The post-authoritarian period in Indonesia provides the historical backdrop into the socio-economic and political context that lays the foundation for initiatives into good governance and the building of domestic institutions. Indonesian intellectuals are considered to be strategic assets in Indonesiaâs endeavour towards realising the implementation of good governance and the creation of an egalitarian form of democratic institution within the state. The term âintellectualsâ refers to members within the Indonesian demographic that contributes to the countryâs efforts in establishing good governance, comprises academics who contribute to the production of scientific knowledge; experts, consultants and technocrats who produce policy advice and political recommendations; social and political practitioners such as journalists and NGO activists , whose positions are based on their capacity to create public discourse in civil society arenas; and artists, writers and columnists commonly called âpublic intellectualsâ, who are engaged in debates about the moral principles that govern society. All these categories sometimes overlap. These members are people of high social standing and/or have substantial influence within society in which they are able to influence or sway public opinions to their desired effect (Gu and Goldman 2004: 6).
The good governance concept illustrated within the contents of this book starts from the preposition that during this moment in time, Indonesia as a state is evolving, moving past âgovernmentâ to âgovernanceâ which displays evidence of coalescence among various actors due to the stateâs lack of influence to maintain a monopoly over resources needed to govern (Pierre and Stoker 2000). It also suggests that technocratic policy-making is designed to specifically connect the state, civil society and businesses with the aim of addressing core development issues (Nelson and Zadek 2000: 5; Santiso 2001: 5). Furthermore, the systematic establishment of good governance within Indonesia is meant to produce a state that is impartial, transparent and upholds both the rights of individual persons and rights of the collective within the state (Bevir 2009).
In contemporary political system of East Java, there is clear involvement of intellectuals who have contributed to the dynamics of politics within East Java and its capital city. The contribution mentioned ranges from one end of the spectrum to another, which in this case means that the intellectuals in question are either fuelling the spark to enhance and further the development of good governance and democratic institution -building within East Java or are on the opposite side of the spectrum by legitimising and/or acting as apologists for the predatory politico-business alliances that have infiltrated the new reformed government . This work shows the role and position of intellectuals who have been situated in the political economy context in East Javaâs post-authoritarianism era, which is identified by the power capacity of dominant social forces in order to occupy the political institution and grab public resources for their own social interests. On the other hand, the absence of social bases among liberal reformists and social democratic forces, which their original aim was to influence the governance areas, by the end of the day, becomes the prominent obstacle for intellectuals to enhance their contribution for creating the aim of governance agenda that are participatory, transparent and accountable state-society relationship.
Although the gradual increase of literature concerning good governance and democratic institution -building is prevalent, none addresses the role that intellectuals play in the actual execution of good governance and democratic institution-building . This book seeks to address the lack of said material by analysing the social, economic and political paradigm that exists in the province of East Java and its capital city of Surabaya.
The political climate of East Java is characterised by strong relationships between political figures and business elitesârelations that have had a detrimental effect towards the establishment of good governance and democratic institutions. To countermand this fact, the role of the intellectual in contemporary Indonesia has become more substantial now more than ever. Analysing roles taken by local intellectuals shows that they influence the dynamics of how governance is implemented in East Java and in its capital city and, furthermore with creating strategic alliances with persons of political importance, provide new insight into the development of such institutions and the ways in which they operate.
Intellectuals are considered as contributors to science and knowledge, in relevance to the subject matter of establishing good governance and democratic institutions (Clark 2000; Levine 2011). This book endeavours to display a more dynamic role that intellectuals take part inâit is to show that their roles are not limited to only educational or social platforms but also on their substantial presence within the conventions of politics in East Java as well as its capital city of Surabaya.
The Bookâs Argument
This book argues that intellectuals and experts have played an increasingly direct and practical role in the exercise of governance at the local level of politics in contemporary Indonesia. In understanding this development, the authoritarian period and its legacy cannot be ignored. During the Soeharto administration (1965â98), there was clear intent from the administration to suppress intellectual activities on a large scale in society, for instance, the disallowance towards freedom of press and limiting student assemblies in universities, thereby effectively subjugating intellectual life while at the same time incorporating many intellectuals into the administration as junior partners.
Intellectual practices from Soeharto era have been modified and refitted to suit the needs of a revamped predatory agenda used by the cronies or âsuccessorsâ of the Soeharto administration, culminating in the formation of an alliance. Predatory agenda refers to the activities of political, bureaucrat and business figures who have hijacked public institutions to advance their political and economic agendas; more specifically, these activities include but are not limited to accumulation on the basis of access or control over public institutions and resources (Hadiz 2010: 12).
While the post-Soeharto era has produced new institutions of democracy and market regulation under the discourse of good governance , malicious entities within the new reformed government have adapted to operating within the new administration. They have abused their influences within government institutions to gain control. These institutions, which range from national to regional levels, ensure that governance processes support their own interests, thus serving neither the creation of liberal markets nor empowering peopleâs participation. In other words, Indonesian local elites sought to consolidate their power and protect their wealth by selectively utilising the good governance agenda as a political strategy, without compromising the status quo and without disrupting local state resources (Choi and Fukuoka 2014: 85). In achieving this, such entities have deployed intellectuals as strategic agents, whose authority is based upon the intellectualsâ understanding of knowledge, to promote these interests within a newly democratised environment. In the most basic sense, such intellectuals help to provide legitimacy for policies and actions that amount to little more than primitive accumulation.
In fact, experts and intellectuals have become an integral part of dominant predatory entities, involving political and business elites, at the local level. The capacity of these entities to absorb intellectuals into their alliances through the use of material rewards and access to public resources has largely distorted the democratic voice in East Javaâs intellectuals. Reformists and progressive intellectuals are hard-pressed into finding social bases to advance more substantive reformist agendas, as shown in the case of contemporary East Java.
This work critiques three common academic approaches that are used to analyse the role of intellectuals in development and governance practicesâthe Neo-institutionalist approach, the Neo-Foucauldian approach and the Neo-Gramscian approach . None of these three approaches considers the possibility that neo-liberal agendas of institutional reformâwhich include the proliferation of good governance practices pertaining to decentralisation âmay be utilised by entrenched local elites to protect their own political and economic interests or to accumulate economic resources. Consequently, these perspectives can only inadequately deal with the question of how intellectuals may play a part in the appropriation of good governance agenda by many local elites, even if they are supposed to embody the sort of objective, scientific, technocratic knowledge privileged by the very same agenda (Hadiz 2004: 698â99; Hout 2009: 41â42).
It is necessary to specify that the Neo-institutionalism discussed in this book primarily refers to the âthe new economic institutionalismâ. This is not to be mistaken from historical institutionalism based on the works of political sociologists Evans and Skocpol in the 1980s. The type of Neo-institutionalism approach that this book is concerned with has deeply influenced the neo-liberal agenda promoted by international development agencies such as expert...