Chinese and indigenous elite. Also, Dutch education was the only way to get accepted in higher education. So the improvement was not for everyone (Vlasblom, 2005, p. 17). Part of the ethical policy and direct rule was a reform in the policy of decentralization. This had been set out in the Decentralisation Act of 1903. In this act colonial government was more interested in local situations and called for a reform of the system. A principle of co- governance and autonomy was established and new jurisdictions were made (Niessen, 1999, p. 47). This act was renewed in 1922 and then again reform was announced. This time the form of decentralization was going to be designed according to the same principle as in the Netherlands. Provinces and municipalities were created, along with a Governor, Provincial Council, Provincial Board of Daily Affairs, Mayor, Municipal Council, and a Corporation of Mayor and Aldermen (Niessen, 1999, pp. 49-51). In these government tiers, some sort of elections were held as well. Active and passive suffrage had the following demands and were held by ethnic group: Dutch citizenship, 23 years of age, income of f.900 (Europeans) or f. 600 (Indonesians), and the ability to speak the Dutch language. At provincial level, the Indonesian representatives were elected, but the European representatives were appointed (Jonkers, 1947, p. 43). When the Second World War started (in Indonesia in 1942) the execution of this act was in some parts still in progress. Along this line, a Volksraad (Council of the People) was established between 1918 and 1942. The Dutch government in The Hague opposed such a council for a long time, but eventually, and considering the tendencies of nationalism in Indonesia, it had to be established. This was a first step to more autonomy and self-governance, but until 1927 it had mainly an advising function (Jonkers, 1947, p. 47). A substantial part of this council consisted of Indonesian people, and as the number of members grew, the call for more independence grew as well (Jonkers, 1947, p. 49).

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

At the beginning of the twentieth century, more nationalist thinking occurred. Sukarno was one of the young men that wanted independence (van 't Veer, 1980, p. 22). From 1926, the politics became tenser. Small revolts took place and were answered with arrests and camp sentences. Also Sukarno was sentenced for four years and later banished to a remote island. His companion Mohammed Hatta was acquitted (van 't Veer, 1980, p. 23). The Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945 was more seen as liberation by the Indonesian. Within this domination, Indonesian leaders, such as Hatta and Sukarno, could find their way up and social mobility for every ethnic (but non-western) group was possible (van 't Veer, 1980, p. 23). The Japanese were not directly against the Indonesian values of independence, but more against western/European domination and colonization. Although they kept most of the colonial government structure, they abolished the Dutch language and Dutch officials were replaced (Niessen, 1999, pp. 54-55). In 1944 and 1945 the Japanese mobilized social mass-organizations under the name of ‘popular power’. The Japanese presence was a considerable influence for the political awareness of the possibility to defeat the European colonizers (van 't Veer, 1980, p. 25). In the end, when Japan surrendered, Sukarno and Hatta declared Indonesian independence on August 17, 1945. This was almost a spontaneous action, since it was scheduled for a later date (August 24). The fall of Japan on August 15, asked for a quick response (Niessen, 1999, p. 59). However, the Dutch government was not prepared to let their colony go that easily, and managed to recapture eastern parts of Indonesia (Niessen, 1999, p. 61). Violent actions (police actions) took place. In 1949, the Dutch handed over the authority (Niessen, 1999, p. 59). At Dutch request (a condition for acknowledgement), the federal republic of the ‘United States of Indonesia’ was established. However, after a year a unitary system replaced these United States (Niessen, 1999, pp. 69-70). “Unity in Diversity” was the new slogan and Sukarno was determined that this should be executed along the line of the idea of Pancasila. This idea contained the following five principles: “Believe in the one supreme God, just and civilized humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy led by the wisdom of deliberation among representatives, and social justice for all people of Indonesia.” (Niessen, 1999, p. 19). The period of Sukarno was dominated by the politics of guided democracy. In fact, it meant more power for the president, an appointed parliament, a bigger role for the military, no elections (the last elections were held in 1955), and a bad economic situation (Dalhuisen, van Selm, & Steegh, 2006, pp. 153-154). After a period of dissatisfaction, and Sukarno’s bad 48

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia health, a military coup occurred on October 15, 1965 (Niessen, 1999, p. 73). A tumultuous and violent period followed, and Suharto’s presidency, which started on March 12, 1967, proclaimed a new order (Niessen, 1999, p. 81). Because of the population growth, the challenges were food supply, employment, health care and education (Dalhuisen, van Selm, & Steegh, 2006, pp. 154-155). But Pancansila remained a key word. Elections were restored and held every five years, although the outcome was already determined. Local government had to follow orders from Jakarta and most of the governors and regents were appointed. Connections, corruption and the army played a major role. Economically, it seemed that Indonesia was growing, which also explains the continuing support for Suharto. However, during the crisis of 1997 social unrest grew to a higher level. There was distrust for the government, who was held responsible for the crisis (Dalhuisen, van Selm, & Steegh, 2006, p. 156). After a period of demonstrations and actions, Suharto stepped down on May 21, 1998. A period of democratization, as has been described in previous chapters, followed.

