The phrase “non-engagement in internal affairs of other countries” is a non-starter and is pure propaganda-rubbish.
What are the Chinese, or for that matter the Americans doing in Burma? Why did Suu Kyi asked the Western countries for help? Why are all these journos and academics so keen on analysing politics in other countries? (I was at least born in Burma!) Shouldn’t we all shut up? Then what is New Mandala all about?
Politics in Asia is based on corruption, coercion, patronage appanage, nepotism, hypocrisy and Sino-Orwellian double-speak. Of course these elements are present in Western countries as well, but not to the same order of magnitude. However, we cannot apply double-standards like Suu Kyi did. Singapore is even a Commonwealth country like Australia. Why should we let Singaporean banks off the hook for being money-laundromats for all the dirty drug money in the neighbourhood (just ask Steven Lom, son of the heroin drug-warlord Hsinghan Lo) Suu Kyi is an ambitious selfish Asian politician and in my opinion, the West misjudged and totally overrated her (not Thaksin and other half-Chinese Asian businsss tycoons lol)
I cannot explain in a few words what I think about the colossal error that “smart” American politicians and businessmen made in dealing with China (starting with Nixon/Kissinger). Another time perhaps.
Why is it so hard to believe that Indonesian voters are mature enough to support democracy yet have different opinions on how it should run? Must they be boxed neatly into one of those black/white, either/or, Prabowo/Jokowi, simplistic binary categorization? Are Indonesian voters truly such simpletons? It’s a big and diverse country, for crying out loud! Asking why 47% of voters would vote for Prabowo is just as ridiculous as asking why Abbott won in Australia or Bush won in the US (Oops, wrong decade, but you get the picture).
First off, this election was not about Prabowo or Jokowi. It was not even about democracy. The lives of around 70-80% of Indonesians will remain relatively unchanged whoever wins the presidency. Nope. This election and the previous elections are about giving a vote of confidence to the State. It’s about giving legitimacy to the government. Instead of worrying about why candidate X obtained Y votes, we should worry about why the number of Golput (voters who do not exercise their voting rights) has continued to rise. We’ll get to that, but here are some early thoughts:
1. Pre-election polls consistently tracked the rise in Prabowo’s popularity. Why? Because he talks more while Jokowi played it silent! This was as much as Team Jokowi’s fault as it was Team Prabowo’s savvy. Luckily, now we see that those polls mainly represent the views of the upper-middle classes, which are the minority. Therefore, his popularity has yet to translate to electability (Rhoma Irawa was popular as well but nobody considered him seriously). Voters are mature enough to differentiate style and substance.
2. How did Prabowo obtain 47% of the votes? Simple. Unlike in 2004 or 2009, now we have only two candidates. Had there been more candidates, his votes would have dropped significantly (Remember the various polls on presidential candidates back in 2012-2013?). Some people voted for Prabowo not because they do not like him, but because they do not know Jokowi enough. Another of Team Jokowi’s fault.
3. Some people voted for Jokowi not because they love him, but because they realized during the last few weeks before the election that the alternative is horrible, thanks to all those amusing debates on TV. Plus, realizing that Team Jokowi was not performing, various artists and activists who knows their stuff decided to take matters into their own hands and started campaigning for Jokowi. Luckily, it helped to disseminate the horror that is Prabowo. No thanks to Team Jokowi.
4. Why have Prabowo’s supporters ditched him? (at least according to SMRC) Hell, anybody would ditch him after his and Team Prabowo’s antics after the election. The Prabowo fanatics are too microscopic in number. Keep in mind that when we see the details of the election, in most provinces where Prabowo won, it was because many voters decided to be Golput. Either Team Jokowi failed to sway them to their side, or Team Prabowo did a better job, or Golput voters hate both candidates, etc. etc. Whatever the reason, this demonstrate the voters’ critical thinking in making choices.
“July’s election was a referendum on an authoritarian reversal, and the voters didn’t realise it”??? Puh-leeaze! You know nothing, Jon Snow!
Here’s a friendly advice: Stop over-reading into polls. You will come to the wrong conclusions (if you have any). Some voters chose Prabowo because his program actually sounded good compared to that of Jokowi, who kept silent until the debates. Of course, they only realize that the speaker was increasingly erratic and less likely to deliver a bit too late. Hey, that’s what campaigners are for. To keep the lie going long enough until it’s too late. Thumbs up to Team Prabowo!
I’m not worried though, and I suspect most Indonesians don’t either. If anybody wants to revert to authoritarianism in today’s Indonesia, he’ll get a stab in the back. Caesar style. Have you seen Prabowo’s coalition? Thugs, all of them. They would sooner stab each other than allow one of them to become too powerful. Strongman is so 20th century. The worst that could’ve happen if Prabowo had won is that Indonesia’s progress would crawl rather than go in reverse. Mind you, the same can still happen under Jokowi. I don’t care what he’s selling, I won’t bite unless I see the goods.
