The Suharto New Order was born out of ethnic conflict around religious, ideological and regional/cultural issues that were threatening national chaos. As a pre-requisite to pursuing the socio-political and economic developmental agendas deemed necessary to legitimize their hold on power, the new regime committed the resources of the state behind forging national unity and stability out of potentially antagonistic ethnic and cultural diversity. This study examines how the Suharto New Order sustained the processes that organised the Indonesian nation behind its agendas through an exclusive representation of the state ideology Pancasila, as the ideological pillar of socio-political and economic development. The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, viewed social politics as an arrangement that inextricably linked pluralism, political participation and ideological supremacy and placed critical emphasis on the methods by which a ruling order deployed ideology and culture to craft mass consensus that would underwrite the moral and intellectual legitimacy of hegemonic rule. The study is original in that it contrasts Gramsci's insights into ideology as a discourse of hegemonic legitimacy, in the context of the Suharto New Order's exclusive representation of Pancasila as the ideological pillar of the regime's arrangement of Indonesian life. The study also examines whether the Gramscian model of hegemonic order is robust when employed to explain the Suharto regime's decline and collapse, as well as the prospects for socio-political and economic stability during the post-Suharto transitionary phase and the pressures of Islamic socio-political resurgence, which were accompanied by demands for more liberal democratic processes and participation. Antonio Gramsci provides the analytical framework for the study, and the Suharto New Order the behavioural perspective, with the prime purpose of the research being to test Gramsci's model of hegemonic order and ideological legitimacy against a contemporary context. With Indonesia comprising the world's largest Islamic population, the Suharto New Order's endeavours to construct national consensus and unity around Pancasila's secular-nationalist orientation suggest prima facie a highly appropriate perspective in which to test Gramsci's theories. The post-Suharto era of transition, also offers a timely opportunity to test the Italian Marxist's thoughts on crafting national consensus to underwrite a ruling arrangement's ideological legitimacy in the contemporary environment of Islamic socio-political resurgence accompanied by a global spread of secular, liberal democratic ideals.

The thesis "The fall of President Suharto and the consolidation of democracy in Indonesia" aims to characterize the circumstances of the fall of President Suharto and outline the developments that followed after his resignation. The work is divided into theoretical and analytical part. In the first part are characterized the conception of non-democratic regime, the conception of the transition to democracy, the theory of opposition and the theory of consolidation of democracy. The analytical part applied the theory to the Indonesian practice. The intention of the thesis is to introduce the undemocratic regime, circumstances leading to downfall of Suharto and evaluated subsequent developments. The aim of the work is to present the democratization process in Indonesia, find and analyze the causes of the difficulties that accompanied the process of consolidation of democracy.

A few ruling individuals from party organizations overpowered Indonesia's post-authoritarian, representative democracy. The legislative process of the 2017 Election Act was the case study employed to examine this assumption. The underlying thinking was that there was a contest between “wealth power” (oligarchy) and “participation power” (democracy). The power of wealth controls the party and government institutions. Notwithstanding the presence of participation power, there was, however, no balance between wealth power and participation power, because the formal control of politics was in the hands of party oligarchs. The study purpose was to bridge the gap in knowledge by exploring how the party oligarchs maintained the policymaking, reputedly using cartelized strategies, to defend the status quo. By employing the oligarchy and cartelization theories, the central research question of this inquiry focused on how the party oligarchs, allegedly using cartel work-patterns, mastered the policy process in post-Suharto Indonesia. A qualitative case-study was used with in-depth interviews with 15 participants for data collection and the N-Vivo program for data analysis. Qualitative findings indicated that the party oligarchs engineered the legal process in parliament applying cartelized strategies to defend privileges they obtained from collusive interpenetration with the state. The implications for social change include informing members of parliament, other policymakers, and civil society groups of the cruciality of comprehending the modus operandi of oligarchic cartels. Understanding the “oligarchic cartelization” theoretical postulate is a fundamental step for party members to improve their performance in public offices. The results of this study can also be a useful reference for pro-democracy activists to defend the ontological essence of public participation in implementing representative democracy at an appropriate level.

