Category: Indonesia

  • Jakarta’s New Governor Doubles Down on Identity

    Jakarta’s new governor, Anies Baswedan, was inaugurated in a large and highly publicized ceremony last night. After a highly racially and religiously charged gubernatorial campaign that saw Anies defeat incumbent governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama—a Chinese Christian since imprisoned on charges of blasphemy—many Indonesians had hoped for a period of calm. Anies might have contributed to that by delivering a moderately religious but clearly nationalist and inclusivist inauguration address in his first speech as governor.

    This is not what he delivered. Instead, Anies has doubled down on the identitarian religious rhetoric that sustained his campaign and propelled him into office. One particular line from his speech as attracted particular attention among Indonesia’s liberals, progressives, and religious and ethnic minorities:

    Jakarta juga memiliki makna pentingnya dalam kehidupan berbangsa. Di kota ini, tekad satu tanah air, satu bangsa dan satu bahasa persatuan ditegakkan oleh para pemuda. Di kota ini pula bendera pusaka dikibartinggikan, tekad menjadi bangsa yang merdeka dan berdaulat diproklamirkan ke seluruh dunia. Jakarta adalah satu dari sedikit tempat di Indonesia yang merasakan hadirnya penjajah dalam kehidupan sehari-hari selama berabad-abad lamanya. Rakyat pribumi ditindas dan dikalahkan oleh kolonialisme. Kini telah merdeka, saatnya kita jadi tuan rumah di negeri sendiri.

    Jakarta also has a special place in our national life. It was in this city that the youth proclaimed “one country, one nation, one language.” It was in this city that the flag of our heritage was raised, in which our will to become a free and sovereign nation was proclaimed to the whole world. Jakarta is one of a few places in Indonesia that for centuries felt the everyday consequences of the colonial presence. The indigenous people have been oppressed and defeated by colonialism. Today we are free, and it is time for us to become the heads of our own country.

    There are three important observations from this excerpt.

    1. Even after nearly seventy years of independence, colonial legacies matter. Anies is able to compose a powerful political message that invokes the socioeconomic effects of colonialism. Anies (or his speechwriters) believe that this is message that still resonates. In my view, he is right.
    2. This is a presidential speech, not a gubernatorial one. The looks exactly like the speech of a candidate preparing himself for a 2019 presidential run, placing Jakarta at the center of national politics and staking a claim for himself as a national politician. Elsewhere in the speech he invokes folksy sayings from ethnic groups around the archipelago (Acehnese, Batak, Banjar, Madurese, Minahasa, Minang), figuratively pushing a pin in each of Indonesia’s regions and saying “I am speaking to you too.”
    3. Every Indonesian who hears this speech will understand that it is targeting ethnic Chinese Indonesians. Specifically, it is associating Chinese Indonesians with the long colonial period and its legacies on everyday politics. Pribumi is a term that connotes indigeneity, but specifically, it identifies those citizens of Indonesia who are viewed to be descended from foreign populations (Chinese, Arabs, Indians, Europeans, and others). Anies appears to have conveniently forgot that he himself is of Hadrami descent. Alternatively, he might not have forgotten at all, but rather he knows that Indonesia’s wealthy Arab Indonesian elite faces none of the discrimination that Chinese Indonesians face in places like Jakarta. (I have written about this here [PDF].)

    The visual imagery surrounding Anies’s installation reflects similar kinds of politics. One notable banner that has generated much discussion appears below:

    Source: Tagar News

    The full banner reads Terpilihnya Anies – Sandi adalah Simbol Kebangkitan Pribumi Muslim, or “the election of Anies-Sandi is a symbol of the awakening of the indigenous Muslims.”

    The long term consequences of this for Jakarta and Indonesian politics are hard to predict. However, anyone hoping that Anies would revert to the moderate Islamic persona that he had cultivated prior to his gubernatorial campaign must now be disappointed. His lickspittles might argue that his use of non-Muslim religious language at the beginning and end of his speech signals his understanding that Jakarta (like Indonesia) is a religiously diverse city. But this view ignores the reality of Anies’s inauguration: the pribumi/non-pribumi cleavage is alive and well in Indonesian politics, and a leading politician is betting that exploiting this cleavage is good politics.

  • Lipset and Huntington in Indonesia (Literally)

    In the course of doing some background research on the history of the Fulbright Program in Indonesia, I have come across an interesting fact. Both Seymour Martin Lipset and Samuel P. Huntington were in Indonesia in 1972 as part of the U.S. Senior Scholar Program. Indonesianists may not know these two, but any political scientist or sociologist will instantly recognize them as two landmark figures in post-war American social science. Each was eventually president of the American Political Science Association. Lipset was also president of the American Sociological Association. Huntington also served on the National Security Council. Lipset gave us Political Man and Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Huntington gave us Political Order in Changing Societies and The Clash of Civilizations. These are just career highlights, there are many others.

    The question that immediately comes to mind (and which distracts me from thinking more about the Fulbright Program for a moment) is, what were they doing? Neither was an Indonesianist. Both were fresh off of having published some of their landmark publications. This was the context of the late Vietnam War and heavy U.S. interest in “holding the line” against communism in Asia, and in the Indonesian case this had meant the annihilation of the Communist Party of Indonesia. This was also the context of the consolidation of Indonesia’s brutal authoritarian New Order regime. Topics of “political order” and “cleavage structures” would have quite obviously been relevant to the study of Indonesian politics. It strikes me as unlikely that two influential political scientists would have found themselves in Indonesia in 1972 by chance.

    The only other piece of information that I have is the list of other Fulbright Senior Scholars to Indonesia from 1972, which appears below. None of the other names jumps out at me.

    Charles S. Haynes
    Samuel P. Huntington
    Seymour M. Lipset
    Richard M. McGinn
    Sarah K. Vann
    Wayne A. Bogas
    Curtis M. Hagen
    Robert S. Weissberg
    Daniel H. Wright

    I would love to know if there is any material out there that can shed light on what they were doing. To be clear, I can think of all sorts of interesting theories involving social science and American power during the Cold War myself, what I’d find more useful are some details.