6.1.2 British Colonial History in Malaya The colonial history of Malaysia started in a similar way as the history of Indonesia. In 1509 a Portuguese fleet was the first in the harbour of Malacca, and two years later trade on a regular basis was established (Emerson, 1979, p. 63). This was until the mid-seventeenth century, when the Dutch East India Company took the place of the Portuguese (Emerson, 1979, p. 67). Again, the VOC was not interested in colonizing parts of Malaysia, but was solely looking for trade lines and worked together with the local chiefs ((Emerson, 1979, p. 67), (Ryan, 1976, pp. 73-74)). The bankruptcy of the Dutch East India Company in 1798 worked to the advantage of the British. Although the British were less well-organized and more focussed on the trade with India and China, they needed a naval base on these trade lines, for safety and trade expansion in that area (Ryan, 1976, pp. 90-92). The situation in Europe, the French occupied the Netherlands until 1811, meant that the British took over the Dutch colonies temporarily. These colonies were given back to the Netherlands in 1814 (Emerson, 1979, p. 71) and the two countries agreed on fifty years of uninterrupted development of the territories (Emerson, 1979, p. 91). After this period of British rule in the South East Asian area, the British managed to establish its own settlement in Penang. Also around this time, a successful port was located at the end of the peninsula, Singapore (Ryan, 1976, p. 105).

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

The period between 1814 and around 1860 is characterized by a British attitude of non-interference, this mean that the different sultan states could decide how they wanted to design their own state (Ryan, 1976, p. 115). The Pensinula consisted of several states which went, during that time, to war with each other on a regular basis (Ryan, 1976, p. 142). The British helped settling these disputes, also with Siam on the border in the North (Ryan, 1976, p. 112). In this time the industry of tin and rubber developed and many Chinese workers immigrated and started to work in the mines or on the plantation (Ryan, 1976, pp. 133-134). Later these immigrants populated the cities, whereas Malay people stayed in the rural areas. The reason for Chinese immigrants to come to Malaysia in large numbers can be found in the many opportunities for trade, an acceptable amount of protection for goods and properties, and less administrative restrictions than in China (Ryan, 1976, p. 139). From 1864 onwards a change in attitude occurred. Part of this can be explained by the fact that all the European superpowers of that time were actively present in the region: France had Indochina, Spain had the Philippines and the Netherlands had the Netherlands Indies (Ryan, 1976, p. 144). In that year the colonial office was founded in Malaysia and that made, with the start of the Strait Settlements, these states a British crown colony with the people as British subjects. This did not mean direct annexation, which was too expensive, but a residential system was set up, which meant that British officials started to advise the rulers to follow certain lines of policy. However, there was no interference in Malay customs and religion (Ryan, 1976, pp. 158-159-162). The main aims of this residential system were to preserve law and order, maintain peace in the area and establish a system of taxation (Ryan, 1976, p. 159). And a comparable system was settled on the island of Borneo, which was still not under influence of any European power. In 1881 the North Borneo Company was founded to control the territory of Sabah and provide a British naval base. However, no trade monopoly was in force and there was again no interference in local customs (Ryan, 1976, p. 168). Gradually, with locating British settlements, they brought some British traditions of law and order with them to the country (Emerson, 1979, p. 93). In 1895, at the initiative of the British again, the Federated Malay States (Malacca, Dinding, Penang and Singapore) were founded (Ryan, 1976, p. 172). A resident-general would have the control over the different states with the aim to get more uniformity between the states and the notion that richer states should help poorer states. So, in practice, it was more of a union. The position of Sultan became more ceremonial and this loss of power was compensated by more efficiency, uniformity and continuity. The Federated Malay States 50

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia opposed the Unfederated Malay States, who were independent of British rule. By the time the twentieth century had arrived, both the Federated Malay states and Borneo were under direct British rule (Ryan, 1976, p. 175). During the years of economic prosperity, it was a quiet, stable period. This changed after the First World War, when the demand for tin and rubber decreased (Ryan, 1976, p. 211). The Sultans, who had not paid attention to political and constitutional matters, became dissatisfied with their position as advisers instead of real rulers (Ryan, 1976, p. 212). The British officials wanted less centralization too. Only the European and Chinese people opposed decentralization, because they were afraid too much power would go to and favour the Malay (Ryan, 1976, p. 213). Especially, the situation of the Chinese people had changed, most of them had settled permanently in Malaysia and by the 1930s they outnumbered the ethnic Malays. The Chinese remained a closed society, with their own education, language, traditions and connections with China (Ryan, 1976, p. 214). The process of decentralization took place, although incrementally, in four years. Some fields of interest were transferred to the States, but they were financially dependent on the Federal Government. State councils were established, unelected, but with representation of both Malay and Chinese people (Ryan, 1976, p. 217). However, Malays were highly favoured to work in the public administration; Chinese were not considered for these jobs. Also in Sarawak and Sabah on the Borneo island the administration of the government was modernized, professionalized, and decentralized (Ryan, 1976, p. 220). This political awareness explains also the fact that the first political party was set up in 1926. Before that date politics were dominated by the Islamic religion, but this political party (Kesatuan Melayu Singapura) stood up for more Malay nationalist interest in the field of politics, education and social and economic life (Ryan, 1976, pp. 236-237). The interwar period caused economic and social problems. Inefficiency and an overproduction of rubber and tin made clear how dependent the Malaysian economy was on this sector and both the government and the people were hit hard by this crisis. This caused social challenges as well, such as unemployment and a clearer division between Malay and Chinese (Ryan, 1976, pp. 221-229). The start of the conflict between China and Japan, made Malay people also more conscious towards Chinese people (Ryan, 1976, p. 237). More nationalist tendencies can also be seen in the different motivations of two other political groups: the ‘Conference of Pan-Malayan Malay Associations’, which were Malay people who belonged to the English educated upper class, and wanted ‘Malay for Malays’ 51