Dakwah bedeutet in etwa soviel wie islamische Mission. Die islamischen Medien sind von zentraler Bedeutung für die Artikulierung von Visionen, welche die politischen Interessen von Wählerinnen und Wählern ansprechen sollen. Das Wachstum der Medien in der Post-Suharto-Ära war ein Ergebnis der Pressefreiheit, die durch Präsident BJ Habibie im Jahr 1999 eingeleitet wurde. Die Zeitschrift Ummi ist eines der Dakwah-Medien, die aufgrund verschiedener Umstände seit dem Ende des Suharto-Regimes in den späten 90er Jahren bis heute überleben konnten. Schwerpunkt meiner Forschung ist die Analyse des Wandels der Ummi von einem Vehikel zur Bildung und Festigung einer Wählerschaft, die sich in der Suharto-Ära insbesondere aus der Tarbiyah-Bewegung generierte, hin zur aktuellen Tendenz der Popularisierung der Tarbiyah Identität als ein neues Lebensstil. Tarbiyah ist ein Wort aus dem Arabischen und bedeutet soviel wie „Bildung“. / The growth of media in the Post Suharto era has been the result of press freedom established by president B.J Habibie in 1999. With regard to the diversity of Islamic media, the term of ‘the dakwah media’ hence is not only about labeling ‘Islam’ but also on ‘constructing’ dakwah. Dakwah itself literarily means ‘proselytization of Islam’, ‘issuing a summons’ or ‘making an invitation’. My PhD project hence aims to provide a brief analysis of the shift of the dakwah media which used to be political vehicles of establishing constituencies especially for the ‘tarbiyah movement’ in the Suharto era to the current tendency of popularizing the Tarbiyah identity as a new life style. The tarbiyah movement in Indonesia is a social and political movement among Indonesian Muslim students especially activists in the Suharto period. The word tarbiyah itself is taken from Arabic which literary means ‘education’.

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.</p>

<p>This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted.</p><p>This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression.</p><p>This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia.</p><p>I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.</p>

In the thesis "Electoral Authoritarianism in Comparative Perspective of Southeast Asia", while analyzing for cases of regime survival and fall, author develops the argument that certain subtypes of authoritarian regimes are better build to cope with change than others. Since the four cases are under new institutionalism generally classified as electoral authoritarianism, the text depicts some of the methodological problems related to this particular research perspective. Building on the systems approach and new institutionalism, the thesis analyzes the relation between institutional character of regime elite and its ability to cope with changes in the environment, i.e. adaptability. Author shows that at the time of crisis, personalistic regimes tend to react almost solely with repression a restrictions, whereas regimes with ruling parties exhibit a substantial degree of personal and policy flexibility, which positively informs their chances for survival. The conclusion also demonstrates the methodological weaknesses of regime typology based on the quality of electoral process. It diverts the attention from other features of regimes which significantly inform logic and inner dynamics of authoritarianism. As a result, under the banner of electoral authoritarianism, there are regimes which differ from each...

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Although ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to answer.

This thesis will show how authoritarian governments rest legitimacy on their ability to create socio-economic development. It will point to some methods used to consolidate power by authoritarian leaders in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. An authoritarian regime that successfully creates development is strengthened and does not call for democratic change in the short run. It is suggested that the widely endorsed Lipset hypothesis, that development will eventually bring democratic transition, is true only when further socio-economic development requires that the economy transfers from being based on industrial manufacturing to knowledge and creativity – not on lower levels of development. Malaysia and Singapore have reached – or try to reach – this level of development today, but restrictions on their civil societies have still not been lifted. This thesis describes modern political history in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia in a Machiavellian tradition. The historical perspective will give a more or less plausible idea of how authoritarian regimes consolidated au-thority and what role development policies played in the leaders’ claims for authority. The conclusion will give a suggestion on how the political future in these three countries might evolve. It will point to the importance of an active and free civil society as a means to develop the nations further, rather than oppression. This thesis will try to point to the dos and don’ts for authoritarian regimes. The ideas of Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes provide the structures and methods that authoritarian regimes apply. It will be shown that a regime will disintegrate when it fails to comply with Plato’s and Machiavelli’s ideas. Al-though ancient, Plato and Machiavelli provide methods and structures that seem to carry relevance to the modern history of Southeast Asia. I will point to how authoritarian rule can be maintained in the long run. What is required from the political leadership, what are their strategies and methods? What makes people to tolerate or topple authoritarian regimes? Why do some authoritarian regimes successfully create development while others do not? These are some of the questions this thesis will try to an-swer.