Politik Luar Negeri Indonesia

Australia and Indonesia political systems are instrumental in shaping the development of individual nations. These systems determine the policies that are to be followed by the government and the governed and aim to establish political stability. Despite Australia is a constitutional monarchy and Indonesia is a republic, the two country have many similarities and differences in the political system. This extended response identifies and compares the key features of government system and election between Australia and Indonesia political systems.

Indonesia and Philippines have similarities yet very different political system even though there are located in the Southeast Asia region. Both states are considered to be electoral democratic regime according to Larry Diamond’s sixfold typology (Dayley & Neher, 2013, p. 21). Interestingly, both states received a relatively good freedom rating in Southeast Asia by Freedom House in 2016, which is 3- partly free. Thus, Indonesia and Philippines are chosen as the research subject in this assignment as the non-democratic regime states for the comparison analysis.

Hadiwinata/Christoph Schuck (Eds.), Democracy in Indonesia: The Challenge of Consolidation (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag, 2007), p. 46-47.

Entering the Early Independence Era, the Dutch’s role was getting weaker and replaced by the Japanese. However, the Japanese occupation had been just a while before they surrendered to the allies after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki City. Consequently, a power vacuum occurred in Indonesia that later used by the youth along with President Soekarno and the Vice President Mohammad Hatta to proclaim the independence of Indonesia as a state.

Australia and Indonesia are one of the closest neighbouring countries, and even though they have had several issues between each other, they are still managed to promote a good relationship between them, yet it has been proven that Australia and Indonesia are difficult to forge a stable and productive relationship as the national interest of Australia and Indonesia have been conflicted from the last seven decades, regardless of which party has been controlling there in Canberra (8). Initially their relation has been apparently stimulated by the case of execution of Bali Nine ‘co-ringleaders’ Andre Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (6). As well as, the other reason that affects their relationship is the geographic closeness between the two countries,

Indonesia complained of their lack of autonomy In regions such as Maluku or other areas of Eastern Indonesia, “a low capacity for generating local revenue restricted the ability to adapt projects and development to local conditions” (Bertrand, 198).). The scanty amounts of funds were unable to support the poor and other problems. Bertrand states, “Faced with the New Order regime introduced mild reforms that were designed to address some technical issues while avoiding political decentralization” (Bertrand, 198). In 1995 the Minister of Home Affairs selected 26 districts were used to evaluate the measures designed to increase autonomy. They noticed an increase in Indonesia budget, but they still failed to support the poor, which resulted in

The word “Indonesia” has two Greek words and meaning in it. “Indos” means Indian and Nesos mean “Islands”. According to the Embassy of Indonesia, the whole country is made up of 17,508 islands. However, like the islands scattered everywhere, Indonesia seems to have a “messy” government. The government of Indonesia has started after decolonization from the Dutch, which is called the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia” starting from 1945. The structure of the Indonesian government seems very similar to the one of U.S. It has an executive, judicial, and and legislative branch. Just like the US government, Indonesia has political representation, bureaucratic organization, judicial system, and law enforcement. However, following the reforms of the government, the Indonesian government is not stable and is apprehensive in taking the government forward.

Indonesia has been independent for just over half a century. In this short time the country has had to adjust to the demands of the modern world.

Some leading scholars, both Indonesian and foreigner have identified the drawbacks of legal systems in Indonesia. Lev (1990) revealed that harsh criticisms of the law in Indonesia have actually begun since 1960, especially when social injustice began to occur. Alkostar (2000) then argued the cause of this situation because of the misuses of law enforcement. Next, Juwana (2006) analysed how the legislators did not give proper attention to whether laws that they made later can be implemented or not, especially in areas outside Java island as the gap between Java and outside Java was still high. Furthermore, some laws were not realistic because they have been issued to follow an order of the political elite, foreign countries and international financial institutions instead of people’s demand. For example, the political elite may determine that legislation was enacted in

Sulistiyanto’s article is much talking about Indonesia and Australia relations in the era of democracy. He starts with a brief history of Indonesia events in the era of authoritarian politics – Sukarno and Soeharto governments. It traces on how the role of governments have impacted in the creating of Indonesia domestic policy and foreign policy, especially toward Australia. Sulistiyanto examines the changing in Indonesia domestic policy and the contribution of the non-state actors in the maintenance of the bilateral relationship of the two countries. In his article he mentions the four perspectives on Indonesia and Australia relations (pp.119-121). These four perspectives intend to show how the bilateral relationships between Indonesia and

Despite being extremely close in geographical proximity, Indonesia is acutely diverse and seperate in culture, religion and the way in which they achieve democracy. Both nations identify as a form of representative democracy, where Australia is lead by a Prime Minister and Indonesia by a President, however, there are a small number of concrete strategies in every successful political system. They may be implemented differently from country to country, yet they serve as a platform for any advanced society. These political tactics incorporate fair methods of democratic election, an equal distribution of power and reflect a level of personal freedom, which goes to the heart of what the word democracy actually means.

In the beginning of Soeharto’s period until the end of Soeharto’s period, Indonesia centralized the national regime. Indonesia determined to apply a policy of decentralization that became effective on January 1st, 2001. This essay would explain the failure of Indonesian decentralization, whereas this essay only has one area of focus, the failure of distribution of power. Why decentralization in Indonesia has failed? The main factor of this failure has been started in the first time Indonesia apply decentralization after 1998 tragedy whereas the end of Soeharto’s period and the end of centralized government. After that tragedy Indonesia use decentralization until now. But, Indonesia applies this system in sudden. Another country around

From explanation above, we can conclude that the most influential factors are Islam and political parties. After those two factors are media and youth. For as the least influential factor for political system of Indonesia is military. How about their interaction to other factors and to the people of Indonesia in this case? Most of factors have a great relations with other factors and a great interaction with the people of Indonesia in enacting political system of Indonesia, except for military. As already explained above, military could not influence for political system of Indonesia nowadays or even may be have an interaction with other factors and the people in political aspect, because they could not interfere in political aspect anymore and only focus on security system of Indonesia after dual function of ABRI was erased by

President of Indonesia Jowo Widodo and Vice President of Indonesia Jusuf Kalla designing nine priority agenda, the nine programs were called Nawa Cita. This program was initiated to indicate priority roads changes towards a sovereign Indonesia politically, as well as independent in the field of economics and personality in culture. There are 3 point of Nawa Cita to fix the poverty : 3th Nawa Cita is to build Indonesia from the suburbs by strengthening those areas and villages in the framework of the unitary state, 5th Nawa Cita is to improve the

|Badan usaha yang melaporkan |Perusahaan yang dianggap sebagai satu kesatuan |Subbagian dari bisnis seperti: departemen, lini |