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

(Ryan, 1976, p. 238) and the group that leaned towards an association with Indonesia. Discussions about this were held with Sukarno and Hatta, but the abrupt end of the war meant that this was never realized (Ryan, 1976, p. 239). Thus, a lot of challenges already existed when the war broke out: to deal with social and economic problems and a racially mixed society where nationalism tried to create unity in Malaya, a peninsula that consists of several different states (Ryan, 1976, p. 240). The Second World War started in Malaya with the attacks of the Japanese in 1941. The main consequence of the occupation was that the import of rice had been stopped and led to starvation. Also Indian workers and opponents of the Japanese were sent to Siam to build on the ‘Death Railway’ (Ryan, 1976, p. 253). After the Japanese left the country, it took the British a couple of weeks to return to the peninsula. Then at first a British Military Administration (BMA) ruled over the area. But in 1946, the colonial office proposed a Malayan Union with a constitution (Ryan, 1976, p. 252). This was a change in the politics compared with before the war. The main points of the Union were: central government, and state governments were subordinated. Rulers lost their powers to influence law-making: those were passed in the legislative council. In this process local rulers were not consulted. This was seen in the fact that equal rights for all races were established, in which Malay people lost their political status apart (Ryan, 1976, pp. 254-255). The Union raised a lot of protest and the British regretted handling it this way. So in 1948 the Federation of Malaya Agreement was negotiated between the UMNO (that was founded in 1946) and the British (Ryan, 1976, p. 258). It made the peninsula a federation again, with powers for the states and special rights for the Malay. This was in order to move in the direction of self-government (Ryan, 1976, p. 259). During this time, between 1948 and until after the Malaysian independence, a state of Emergency was declared in order to fight against terrorist communist activity in the jungle. It contained extra authority for the police force, for example to imprison a person without trial. The goal was to protect important facilities in order to not let the communists destroy the economy (Ryan, 1976, p. 267). Also, special villages were set up in order to protect citizens, but also to make sure the citizens did not cooperate with the communists. By the time Malaysia became independent, this situation was still not completely over, but the communists could not get in control anymore (Ryan, 1976, p. 268). The policy to move towards independence developed next to the Emergency regulations. It was hoped that fighting terrorism and developing the country would stir 52

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia nationalism. In 1951 an alliance between the political party that represented the Chinese (MCA) and the UMNO was set up. In 1955 they requested independence and asked a Commonwealth commission to draw up a constitution. On August 5, 1957 the Federation of Malaya became independent. Both federal Parliament and the State assemblies were elected, and also the special Malay rights remained (Ryan, 1976, pp. 279-280). After the independence, true stabilization did not yet appear. Although a treaty of Friendship was signed in April 1959 with Indonesia, the latter decided on a policy of Konfrontasi (Confrontation) between 1962 and 1966. It is said that there were certain motives for this policy: it started with the Malaysian Federation of 1961. In this federation Malaya would be united with Singapore, Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah, and this became reality in 1963, although without Brunei. This fact triggered the Indonesian politics of Sukarno, who called this an action of neo-colonialism. Sukarno had just settled the conflict with West Irian (New Guinea) and needed another excuse to distract the population away from internal economic problems. Indonesia had also close contacts with communist China, and the latter supported Indonesia’s actions because of the big Chinese minority in the country. The goal was to free Borneo and violent actions on the island occurred mainly between 1963 and 1965. In 1965 Singapore decided to leave the Federation. Eventually, a change in the authoritarian regime in Indonesia (Suharto was to replace Sukarno) and the lack of public support caused the end of the Konfrontasi in 1966 (Sutter, 1966). Another destabilizing event were the ethnic riots after the election result of 1969, which the UMNO lost. Again a state of emergency was declared (Freedom House, 2011). In reaction to this, Abdul Razak (prime minister) published a New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970 that was to “restructure society and eradicate poverty” (Abdullah, 1997). This policy started in 1971 and lasted officially until 1990. The first goal was to improve the ‘economic and social status of Malays’ (Torii, 1997, p. 209). This tried to create a society with a middle class. The second goal was the restructure of society, i.e. improve the economy (for example employment) but under close governmental supervision, which Torii (1997) calls ‘economic nationalism’ (Torii, 1997). A more stable period followed. After Abdul Razak died in 1976, a period without real leadership followed and in 1981 Mahathir Mohamad came to power. Mahathir adjusted the NEP with some market principles such as privatizations and less constraints on foreign investments. This adjustment was needed to give the stagnating economy a boost (Torii, 1997).