Personal observation: It seems the rule of thumbs among foreign academics are still identical. Indonesian elections are still about individual personalities. I hate to break it to you guys, but that rule probably works on elections in Western countries more than in Indonesia. This is the same cliché problems with foreign academics: just because they can speak Bahasa Indonesia, they think they know enough about Indonesia. I’m Indonesian and have lived in Indonesia all my life and yet I still know little of this country. If you start citing numbers to explain our voting behavior, you will come off as being an arrogant know-it-all.
So please don’t call the results a fluke. It’s insulting.
I suggest there is little understanding of such underlying systemic issues by the Australian electorate
Seems to me most Australian voters react to and follow trivial surface emotional statements without understanding their choices may be directly detrimental to their own interests in the short term and in the medium term weaken their democratic voting choices
Witness the recent so-called “policy-free” victory by pro-capitalist business, anti-progressive forces voted in by mainly working class people in Australia
tocharian, interesting comment. One point stands out re Suu Kyi, that is on pressing Singapore, Thailand. Isn’t this a little naive, you are surely aware of the non-engagement in internal affairs of other countries. Secondly, Thaksin had big investments in Burma he was not going to listen to her. And China, that would be a world precedent! Finally, was it ever possible to stop China getting into the WTO, and yet let Laos and many other Asian countries in?
I am a guy, Memsahib is used to refer to women, my Memsahib. Its a combination of Ma’am and Sahib. As for Hindoo I know its anarchistic, I can’t help it, my history teacher was a Scottish woman born and bred in British India (3 Generations).
As for EM Forster and a Passage to India, I take offense that one would refer to his works as anarchistic. EM Forster at one point was the private secretary to an Indian Raj. How many Western scholars who pen these post in this blogs have worked in such a capacity. EM Foster has a far better insight into India than most modern Western writers writing about the country.
As for modern Indonesia, the poster Hang Tuah has been copying and pasting the same stuff 203 times. He was goading the Indonesians to respond. The arguments are similar to the ones they use for Pakistan, its the same. The underlying argument is that Muslims are intolerant and are incapable of democracy.
India and Indonesia are vastly different countries, political, socially etc. Is India more tolerant / democratic than Indonesia? Yes in some ways, no in others. India is diverse, but its like a Mosiac, states are clearly divided largely on linguistic lines. New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore are the few big multicultural cities. In Indonesia, whole provinces are multicultural, you have Lampung, South Sumatra, Jakarta, Kalimantan, , Bangka, Bengkulu, Jambi, Riau. The fact that Jokowi could win in Jakarta is an indication of that, if Jakarta resembled Mumbai he wouldn’t even be voted dog catcher. India allows regional parties. Is it a good thing? Depends who you ask.
How would Jakartans like Forum Betawi to run Jakarta. That is Mumbai for you, the Municipal Council of Mumbai has been controlled by Shiv Sena for decades.
A party that is xenophobic and commits acts of violence is not something to cheer about.
Yes India from a national perspective may seem more tolerant than Indonesia, but once you drill down to regional and local politics, I am doubt it. The fact that Jokowi, a mayor from Central Java could be voted in as Jakarta Governor is more impressive than him being elected President. Even in the US, the way local politics operates, with entrenched local fiefdoms, residency requirements in some cases non-partisanship. The last Republican Mayor of Chicago left office in 1931.
I expected more from an academic blog, you can’t talk about Jokowi and Modi without talking about regional politics / local elections in their respective countries. Jokowi is a rare political animal even by current Western standards. One Australian commentator said, there are very few national leaders that are entrepreneurs. Modi’s background is more typical of most politicians, he is professional politician like most top politicians in the West. There are politicians in developed democracies who start their political career in their late 30s-50s, but they rarely become President / Prime Minister. You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to have a US President that wasn’t professional politician / community organizer / celebrity or trading on his family pedigree. And before that, Harry Truman. How healthy is a democracy dominated by professional politicians?
For an academic blog, a lot of the post aren’t much different than what you find in the press. Comparing Jokowi and Modi has been done about dozen times in the Indian / Western press in one form or the other in the last year. What would be more interesting is to examine the legislative elections in April and some of the state elections and national parliamentary election. Their backgrounds, how much were campaigns cost.
Muslims are intellectually in a cul-de-sac of their own making. Why? Because they ‘closed the gates of reason’ during the 10-12th centuries and in doing so committed intellectual suicide.
Hence, Muslims are caught in a bind – they can only interpret islam in a literal and fundamentalist way – thus condemning them to liver intellectually in the Middle Ages – with electricity and gadgets.
A scholar in Cairo recently (2011) was explaining to his students at university how it was more than likey that the Koran was the result of arab expansion in the 6th/7th centuries – and the need for a text to conteract the claims of Jewish and (largely heretical) fringe Christian groups, plus some Hindu and Zoastrian influences.
“What? Are you suggesting that the Koran was not dictated to The prophet by the Angle Gabriel verbatim and is a duplicate of the uncreated book written on gold tablets in heaven?” Somer of his students rushed him and threw him out the window, He now lives overseas in hiding and in fear of his life.
Such things will continue for ever until Islam begins to use, again, Reason to interpet itself. But my hunch is that Islam will resist the use of Reason because it fears it may discover that the whole enterprise – Islam – is a house of cards based on a very human book.
