Managing Politics and Islam in Indonesia

16 MANAGING POLITICS AND ISLAM IN INDONESIAof argument, with Huntington’s book ‘The Third Wave: Democratization’ 41making an important contribution, and including authors like Diamond, Lipset,Linz, Pei, Ethier, Chazan and Shue, maintains that socioeconomic developmentand market forces in much of the Third World were responsible for the rapidexpansion of civil associations and interest groups in those societies. 42The increasing complexity and diversification of a national economy, setwithin the specific context of a deregulated global economy, produces pressuresfor market reforms domestically. The introduction of outward-oriented marketreforms, often in response to economic crisis, accelerates the overall process ofinterdependence and interrelation between local and global economies. Sustainedmarket forces depend on devolution of economic decision-making and generatenew, expanding sources of non-governmental power and wealth outside the directregulatory control of the state. Greater resources are made available fordistribution throughout society resulting in major gains for private interests vis-àvisthe state. With a significant gain in resources come commensurate politicalleverage and influence and ‘countervailing capabilities’ of society against thestate. Sustained industrialisation, accelerated market forces, intensification ofinequalities, and economic crisis, especially if occurring simultaneously, serve toraise the political consciousness of broad sections of society. It stimulates theirmobilisation into politics as social groups increase their demands on governmentfor social justice and participation. The expanding pluralism and associateddemands tend to cause a power shift in the upper levels of society and requires arenegotiation of social relations to meet the more complex social realities. 43Although not disagreeing with ‘transition’ literature concerning the linkbetween the existence of vigorous civil association and democracy, Schmitterargues that ‘transition from authoritarian rule is clearly not merely a matter ofeconomic development or societal complexity, as earlier literature on the “socialrequisites of democracy” put it’.What is relevant to an understanding of these differences [between differentcountries] are the obscure historical conditions that have given rise toindependent territorial communities, especially towns and cities, and todistinctive functional identities, especially of social classes, economicsectors, and professions. Ethnic and linguistic groups, religions and sects,voluntary associations and social service organizations, gender andgenerational groupings have also prominently contributed to theinstitutionalized social pluralism that supports a strong civil society. 44According to this line of argument, a country with a strong history of civilassociations independent of the state, which has subsequently come underauthoritarian rule, stands a much better chance of democratising thando countries lacking viable civil associations. 45 (However, a word of caution is inorder, as vigorous civil society might be a pre-requisite of functioningdemocracy but not a sufficient condition. Functioning and stable political