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

The financial crisis in 1997, that hit Asia hard, meant no real political change for Mahathir’s Malaysia. He ruled strictly and made sure political opponents were cleared. He followed a policy in which his Asian values prevailed and managed to get through the crisis in its own way (Pepinsky, 2007). A few years later in 2003, Mahathir stepped down. Then the political situation developed as has been described in a previous chapter. When the history of the two countries are compared, then it can be concluded, that the colonial history started the same way, but have gone in different directions since the early nineteenth century. The Dutch started immediately with a direct way of governing their colony, while the British were more reluctant and waited to be more directly involved in governmental structures from about 1860. Also, a difference in attitude can be seen. The Dutch made an attempt to teach, and show the indigenous people how to handle things (mission work, education, and growing export products). The British, on the other hand, established direct rule and a state system, but hardly ever interfered with Malay customs and religion. So, this made the history of the two countries go in a different direction and also meant that the road to independence was different.

6.2 Drawing parallels and considering alternative causes The three main concepts of this master thesis, the status of democracy and the polity of Indonesia and Malaysia, along with the most important events of the last 200-300 year, have been researched. Now it is time to put these three subjects together and see whether the research question can be answered. In the partial conclusions of the case studies, Indonesia and Malaysia have been compared. The question is what can be derived from these conclusions when they are related to the aspects of history, that have been described in the previous paragraphs. To link history to the five points of democracy is rather difficult. Some parts can be explained by the fact that the Dutch have been there for quite a while. Other matters are just completely different when they are compared to the colonial period. The colonial history of the Netherlands has hardly had any direct visible influence on the development of democracy. The Indonesian people were since about 1814 subjected to Dutch direct rule. First to be exploited for export products, but later with more attention for being taught (education, Christianity, and in growing export products). Prior to the independence, heavy violent actions between the colony and colonizers occurred, but also during the period of Suharto and Sukarno civil liberties were restrained. So during the

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia colonial period and afterwards civil liberties and equality had a continuity of restriction, while the country is now graded as free. It thus made a development in the past fifteen years , that is rather different from the periods they have known in their history. In the field of alternative information, this is not a development that has yet occurred. On this matter it might be said that it is a continuity of history, which has not been changed so far. Also the problem with corruption, that touches every tier of government and affects the judicial independence, is something that can be traced back in history. Already in the culture system, the various percentages on earnings triggered civil servants to be corrupt (Vlasblom, 2005). This continued to play an important role during the Second World War and the period under Sukarno and Suharto as well. The argument that corruption is thus embedded in the Indonesian society seems valid, and clearly the government has to put a lot of effort in anticorruption programs to reverse or solve this. On the part of the elections, it is also hard to see any causal relations between colonial history and the current way of handling elections. In the 1920s elections were held, but since the Second World War and the period afterwards, they have either not been held at all, not been held free and fair, or not been held on a regular basis. So the traditions of elections have stood at a standstill during the last century, i.e. it has not developed liberally during that period. However, since about 1998 it started to develop again, and they are now regarded as rather free and fair. This shows that between the democracy development and history in Indonesia, it is hard to prove that there are direct causal links. Although, some facts can be explained, this does not mean that change cannot occur, and that history is determined for how matters are nowadays in this case. A different view can be placed on the historical consequences of a state polity. As has been showed in the partial conclusion of the case study, both the Netherlands and Indonesia can also be categorized as a Consensus democracy. The question is then: is it a coincidence, is there a causal relationship or are there other factors that can explain the situation. First, a closer look will be taken at comparing history with the polity, and later on the other two possibilities will be considered. When reviewing the ten points of Lijphart, and Indonesia and the Netherlands are being considered, it might be said that there are some remarkable similarities in the polity of both countries. When for example the broad coalitions, the role of the Parliament and bicameralism are considered, similarities and differences are easily seen. In the Netherlands, the goal is mostly broad coalitions and also the Parliament will hold the cabinet accountable 55