The dictatorship was just sarcasm. While you think my remarks are childish and nonacademic, well they are. While this is supposed to be an academic blog, having a film maker write about Indonesian/India electron really shows its not. I have seen some very partisan writing about the Indonesian election (very anti-Prbaowo), and I am supposed to hold it in high regard.
If it really was an academic blog, at least they should have gotten someone more credible to write about the two elections.
Sorry about your friend. but I will go through your points one by one. Nevertheless, I will go through my points one by one.
Parsiee and Mughals, I didn’t know the Mughals were in Iran? Tell me the story. Iran had been invade by Arab Muslims conquerors starting from the 8th century. The Parsis started immigrating to India since then. The Mughals came much later (13the century). As for moderate Indonesia, Indonesia was Hindu-Buddhist at the time. You tell me why they didn’t go to “tolerant” Indonesia? Most parts of Indonesia weren’t Muslim until 15-16th century.
Chinese Indonesian parties, well in the beginning of reformasi period, there were a couple, that have since been disbanded. Here is an book on it.
” Or did India elect a Muslim President as a sign of tokenism and George Fernandes accidentally became Defense Minister, right ?”
The Indian President is not directly elected by the population, but elected by a joint session of the Upper and Lower houses and state assemblies. Its a ceremonial position. As for George Fernandez. The funny thing with India is certain ethnic groups dominate the military, what they call the “martial races”. Its a hold over from India’s colonial past, but for some reason Indians still adhere to those stereotypes.
“Portuguese must have bribed Congress Party.
Get a life, and some truth. You have little of either”
Unfortunately, the Swedes beat the Portuguese to it. Maybe Rajiv thought the Swedish women handing over his bribes were prettier than Portuguese women.
Yes and this is coming from a person who lowered himself to debate with a gutter rat, like myself. As for the truth, maybe you need to get a hold of some facts before preaching about the truth.
The low quality of the post brings out racist and stereotypical arguments like Hang Tuah and mine. Indonesia and India are vastly different countries politically, comparing them is futile. The assumption is that Modi bad, Jokowi good. Why do some English speaking literati and champagne socialist in India hate Modi so much. People could be a bit more neutral.
There are no presidential elections in Burma, so already the first sentence of this article is not correct.
About containing China in a container ship: the most effective way is through Wall Street and trade policies, since it was the US that “raised” this bully by letting China into the WTO and allowing Chinese to steal technology. Mistakes in foreign policy and geo-politics often follow from stupid short term MBA-style economic and financial thinking.
About Suu Kyi: perhaps Burma would have been better off if she stayed with her family in England ( her brother for example didn’t come back). The sanctions she insisted from the West to free herself ( not the country) pushed Burma into the greedy hands of the Chinese ( including those from Singapore). She never insisted sanctions from China, Singapore or even Thailand.
About Thailand: the country is ruled by a corrupt ethnically half-Chinese oligarchy and Peking is fine with that. A military alliance with the US just helps the Thai generals get some nice American weapons. There is no real commitment in Thailand to Western values.
I agree with the core thesis, that strategic and national interest will ultimately define US policy regarding Burma, as it does for most foreign policy decisions the world over. However I’m pretty cold on the idea that Burma could be a strategic replacement for Thailand. Firstly, Thailand has experienced many coups in its history, some very bloody, yet US support has found a way to continue. The same argument applies to Thailand as it’s been made above for Burma – national interest overrides moral and ideological interest.
Another reason why Burma would be a difficult replacement for Thailand in terms of US regional interests is geography. Thailand’s maritime environment is the Western Pacific whilst Burma’s is the Eastern Indian Ocean. Burma shares a border with China, Thailand does not. Both countries offer strategic opportunities, risks, advantages and constraints for the US regarding shaping Chinese behaviour. But these characteristics differ between the two countries given their separate geographic realities and suggests that Burma could not replace Thailand as a strategic partner to the US and offer the same value.
The author of this post asks what happens next. Well, now Jokowi has appointed four advisers for his transition team, which is headed by Rini Soemarno, who used to be known as Rini Soewandi before her divorce from Didik Soewandi. She was a very odd choice for the post.
Rini was Megawati’s trade minister a decade ago. She got into trouble over Sukhoi aircraft purchases and her name was linked to various other scandals as well. Whether she was guilty or not, wallahu’alam. At least she didn’t do any time. A great choice anyway to head the transition team, if it is to be a transition away from her rather inglorious past.
The four advisers are reported to be, first, Panjaitan, another ex-trade minister and major financial backer and business partner for Jokowi.
Hendropriyono comes next. He was somewhat pro-Megawati during the 1990s. Human rights advocates have protested his appointment, citing Munir’s murder in 2004 as the reason for their dismay, but the earlier murder of Theys Eluay may be a more appropriate reason to complain. Hendro will advise Jokowi on intelligence.
Then come Hasyim Muzadi, former chair of Nahdatul Ulama and once Megawati’s running-mate,and Syafii Ma’arif, a respectable and decent former head of Muhammadiyah.
Megawati’s fingerprints are on the last three of these appointments, as well as that of Rini. Why Jokowi needs these veterans given his popularity among younger and less compromised Indonesians is hard to say.
Singapore has determination and the benefit of elitism. Lee Kuan Yew chose to be friendly to the Anglo-American capitalistic world. In the 1960s and 1970s, U K and USA fear Singapore might become a foot solider for China. Lee did his best to dispel that fear. Therefore he won the support of these two countries and project to be a financial centre, abeit with some imperfections.
Anyone who spells Hindu as “Hindoo” is either in a British Colonial timewarp, infatuated with EM Forster, or is merely illiterate. As I doubt you are the “Jewels in the Crown”, we have not used the term “Hindoo” for quite some time, Memsahib. It very much weakens any arguments you make in defence of modern Indonesia, when you seem so prone to anachronistic expressions that best belong in old novels of the British Raj. Welcome to the 21st Century. Funny, though.
How come there are more and more soldiers on all groups of killing/ maiming/ torturing organizations all around the country? And every one is spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars buying up killing implements and sunglasses and limousines? One must take bucket loads of that Burma’s proud export Yaba tablets to believe that it is heading for “Peace”.
The only “process” there is continuous and incessant nauseating mega hype campaigns by spin maestros to laud non-stop “Top Level Summits” where people no one elected talk about how to divide the spoils from the carcass “Burma”.
Who funds Hla Maung Shwe, the money bagman? That the clue where the country is heading. Who killed Padoh Mann Sha? Every one knows. But the people who could not care less, are the people who should not be around.
In a recent intervew, the writer, Suchit Chonthait, claimed that Sarit rehabilitated the monarchy at the insistence of the Americans as a bulwark against Communist ideology. Does anyone have information on that claim? I haven’t heard it before, but I wouldn’t put it past the Americans since they retained after the war the Japanese emperor for similar reasons.
The US also supported the Pol Pot regime, a client of China, for 17 years, a fact which few people seem to remember. Probable reason was to oppose the Soviet client, Vietnam.
You do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Where did you get description of Indonesia, cut and paste from Glifford Geertz ?
You cannot defend Indonesian intolerance, so you point out India’s problems. Classic deflection and dissembling. I am sure my Ahmadiya friend in a wheelchair, with second-degree burns all over his body, would love to hear your propaganda, and coming from a non-Indonesian, trying to out-Indonesia the Indonesians, is particularly comical. Chinese parties huh ? Name them, please. And I am sure they also have dragon dances throughout Java and also “dominate the economy” too.
By the way, they burn people and smash heads in, too in Indonesia, not just in India (smashing heads, actually, is rare in India). And make sure you jail a Communist on the way out. Rape is no less rampant in Indonesia than India. Parsees sought refuge in India from Moghul Iran for a reason, How come they didn’t go to “moderate” Indonesia. They would have loved Aceh and Madura. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf can be found all over Jakarta, but somehow, they are less frequent in New Delhi. “Kill the Jews” is heard all year round among SOME Indonesians, hardly less frequent than analogous comments in Gujarat about Muslims. Or did India elect a Muslim President as a sign of tokenism and George Fernandes accidentally became Defense Minister, right ?
Portuguese must have bribed Congress Party.
Get a life, and some truth. You have little of either.
The one flaw with the whole argument is it neglects the religious parties. The religious parties, like the PKS have been very good at building up their cadre and encouraging grass roots support. They aren’t a vehicle for elites to secure power. You can’t talk about internal party mechanism in Indonesia, without talking about the Islamic parties.
Interesting article as always, Stephen! While it is true that the ‘old crowd’ remained very visible at this election, I think there’s reason to see 2014 as something of a turning point. For one thing, we may see a very different approach to presidential campaigning and coalition-building in 2019 – I would anticipate that with the legislative and presidential elections held simultaneously, there will be a stronger incentive for parties to nominate party members or closely affiliated candidates. If, as has been suggested, the regions increasingly provide candidates for the national race, it will be worth taking note of the winners during next year’s round of pilkada.
We may not see ‘promiscuous’ coalition-building practices, either (though I cannot agree that coalition formation was ‘random’ at this election). Party leaders should be wary of simultaneously campaigning for their own party and a presidential candidate put forward by one of their legislative competitors.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Of pragmatism and politics
The phrase “non-engagement in internal affairs of other countries” is a non-starter and is pure propaganda-rubbish.
What are the Chinese, or for that matter the Americans doing in Burma? Why did Suu Kyi asked the Western countries for help? Why are all these journos and academics so keen on analysing politics in other countries? (I was at least born in Burma!) Shouldn’t we all shut up? Then what is New Mandala all about?