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

(Hendriks, 2006, p. 90). Differences can be found in the serving terms (five years in Indonesia, four in the Netherlands). And of course the system of bicameralism, that is not yet fully implemented in Indonesia, differs from the system in the Netherlands. Also both countries have a flexible constitution and a multiparty system. However, Indonesia’s constitution is more flexible than the Dutch one, and also a multiparty system is not something that is necessarily directly inherited from the colonial history. Also, the independence of the central bank is something that cannot causally be ascribed to this period. The inheritance is more visible in the design of decentralization and the judicial system. As has been showed in the history chapter, the Dutch decentralized Indonesia with municipalities and provinces, and they delegated tasks under the term of co-governance and local autonomy. Thus, they tried to design the decentralization like the Dutch system of local governance (Derksen & Schaap, 2010, p. 103). A similar system can still be seen in Indonesia today. Tasks are divided between the central government and the local and regional governments and although it is not called co-governance and autonomy anymore, it can still be divided and distinguished that way. In case of the judicial system, several authors and also the CIA Factbook noticed the similarity in the design. The pyramid division between the lower court, the High court and the Supreme court can be compared to the Dutch Rechtbank (Court), Gerechtshoven (higher Courts), and the Hoge Raad (High Council) (Kortmann, 2008, pp. 257-258). So again, only on the part of decentralization and the judicial system real inheritance can be proven. On the other parts of the polity, it is possible that there are traces of history to be found, but these are less visible, because time, development and other factors played a major role. When it comes to comparing the history of Malaysia with the six points of democracy, it is also hard to find a causal relation. In the case of equality and civil liberties, there is one thing that can be explained and that is the privileged role for ethnic Malays. As wrong as it may seem, it is something that has evolved from the beginning of the nineteenth century. Ethnic Malays were seen as the original residents, and the Chinese and Europeans were more seen as temporary inhabitants, only to find out that they would stay after all. Despite this fact, true equality has not been implemented (with one exception from 1946 to 1948 in the Malaysian Union, but this did not last long) until today. Other inequalities or shortages in civil liberties and political rights cannot be directly explained by the presence of a colonial history.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Also on the part of alternative information, direct causal explanations are hard to find. The rules about accountability and press freedom have mainly been shaped and developed after the independence, and have mostly been designed under the rule of several presidents, such as Mahathir, who had a big influence. In relation to Indonesia, Malaysia scores rather well on corruption and has it better under control. This is also influenced by the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary has its roots in the colonial system, but it is hard to explain its current functioning with history. The functioning is no longer under influence of a colonial ruler, and has not been since 1957. So Malaysia’s “own” government is responsible for that. This is also the case with the electoral process. Since the independence every four years have elections been held and the process and the way it works is similar to that of the UK (district system), but how it functions is up to the current rulers to decide. What can be said on the current six points of the democracy in Malaysia, is that some points have its roots in the colonial period, but its functioning nowadays cannot be causally explained by this fact. Just as with Indonesia, more can be traced back to the colonial period from the polity than from the characteristics of democracy. In the case of Malaysia, it has many characteristics of the Westminster Democracy, but yet it has been completely different. A characteristic that is completely the same is the notion of a central state. In both countries the national government plays a major role. London makes decisions and sub governments carry them out (Hendriks, 2006, p. 69), which is also the case in Malaysia. Already in 1895, decentralization in the Federated Malay States was talked about, thus with a smaller role for the local government in the states. In the history, sometimes the local rulers received some power back, but during other periods they lost it again. This is a characteristic for a central state too. The other points, majority rule and coalition dominance look alike too, but yet are different. Both are present in Malaysia, but more than two parties are involved. What makes it more or less the same is the fact that there are two coalitions formed, who are decisive and pretend to look like a two party system. The coalition makes decisions, and since 2008 there is a more substantial opposition. Of a real swing between the coalition and the opposition (as in Britain, four years Conservatives can then be followed by four years Labour) one cannot speak. Also the bicameral system has a similar structure. In the UK the House of Commons are chosen and the House of Lords are appointed by the Queen or the Parliament or are inherited (Lijphart, 1999, p. 18). In Malaysia, this is also the case. The House of 57

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Representatives is chosen and the members of the Senate are appointed by the King or the States. Another similarity is the electoral system. The UK uses a district system (a disproportional system), with ‘the winner takes all’ and ‘first past the post’ mentality (Hendriks, 2006, p. 64). Malaysia uses the same system, with even a disproportional weight of votes in rural areas. This may not directly be inherited from the colonial period, but it is highly likely that the Commonwealth Commission proposed this in the first draft of the constitution in 1955 (see Malaysian history). In the case of the judiciary it is acknowledged by many authors ((CIA World Factbook, 2011), (Ryan, 1976), (Abdullah, 1997)) that it is based on the English common law. In the chapter on the Malaysian history, it is already mentioned that the British brought some elements of British law with them to Malaysia, although they did not implement it on a large scale. It meant that at independence, the judicial system was similar. Only a Sharia Court in special cases was added. The difference on constitutional flexibility can be found in the fact that the UK does not have a written constitution (at all) (Lijphart, 1999, p. 19). Malaysia has a constitution and it is flexible. So what can be concluded regarding the colonial history and the polity of Malaysia, is that there are quite some similarities that can be explained by the fact that the British have colonized the country. On four out of the ten points of the model of Lijphart the countries are exactly the same, i.e. majoritarian electoral system, bicameralism, central state and central state-owned bank. Whereas on three other points traces can also be found that make the connection likely. As has been said in the chapter on the history of Malaysia, the Commonwealth Commission drafted the constitution of Malaysia, which shows or explains the high degree of British influence on Malaysia’s polity. Thus, it could be said that the British tried to organize the polity of Malaysia before they left the country.

6.2.1 Other independent variables In the chapter were the theories have been explained, there were also other independent variables discussed, such as the influence of Islam, the economy and Asian style democracy. These three topics have not been a theme for this research, but have come to the foreground laterally. So some small observations on these topics will be given. As the biggest Islamic country in the world, it has come to the foreground that it is an apparent part of the Indonesian life. Already present before the Europeans arrived in