Politics in Asia is based on corruption, coercion, patronage appanage, nepotism, hypocrisy and Sino-Orwellian double-speak. Of course these elements are present in Western countries as well, but not to the same order of magnitude. However, we cannot apply double-standards like Suu Kyi did. Singapore is even a Commonwealth country like Australia. Why should we let Singaporean banks off the hook for being money-laundromats for all the dirty drug money in the neighbourhood (just ask Steven Lom, son of the heroin drug-warlord Hsinghan Lo) Suu Kyi is an ambitious selfish Asian politician and in my opinion, the West misjudged and totally overrated her (not Thaksin and other half-Chinese Asian businsss tycoons lol)
I cannot explain in a few words what I think about the colossal error that “smart” American politicians and businessmen made in dealing with China (starting with Nixon/Kissinger). Another time perhaps.
Did Indonesians fluke it?
Why is it so hard to believe that Indonesian voters are mature enough to support democracy yet have different opinions on how it should run? Must they be boxed neatly into one of those black/white, either/or, Prabowo/Jokowi, simplistic binary categorization? Are Indonesian voters truly such simpletons? It’s a big and diverse country, for crying out loud! Asking why 47% of voters would vote for Prabowo is just as ridiculous as asking why Abbott won in Australia or Bush won in the US (Oops, wrong decade, but you get the picture).
First off, this election was not about Prabowo or Jokowi. It was not even about democracy. The lives of around 70-80% of Indonesians will remain relatively unchanged whoever wins the presidency. Nope. This election and the previous elections are about giving a vote of confidence to the State. It’s about giving legitimacy to the government. Instead of worrying about why candidate X obtained Y votes, we should worry about why the number of Golput (voters who do not exercise their voting rights) has continued to rise. We’ll get to that, but here are some early thoughts:
1. Pre-election polls consistently tracked the rise in Prabowo’s popularity. Why? Because he talks more while Jokowi played it silent! This was as much as Team Jokowi’s fault as it was Team Prabowo’s savvy. Luckily, now we see that those polls mainly represent the views of the upper-middle classes, which are the minority. Therefore, his popularity has yet to translate to electability (Rhoma Irawa was popular as well but nobody considered him seriously). Voters are mature enough to differentiate style and substance.
2. How did Prabowo obtain 47% of the votes? Simple. Unlike in 2004 or 2009, now we have only two candidates. Had there been more candidates, his votes would have dropped significantly (Remember the various polls on presidential candidates back in 2012-2013?). Some people voted for Prabowo not because they do not like him, but because they do not know Jokowi enough. Another of Team Jokowi’s fault.
3. Some people voted for Jokowi not because they love him, but because they realized during the last few weeks before the election that the alternative is horrible, thanks to all those amusing debates on TV. Plus, realizing that Team Jokowi was not performing, various artists and activists who knows their stuff decided to take matters into their own hands and started campaigning for Jokowi. Luckily, it helped to disseminate the horror that is Prabowo. No thanks to Team Jokowi.
4. Why have Prabowo’s supporters ditched him? (at least according to SMRC) Hell, anybody would ditch him after his and Team Prabowo’s antics after the election. The Prabowo fanatics are too microscopic in number. Keep in mind that when we see the details of the election, in most provinces where Prabowo won, it was because many voters decided to be Golput. Either Team Jokowi failed to sway them to their side, or Team Prabowo did a better job, or Golput voters hate both candidates, etc. etc. Whatever the reason, this demonstrate the voters’ critical thinking in making choices.
“July’s election was a referendum on an authoritarian reversal, and the voters didn’t realise it”??? Puh-leeaze! You know nothing, Jon Snow!
Here’s a friendly advice: Stop over-reading into polls. You will come to the wrong conclusions (if you have any). Some voters chose Prabowo because his program actually sounded good compared to that of Jokowi, who kept silent until the debates. Of course, they only realize that the speaker was increasingly erratic and less likely to deliver a bit too late. Hey, that’s what campaigners are for. To keep the lie going long enough until it’s too late. Thumbs up to Team Prabowo!
I’m not worried though, and I suspect most Indonesians don’t either. If anybody wants to revert to authoritarianism in today’s Indonesia, he’ll get a stab in the back. Caesar style. Have you seen Prabowo’s coalition? Thugs, all of them. They would sooner stab each other than allow one of them to become too powerful. Strongman is so 20th century. The worst that could’ve happen if Prabowo had won is that Indonesia’s progress would crawl rather than go in reverse. Mind you, the same can still happen under Jokowi. I don’t care what he’s selling, I won’t bite unless I see the goods.
Personal observation: It seems the rule of thumbs among foreign academics are still identical. Indonesian elections are still about individual personalities. I hate to break it to you guys, but that rule probably works on elections in Western countries more than in Indonesia. This is the same cliché problems with foreign academics: just because they can speak Bahasa Indonesia, they think they know enough about Indonesia. I’m Indonesian and have lived in Indonesia all my life and yet I still know little of this country. If you start citing numbers to explain our voting behavior, you will come off as being an arrogant know-it-all.
So please don’t call the results a fluke. It’s insulting.
Did Indonesians fluke it?
I suggest there is little understanding of such underlying systemic issues by the Australian electorate
Seems to me most Australian voters react to and follow trivial surface emotional statements without understanding their choices may be directly detrimental to their own interests in the short term and in the medium term weaken their democratic voting choices
Witness the recent so-called “policy-free” victory by pro-capitalist business, anti-progressive forces voted in by mainly working class people in Australia
Of pragmatism and politics
tocharian, interesting comment. One point stands out re Suu Kyi, that is on pressing Singapore, Thailand. Isn’t this a little naive, you are surely aware of the non-engagement in internal affairs of other countries. Secondly, Thaksin had big investments in Burma he was not going to listen to her. And China, that would be a world precedent! Finally, was it ever possible to stop China getting into the WTO, and yet let Laos and many other Asian countries in?
A tale of two elections
@Monique
I am a guy, Memsahib is used to refer to women, my Memsahib. Its a combination of Ma’am and Sahib. As for Hindoo I know its anarchistic, I can’t help it, my history teacher was a Scottish woman born and bred in British India (3 Generations).
As for EM Forster and a Passage to India, I take offense that one would refer to his works as anarchistic. EM Forster at one point was the private secretary to an Indian Raj. How many Western scholars who pen these post in this blogs have worked in such a capacity. EM Foster has a far better insight into India than most modern Western writers writing about the country.
As for modern Indonesia, the poster Hang Tuah has been copying and pasting the same stuff 203 times. He was goading the Indonesians to respond. The arguments are similar to the ones they use for Pakistan, its the same. The underlying argument is that Muslims are intolerant and are incapable of democracy.
India and Indonesia are vastly different countries, political, socially etc. Is India more tolerant / democratic than Indonesia? Yes in some ways, no in others. India is diverse, but its like a Mosiac, states are clearly divided largely on linguistic lines. New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore are the few big multicultural cities. In Indonesia, whole provinces are multicultural, you have Lampung, South Sumatra, Jakarta, Kalimantan, , Bangka, Bengkulu, Jambi, Riau. The fact that Jokowi could win in Jakarta is an indication of that, if Jakarta resembled Mumbai he wouldn’t even be voted dog catcher. India allows regional parties. Is it a good thing? Depends who you ask.
How would Jakartans like Forum Betawi to run Jakarta. That is Mumbai for you, the Municipal Council of Mumbai has been controlled by Shiv Sena for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena
A party that is xenophobic and commits acts of violence is not something to cheer about.
Yes India from a national perspective may seem more tolerant than Indonesia, but once you drill down to regional and local politics, I am doubt it. The fact that Jokowi, a mayor from Central Java could be voted in as Jakarta Governor is more impressive than him being elected President. Even in the US, the way local politics operates, with entrenched local fiefdoms, residency requirements in some cases non-partisanship. The last Republican Mayor of Chicago left office in 1931.
I expected more from an academic blog, you can’t talk about Jokowi and Modi without talking about regional politics / local elections in their respective countries. Jokowi is a rare political animal even by current Western standards. One Australian commentator said, there are very few national leaders that are entrepreneurs. Modi’s background is more typical of most politicians, he is professional politician like most top politicians in the West. There are politicians in developed democracies who start their political career in their late 30s-50s, but they rarely become President / Prime Minister. You have to go back to Jimmy Carter to have a US President that wasn’t professional politician / community organizer / celebrity or trading on his family pedigree. And before that, Harry Truman. How healthy is a democracy dominated by professional politicians?
For an academic blog, a lot of the post aren’t much different than what you find in the press. Comparing Jokowi and Modi has been done about dozen times in the Indian / Western press in one form or the other in the last year. What would be more interesting is to examine the legislative elections in April and some of the state elections and national parliamentary election. Their backgrounds, how much were campaigns cost.
WaAllahu’alam …, Kassim Ahmad
Muslims are intellectually in a cul-de-sac of their own making. Why? Because they ‘closed the gates of reason’ during the 10-12th centuries and in doing so committed intellectual suicide.
Hence, Muslims are caught in a bind – they can only interpret islam in a literal and fundamentalist way – thus condemning them to liver intellectually in the Middle Ages – with electricity and gadgets.
A scholar in Cairo recently (2011) was explaining to his students at university how it was more than likey that the Koran was the result of arab expansion in the 6th/7th centuries – and the need for a text to conteract the claims of Jewish and (largely heretical) fringe Christian groups, plus some Hindu and Zoastrian influences.
“What? Are you suggesting that the Koran was not dictated to The prophet by the Angle Gabriel verbatim and is a duplicate of the uncreated book written on gold tablets in heaven?” Somer of his students rushed him and threw him out the window, He now lives overseas in hiding and in fear of his life.
Such things will continue for ever until Islam begins to use, again, Reason to interpet itself. But my hunch is that Islam will resist the use of Reason because it fears it may discover that the whole enterprise – Islam – is a house of cards based on a very human book.
A tale of two elections
@Nakal
The dictatorship was just sarcasm. While you think my remarks are childish and nonacademic, well they are. While this is supposed to be an academic blog, having a film maker write about Indonesian/India electron really shows its not. I have seen some very partisan writing about the Indonesian election (very anti-Prbaowo), and I am supposed to hold it in high regard.
If it really was an academic blog, at least they should have gotten someone more credible to write about the two elections.