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Indonesia, Islam was not a big issue in European history books during that time, although a lot of missionary work has been done in Indonesia to make the people convert to Christianity. After Indonesia became independent, Islam got a more prominent place in politics through Pancasila. Indonesia is a secular state, but, as showed, a problem remains with local laws that incorporate Islamic rituals. However, these are difficult to reverse. With Malaysia, history starts more or less the same. Only it became an Islamic state, instead of secular one, so the religion has a prominent place in daily life and politics. Special Sharia courts have been created for Muslims, and they have to go to this court for certain matters, that have been defined in the constitution. This shows that in both countries Islam is an important influence. Though not extensively researched in this thesis, it is an interesting matter. Especially, to find out what the extent of influence on democracy is, when the Islamic countries are not situated at the Islamic heartland and when they go together with a certain degree of democracy. The topic of economy is also being touched laterally. During the colonial period, it was all about the economy and making money, especially in Indonesia. But as already in one of the earlier chapters, both Malaysia and Indonesia fared well after independence. Although, not being one of the actual Asian tigers, both countries still profited from the economic growth in the area. The economic crisis of 1997 made the Indonesians call for more democracy, and they got it. Suharto stepped down and development to more democracy followed. This was not an easy road, and had some setbacks, such as the impeachment of President Wahid. But the country did not go back to a more authoritarian way of ruling. In Malaysia, there was a different situation. There, the worse economic situation was a reason for Mahathir to strengthen the grip on the country by focussing on Asian values. Others called it soft-authoritarianism. Against the advice of the IMF, they found their own way to overcome the crisis (IMF, 1998). And at that time it worked (IMF, 1999). Hood (1999) called the period of Asian Style Democracy a transition period to further democratization. Now, fourteen year after this crisis, it can be said that some things have changed. For example, Mahathir is no longer the ruler of Malaysia, but it is not yet clear whether the country is in transition from soft-authoritarianism to a more democratic regime. The elections of 2008 brought some change, but the elections of this year (2012) have yet to show if that trend is going to carry on. So that proves whether Asian Style Democracy was really a transition period or a real alternative for liberal democracy.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

As can be seen from the simple observations made above, these three other independent variables are also of great importance and they provide enough questions for further research.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

7 Discussion & Conclusion At the end of this master thesis an answer to the research question will be given, and this will be put in a broader perspective, that will hopefully give a contribution to several discussions on the development of democracy. The research question was: ‘What is the status of democracy in Malaysia and Indonesia and how can the distinction in the field of polity and the structure of democracy between both countries and their former colonizers be defined?’ The answer that can be derived is the following. In the overall score, Indonesia fares better on democracy, but when a deeper look is taken, it can be seen that Malaysia and Indonesia score well on different points. Indonesia is functioning in a more proper electoral way, also regarding civil liberties and political rights, but fails in fighting corruption. While in Malaysia the right democratic institutions are present and elections have been held on a regular basis since the independence, but restrictions have been put on these certain civil liberties and political rights. Since having a full liberal democracy means that on all the six points have to be scored, it would be best to say that both countries score almost equally well, but get their points in different fields. On the status of democracy can thus be said that both countries have not reached yet the point to function in a fully liberal democratic way. In the field of polity, it was very remarkable that both countries had a lot in common with their former colonizers. Indonesia can be defined as a Consensus democracy and there are several characteristics that can be ascribed to the colonial past. These are especially the way decentralization and the structure of the judiciary are organized. There are also similarities in the polity, such as broad coalitions, a proportional electoral system and a multiparty system. These similarities can be ascribed to the colonial period, but can also have developed afterwards. In that case, it is important that in a country with many different ethnic people deliberation is a central theme, because then consensus democracy is a good style (Lijphart, 1999, p. 33). Malaysia can be defined as a majoritarian or Westminster democracy, and here also many characteristics can be found in the polity that come from the British colonizer. These can be explained by the fact that the British colonial office helped to draft the constitution. That is why some characteristics, such as a central state and the electoral process probably look the same. Though, Malaysia has put some characteristics of the consensus democracy in

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia it as well, such as a multiple party system and broad coalitions. These are then, however shaped to fit in the majoritarian model, as has been showed in this thesis. The quote that meant the beginning of this thesis, was: “[E]very single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 57) Now, in the conclusion, it can be said that this quote needs a more nuanced explanation. In the most strict sense of the quote, it is still true. Since a lot of former colonies are lacking a continuous democratic experience since the Second World war, and they will never have it anymore. However, as has been seen in this thesis, regular elections do not guarantee a “better” liberal democracy. According to Zakaria (2007), who made the following explanation, “(…) the British Empire left behind a legacy of law and capitalism that has helped strengthen the forces of liberal democracy (…)” (Zakaria, 2007, p. 57). In this thesis, it is showed that the legacy of the British have indeed huge influence on the polity of the Malaysian state. The British left several institutions that found their basis in the constitution. In the history chapter it has been showed, that the Dutch also brought some specific traditions, that contributed to the state polity and moreover Indonesia scores on some parts of the liberal democracy better than Malaysia. So Malaysia inherited more than Indonesia from their colonizers, but this is not a guarantee anymore that a country is more liberal democratic. Thus, although the quote is still true, it does not give any information on the actual liberal democratic status. A nuance to the quote should therefore be added. On the topic of colonization, a lot has been written already. Also often about the negative aspects and those should of course never be forgotten. In the Netherlands, the discussion about what happened during the “police actions” has renewed itself in the past month (Nicolasen, 2012). The questions that have arisen, have in particularly to do with finding out the truth and the blame. But does the truth has to come up at any cost? Or is there no point anymore in digging up old stories? Another discussion that touches this subject is about the responsibility of the former colonizers they might still have regarding their colonies. How much responsibility is still needed after 67 years? Both discussions stay complicated and sensitive. Back to the discussion on democracy. With many new democracies to come in the Middle-East, it is an interesting subject to investigate how this has developed in other 62