Sorry about your friend. but I will go through your points one by one. Nevertheless, I will go through my points one by one.
Parsiee and Mughals, I didn’t know the Mughals were in Iran? Tell me the story. Iran had been invade by Arab Muslims conquerors starting from the 8th century. The Parsis started immigrating to India since then. The Mughals came much later (13the century). As for moderate Indonesia, Indonesia was Hindu-Buddhist at the time. You tell me why they didn’t go to “tolerant” Indonesia? Most parts of Indonesia weren’t Muslim until 15-16th century.
Chinese Indonesian parties, well in the beginning of reformasi period, there were a couple, that have since been disbanded. Here is an book on it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5CBr78vhjhcC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=partai+politik+tionghoa+indonesia+order+reformasi&source=bl&ots=UcJD7b7HQB&sig=GfJGZhVpDH3AY9HJsHG5spP3HtI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AYbqU79-qIKLAqaBgaAJ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=partai%20politik%20tionghoa%20indonesia%20order%20reformasi&f=false
“Rape is no less rampant in Indonesia than India.”
Do you have proof? Can you provide me with statistics? The incidence of rape in Indonesia is about 60% lower than in India.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21672/Crime-Statistics-Rapes
” Or did India elect a Muslim President as a sign of tokenism and George Fernandes accidentally became Defense Minister, right ?”
The Indian President is not directly elected by the population, but elected by a joint session of the Upper and Lower houses and state assemblies. Its a ceremonial position. As for George Fernandez. The funny thing with India is certain ethnic groups dominate the military, what they call the “martial races”. Its a hold over from India’s colonial past, but for some reason Indians still adhere to those stereotypes.
“Portuguese must have bribed Congress Party.
Get a life, and some truth. You have little of either”
Unfortunately, the Swedes beat the Portuguese to it. Maybe Rajiv thought the Swedish women handing over his bribes were prettier than Portuguese women.
Yes and this is coming from a person who lowered himself to debate with a gutter rat, like myself. As for the truth, maybe you need to get a hold of some facts before preaching about the truth.
The low quality of the post brings out racist and stereotypical arguments like Hang Tuah and mine. Indonesia and India are vastly different countries politically, comparing them is futile. The assumption is that Modi bad, Jokowi good. Why do some English speaking literati and champagne socialist in India hate Modi so much. People could be a bit more neutral.
Of pragmatism and politics
There are no presidential elections in Burma, so already the first sentence of this article is not correct.
About containing China in a container ship: the most effective way is through Wall Street and trade policies, since it was the US that “raised” this bully by letting China into the WTO and allowing Chinese to steal technology. Mistakes in foreign policy and geo-politics often follow from stupid short term MBA-style economic and financial thinking.
About Suu Kyi: perhaps Burma would have been better off if she stayed with her family in England ( her brother for example didn’t come back). The sanctions she insisted from the West to free herself ( not the country) pushed Burma into the greedy hands of the Chinese ( including those from Singapore). She never insisted sanctions from China, Singapore or even Thailand.
About Thailand: the country is ruled by a corrupt ethnically half-Chinese oligarchy and Peking is fine with that. A military alliance with the US just helps the Thai generals get some nice American weapons. There is no real commitment in Thailand to Western values.
Counting Thailand’s coups
Surely you don’t mean that the king who was of poor health and always worried about getting hurt did not worry about an attempt on his life.
Of pragmatism and politics
I agree with the core thesis, that strategic and national interest will ultimately define US policy regarding Burma, as it does for most foreign policy decisions the world over. However I’m pretty cold on the idea that Burma could be a strategic replacement for Thailand. Firstly, Thailand has experienced many coups in its history, some very bloody, yet US support has found a way to continue. The same argument applies to Thailand as it’s been made above for Burma – national interest overrides moral and ideological interest.
Another reason why Burma would be a difficult replacement for Thailand in terms of US regional interests is geography. Thailand’s maritime environment is the Western Pacific whilst Burma’s is the Eastern Indian Ocean. Burma shares a border with China, Thailand does not. Both countries offer strategic opportunities, risks, advantages and constraints for the US regarding shaping Chinese behaviour. But these characteristics differ between the two countries given their separate geographic realities and suggests that Burma could not replace Thailand as a strategic partner to the US and offer the same value.
President Jokowi: ten years too soon?
The author of this post asks what happens next. Well, now Jokowi has appointed four advisers for his transition team, which is headed by Rini Soemarno, who used to be known as Rini Soewandi before her divorce from Didik Soewandi. She was a very odd choice for the post.
Rini was Megawati’s trade minister a decade ago. She got into trouble over Sukhoi aircraft purchases and her name was linked to various other scandals as well. Whether she was guilty or not, wallahu’alam. At least she didn’t do any time. A great choice anyway to head the transition team, if it is to be a transition away from her rather inglorious past.
The four advisers are reported to be, first, Panjaitan, another ex-trade minister and major financial backer and business partner for Jokowi.