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia countries. And to see and learn what kind of trouble these countries may face. Questions could be, to what extent is history determined for the development of democracy? Or how long can a transition process take? What this thesis has tried to show, is that history can absolutely have a great impact on polity, but other variables also count. The influence of history can be more minor and overcome, but matters that have been laid down in a constitution are often difficult to remove. So history does not have to determine all, but can be of influence. Also, on the duration of the transition period, it is showed that (immense) setbacks are to be expected, and it can take at least half a century before one can say that true progress has been made. A last discussion is about the style of soft authoritarianism in Malaysia. What road should countries take to come to liberal democracy? Implement elections as soon as possible and hope that stability will come along the establishment of democratic structures and civil and political rights, or go for stability and order first, although at the expense of civil and political rights? Malaysia (as well as the neighbouring city state Singapore) obviously chose for the latter, the question is whether the last step, full civil (and equal) and political rights and liberties, will come soon. At the very end of this master thesis, a lot of new questions have arisen. But this thesis also showed that history can have influence and consequences for the future and how democracy can develop, but that does not mean that countries are dependent on their history forever, things can change.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Literature Abdullah, F. (1997). Affirmative Action Policy in Malaysia: To Restructure Society, to Eradicate Poverty. Ethnic Studies Report, 189-221. Bank Indonesia. (2008). Bank Indonesia: Accountability. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from Bank Indonesia: http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/Tentang+BI/Fungsi+Bank+Indonesia/Akuntabilitas/ Bank Indonesia. (2008). Bank Indonesia: Status and Position. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from Bank Indonesia: http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/Tentang+BI/Fungsi+Bank+Indonesia/Status+dan+Kedudu kan/ Burkens, M., Kummeling, H., Vermeulen, B., & Widdershoven, R. (2006). Beginselen van de Democratische Rechtsstaat: Inleiding tot de Grondslagen van het Nederlandse Staats- en Bestuursrecht. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer. Central Bank of Malaysia. (2012, February 12). About the Bank. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Central Bank of Malaysia: http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=en_about&pg=en_intro&ac=641&lang=en CIA World Factbook. (2009). Facts: Government: Indonesia. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/id.html CIA World Factbook. (2011). Facts: Government: Malaysia. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/my.html CIA World Factbook. (2011, July 12). Index Mundi. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from CIA World Factbook: www.indexmundi.com CIA World Factbook. (2012). Facts: People and Society: Indonesia. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/id.html CIA World Factbook. (2012). Facts: People and Society: Malaysia. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/geos/my.html Dahl, R. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Dalhuisen, L., van Selm, M., & Steegh, F. (. (2006). Geschiedenis van Indonesië. Zutphen: Walburg Pers. Derksen, W., & Schaap, L. (2010). Lokaal Bestuur. Dordrecht: Convoy Uitgevers B.V. . Douglas, W. (2005). A Consolidated Patriomonial Democracy? Democratization in Post- Suharto Indonesia. Singapore: INSEAD: Euro-Asia and Comparative Centre. Election Guide. (2010, November 26). Election Guide, Country Profile: Indonesia. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from Election Guide: http://www.electionguide.org/country.php?ID=102 Election Guide. (2012, January 1). Country Profile: Malaysia. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Election Guide: http://www.electionguide.org/election.php?ID=1397 Emerson, R. (1979). Malaysia, A study in direct and indirect rule. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. European Union. (2007). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union. Freedom House. (2010). Report on Indonesia: Accountability and Public Voice. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries- crossroads-2010/accountability-and-public-voice-11 Freedom House. (2010). Report on Indonesia: Civil Liberties. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads- 2010/civil-liberties-11 Freedom House. (2010). Report on Malaysia: Accountability and Publice Voice. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries- crossroads-2010/accountability-and-public-voice-15 Freedom House. (2010). Report on Malaysia: Civil Liberties. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Freedom House : http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads- 2010/civil-liberties-15 Freedom House. (2010). Report on Malaysia: Rule of Law. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads-2010/rule- law-15 Freedom House. (2011). Freedom of the Press 2011: Indonesia. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2011/indonesia Freedom House. (2011). Freedom of the World: Malaysia. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/malaysia 65