Hendropriyono comes next. He was somewhat pro-Megawati during the 1990s. Human rights advocates have protested his appointment, citing Munir’s murder in 2004 as the reason for their dismay, but the earlier murder of Theys Eluay may be a more appropriate reason to complain. Hendro will advise Jokowi on intelligence.
Then come Hasyim Muzadi, former chair of Nahdatul Ulama and once Megawati’s running-mate,and Syafii Ma’arif, a respectable and decent former head of Muhammadiyah.
Megawati’s fingerprints are on the last three of these appointments, as well as that of Rini. Why Jokowi needs these veterans given his popularity among younger and less compromised Indonesians is hard to say.
Bargaining with the PAP
Singapore has determination and the benefit of elitism. Lee Kuan Yew chose to be friendly to the Anglo-American capitalistic world. In the 1960s and 1970s, U K and USA fear Singapore might become a foot solider for China. Lee did his best to dispel that fear. Therefore he won the support of these two countries and project to be a financial centre, abeit with some imperfections.
President Jokowi: ten years too soon?
Sooner is better. Much better than later..
Ones who afraid going too fast are only old hag in slow lane.
A tale of two elections
“As for your Catholic Hindoo convert..”
Anyone who spells Hindu as “Hindoo” is either in a British Colonial timewarp, infatuated with EM Forster, or is merely illiterate. As I doubt you are the “Jewels in the Crown”, we have not used the term “Hindoo” for quite some time, Memsahib. It very much weakens any arguments you make in defence of modern Indonesia, when you seem so prone to anachronistic expressions that best belong in old novels of the British Raj. Welcome to the 21st Century. Funny, though.
Myanmar as middle power
A current player coming down to comment!
Peace Process! Or was it piece?
How come there are more and more soldiers on all groups of killing/ maiming/ torturing organizations all around the country? And every one is spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars buying up killing implements and sunglasses and limousines? One must take bucket loads of that Burma’s proud export Yaba tablets to believe that it is heading for “Peace”.
The only “process” there is continuous and incessant nauseating mega hype campaigns by spin maestros to laud non-stop “Top Level Summits” where people no one elected talk about how to divide the spoils from the carcass “Burma”.
Who funds Hla Maung Shwe, the money bagman? That the clue where the country is heading. Who killed Padoh Mann Sha? Every one knows. But the people who could not care less, are the people who should not be around.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
In a recent intervew, the writer, Suchit Chonthait, claimed that Sarit rehabilitated the monarchy at the insistence of the Americans as a bulwark against Communist ideology. Does anyone have information on that claim? I haven’t heard it before, but I wouldn’t put it past the Americans since they retained after the war the Japanese emperor for similar reasons.
Open Letter Condemning the Thai Constitution
The US also supported the Pol Pot regime, a client of China, for 17 years, a fact which few people seem to remember. Probable reason was to oppose the Soviet client, Vietnam.
A tale of two elections
You do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Where did you get description of Indonesia, cut and paste from Glifford Geertz ?
You cannot defend Indonesian intolerance, so you point out India’s problems. Classic deflection and dissembling. I am sure my Ahmadiya friend in a wheelchair, with second-degree burns all over his body, would love to hear your propaganda, and coming from a non-Indonesian, trying to out-Indonesia the Indonesians, is particularly comical. Chinese parties huh ? Name them, please. And I am sure they also have dragon dances throughout Java and also “dominate the economy” too.
By the way, they burn people and smash heads in, too in Indonesia, not just in India (smashing heads, actually, is rare in India). And make sure you jail a Communist on the way out. Rape is no less rampant in Indonesia than India. Parsees sought refuge in India from Moghul Iran for a reason, How come they didn’t go to “moderate” Indonesia. They would have loved Aceh and Madura. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf can be found all over Jakarta, but somehow, they are less frequent in New Delhi. “Kill the Jews” is heard all year round among SOME Indonesians, hardly less frequent than analogous comments in Gujarat about Muslims. Or did India elect a Muslim President as a sign of tokenism and George Fernandes accidentally became Defense Minister, right ?
Portuguese must have bribed Congress Party.
Get a life, and some truth. You have little of either.
President Jokowi: ten years too soon?
The one flaw with the whole argument is it neglects the religious parties. The religious parties, like the PKS have been very good at building up their cadre and encouraging grass roots support. They aren’t a vehicle for elites to secure power. You can’t talk about internal party mechanism in Indonesia, without talking about the Islamic parties.
President Jokowi: ten years too soon?
Interesting article as always, Stephen! While it is true that the ‘old crowd’ remained very visible at this election, I think there’s reason to see 2014 as something of a turning point. For one thing, we may see a very different approach to presidential campaigning and coalition-building in 2019 – I would anticipate that with the legislative and presidential elections held simultaneously, there will be a stronger incentive for parties to nominate party members or closely affiliated candidates. If, as has been suggested, the regions increasingly provide candidates for the national race, it will be worth taking note of the winners during next year’s round of pilkada.
We may not see ‘promiscuous’ coalition-building practices, either (though I cannot agree that coalition formation was ‘random’ at this election). Party leaders should be wary of simultaneously campaigning for their own party and a presidential candidate put forward by one of their legislative competitors.