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Freedom House. (2012). Freedom in the World 2012: The Arab Uprisings and their Global Repercussions. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/FIW%202012%20Boo klet--Final.pdf Hadiz, V. (2004). Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo- Institutionalist Perspectives. Development and Change, 697-718. Hale, W., & Kienle, E. (1997). After the Cold War: Security and Democracy in Africa and Asia. London: Tauris Academic Studies. Hendriks, F. (2006). Vitale Democratie: Theorie van Democratie in Actie. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hendriks, F. (2011). Guestlecture. Tilburg. Heufers, R. (2002). The Politics of Democracy in Malaysia. ASIEN, 39-60. Hood, S. (1998). The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy. Asian Survey, 853-866. Human Rights Watch. (2012, January). Country Summary: Indonesia. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/indonesia_2012.pdf IMF. (1998, September 11). 1998 Annual Report: Press Briefing. IMF Headquarters, Washington D.C., United States. IMF. (1999, July 15). Getting it right: Sequencing Financial Sector Reforms. Washington, Washington, D.C., United States . Index Mundi. (2012, January 9). Information about Indonesia. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Index Mundi: http://www.indexmundi.com/indonesia Index Mundi. (2012, January 2012). Information about Malaysia. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from Index Mundi: http://www.indexmundi.com/malaysia Jonkers, A. (1947). Overheidszorg in Indonesie voorheen en thans. The Hague. Kim, Y. (1997). Asian-Style Democracy: A Critique from East Asia. Asian Survey, 1119- 1134. Kortmann, C. (2008). Constitutioneel Recht. Deventer: Kluwer. Lange, M. (2004). British Colonial Legacies and Political Development. World Development, 905-922. Lele, J., & Quadir, F. (2004). Democracy and Civil Society in Asia: Volume 2: Democratic Transitions and Social Movements in Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty- Six Countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Mahfud, M. (2009). The Role of the Constitutional Court in the Development of Democracy in Indonesia. Cape Town: The Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Malaysian Parliament. (1957, August 31). Constitution of Malaysia. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/malaysia.pdf National Endowment for the Humanities. (2012). Human Rights and Freedom from State Tyranny: Country Studies - Indonesia. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Democracy Web: http://www.democracyweb.org/rights/indonesia.php Neher, C. (1994). Asian Style Democracy. Asian Survey (vol. 34, no. 11), 949-961. Nicolasen, L. (2012, juni 19). 'Nieuwe studie nodig naar geweld politionele acties'. Volkskrant. Niessen, N. (1999). Municipal Government in Indonesia. Leiden: Research School CNWS, University of Leiden. Nugroho, Y., & Tampubolon, G. (2008). Network Dynamics in the Transition to Democracy: Mapping Global Networks of Contemporary Indonesian Civil Society. Sociological Research Online. Olsson, O. (2007). On the Institutional Legacy of Mercantilist and Imperialist Colonialism. Göteborg: Göteborg University. Olsson, O. (2009). On the democratic legacy of colonialism. Journal of Comparative Economics, 534-551. People Consultative Assembly. (1945). 1945 Indonesian Constitution. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from Embassy of Indonesia: http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/about/pdf/IndonesianConstitution.pdf Pepinsky, T. (2007). Malaysia: Turnover Without Change. Journal of Democracy, 113-127. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J., & Limongi, F. (1996). What makes democracies endure? Journal of Democracy, 39-55. Quadir, F., & Lele, J. (2004). Democracy and Civil Society in Asia: Volume 1: Globalization, Democracy and Civil Society in Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Ramasamy, P. (2004). Civil Society in Malaysia: An Arena of Contestations? In L. H. (ed.), Civil Society in South East Asia (pp. 198-216). Singapore: Institute of South East Asia Studies. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 67

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Rowley, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Islam's democracy paradox: Muslims claim to like democracy, so why do they have so little? Public Choice, 273-299. Ryan, N. (1976). A history of Malaysia and Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Saravanamuttu, J. (2012). Twin Coalition Politics in Malaysia since 2008: A Path Dependent Framing and Analysis. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International Strategic Affairs, 101-127. Sen, A. (2000). Democracy as a Universal Value. In R. Blaug, & J. Schwarzmantel, Democracy: a reader (pp. 420-423). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Slater, D. (2012). Strong-state Democratization in Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Democracy, 19-33. Sutter, J. (1966). Two Faces of Konfrontasi: "Crush Malaysia" and the Gestapu. Asian Survey, 523-546. Tabalujan, B. (2002, December 2). The Indonesian Legal System: An Overview. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from Law and Technology Resources for Legal Professionals: http://www.llrx.com/features/indonesia.htm#constitutional The Asian Network for Free Elections. (2009). A Decade of Democracy: the 2009 Legislative Election. Retrieved June 7, 2012, from International Election Observation Mission: the Asian Network for Free Elections: http://aceproject.org/ero- en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-final-report-legislative-elections-1 The Economist. (2011). Democracy Index 2011: Democracy under stress. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from The Economist Intelligence: http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democr acy_Index_Dec2011.pdf Thompson, E. (1999). Indonesian Transition: The 1999 Presidential Elections. Washington: National Bureau of Asian Research. Torii, T. (1997). The New Economic Policy and the United Malays National Organization. The Developing Economies, 209-239. Transparency International. (2010). Corruption by Country: Indonesia. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from Transparency International: http://www.transparency.org/country#IDN van 't Veer, P. (1980). Vogelvlucht door de geschiedenis van Indonesië (1800-1979). In R. Kamerling, Indonesië toen en nu (pp. 9-34). Amsterdam: Intermediair Amsterdam .

Colonization and Post-Colonial Democracy Development in Indonesia and Malaysia

Van Thiel, S. (2010). Bestuurskundig onderzoek: een methodologische inleiding. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho. Vlasblom, D. (2005). Indonesië. Amsterdam: Instituut voor de Tropen. Voigt, S. (2004). Islam and the Institutions of a Free Society: Many Problems, Little Hope. Kassel: The Ratio Institute. World Bank. (1993). The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. Zakaria, F. (1997). The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs, 22-43. Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: illliberal democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.