Feudalism in Indonesia Democracy

Indra Fauzan and Fernanda Putra Adela

Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Keywords: Democracy, Feudalism, Indonesia Politics.

Abstract: Democracy is a system of government that gives freedom to every element of society to improve the quality

of democracy, popular sovereignty is the most important element in modern democracy, democracy

eliminates oritarianism, dictatorship and also a hierarchical system far from democracy. Indonesia is a country

that uses a democratic system as a government and state, after the reformation of the democratic paradigm

began to be intensively carried out as a form of implementation of modern democracy. All elements of

democracy, actors and also instruments of democracy do not work well in accordance with the principles of

democracy. This value is considered not in accordance with the principles of democracy as agreed, voiced,

the right to vote and be elected in relation to the formation of political dynasties, corruption, collusion, and

nepotism. There are still many shortcomings in running it. Most of the existing compilation with the defense

system, the number of elements of feudalism that still resides in the mentality of actors, political elites in

Indonesia, both from the central to the regional level, the evaluation of democracy is limited to procedure

only but not in political action. the question is how non-democratic elements are lost in politics This article

presents how modern democracy in Indonesia is actually a way out for politics but is used by free political

riders who add to feudalism to gain, use and maintain their power. This article is expected to add to the corpus

of knowledge in the political field.

1 INTRODUCTION

Democracy is now a political system used by the

majority of countries throughout the world, the choice

of democracy is a logical choice today because it can

politically maintain good relations with countries that

also use democracy primarily to place themselves in

the eyes of the nation. Indonesia is a country that

embraces and uses democracy as its political system

choice.

Democracy in Indonesia has always changed its

face since the founding of this nation. Starting from

parliamentary democracy, guided democracy,

Pancasila democracy and currently democracy which

is considered more open, more friendly to the people

and indeed tries to carry out democratic values that

are actually in accordance with the theories and

concepts of scholars.

Unfortunately, there are still many who believe

that Indonesia's democracy at present is a mere

procedural democracy, not essentially running the

values of democracy and some say it is liberal

democracy (Tornquist, 2001) or oligarchic

democracy / ollygarchy democracy (Fukuoka, 2012)

When Indonesia underwent a reformation in 1998, the

euphoria of democracy was as high as if it had just

been released from a lonely, dark and narrow prison.

The liberation of the Indonesian people from the

shackles of political New Order that was rigid,

bureaucratic and stressful made the Indonesian

people have high hopes for a democracy that really -

emphasizing the freedom of civil, media, justice,

transparency and so forth. The cheers of reform

continue to reverberate and governance after the new

order is expected to be able to bring what aspired by

those who fight for democracy with full of sweat and

blood (Carnegie, 2008).

After more than 20 years of democracy it turns out

that democracy aspired to still leaves the question

whether the democracy that was lived in accordance

with reform expectations or just carry out democratic

obligations only such as elections, political party

contestation, media freedom, distance the military

from politics and give more authority to the

legislature to really be a balance for the executive

during the old order and the new order was not

obtained.

After two decades of reforms it seems that this

nation is sometimes still stuttering in democracy, the

Fauzan, I. and Adela, F.

Feudalism in Indonesia Democracy.

DOI: 10.5220/0010002100330038

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social and Political Development (ICOSOP 3 2019) - Social Engineering Governance for the People, Technology and Infrastructure in

Revolution Industry 4.0, pages 33-38

ISBN: 978-989-758-472-5

inability to absorb the values of modern democracy

which must be implemented in state life sometimes

has to clash with the political interests of the

authorities both local and central. It makes sense if the

experts say how democracy in Indonesia works today,

those who oppose the flow of democracy are still

hampered by laws that support freedom of thought,

discuss and report public opinion such as laws and

political laws through articles defamation,

harassment through defamation.

The term democracy in general is that sovereignty

is in the hands of the people, in the context of modern

democracy people's sovereignty is more manifested

in the form of elections, even though in terms of

democracy it is the most minimal understanding

(Huntington, 1995). Whereas a more specific

understanding of democracy was developed by elitist

schools advocated by Schumpeter and his followers

on procedural democracy, specifically saying that

democracy '... in political life there is always some

competition'.

Dahl (1971) says that democracy is Poliarchy. For

Dahl, democracy has two meanings or dimensions,

namely contestation and participation. Contestation is

a well organized match like the institutions for

holding general elections, a period of contestation

that is having a clear implementation time whether

every four years like in the United States or once

every five years like in Indonesia there is clear

political competition such as a match between free,

honest and fair political parties.

Whereas the second dimension is participation,

namely how every citizen who is in accordance with

the conditions of voting and being elected has the

right to participate in the contestation above, either as

a voter or chosen to fight for a public position.

Poliarchy is not just the freedom to choose and

compete for power, but also the freedom to speak out

and disseminate information of his thoughts through

free publications, including mass media,journals,

seminars and so on. In addition there is freedom to

establish organizations and join certain organizations

and so on.

Also following Dahl are three characteristics of a

democratic country: first, having equal rights in

collective and binding decision making. Second,

equal opportunities for citizens in the political

process. Third, the manifestation of civil and political

freedom. In different contexts Following Dahl (1999)

democracy produces consequences including: 1.

Avoiding tyranny, 2. Human rights, 3. Lay freedom,

4. Determining one's own destiny, 5. moral

autonomy, 6. Human development, 7 Protection of

personal interests, 8. Equal political rights and added

peace and prosperity.

This impression is a virtue that might emerge in a

democracy even though democracy still has its own

weaknesses. But sometimes democracy is also

difficult to apply to advanced societies (Dahl 1971) in

societies that practice liberal democracy are faced

with the challenge of reconciling and uniting

differences in heterogeneous societies so that

sometimes in plural societies, liberal democracies

will find impasse.

Whereas feudalism is a political system that

usually develops in traditional monarchic societies,

there is a structural hierarchy that involves patron and

client relations, feudalism is believed to be a system

that is contrary to democracy itself which presents

equality, equality, freedom and intellectualism.

Feudalism itself refers to the political,

organizational, social and economic system of

medieval Europe (Grimmelman, 2000), which refers

to land ownership in Europe (France and England)

known as vassal or lord (Moore, 2002; Cantwell,

2019), whereas in the Marxist perspective feudalism

is the formation of society before capitalism and

eventually becomes communist, Marx considers that

the process of forming a feudal society forms social

classes and creates class conflict (Epstein, 2007), the

feudal era is full of sacred and noble values, with

attitudes and customs such as harmony, respect for

the king or nobility, with a social order where the

position above and below is considered as something

that crosses the world (Suseno, 2001).

So Marx saw that all kinds of relations of

attitudes, feelings, rituals, and feudal norms were

actually nothing more than a sacred veil that covered

the exploitation of the upper feudal classes against the

lower classes. Behind the people's feelings of

disrespect or respect for the king and the belief in his

goodness is hidden the greed of the upper classes who

live from the work of the people. Feudal values are

nothing more than an ideological veil of reality based

on human exploitation of humans.

So when we talk about feudalism, we will be led

to views about orthodoxy, conservatism, patron and

client relations, superiors and subordinate culture,

respect and so on, depending on what and how our

perspective of seeing feudalism is in the realm of our

minds based on an understanding of feudalism

scientifically or factually.

This article is here to look at the condition of

Indonesia's democracy At present, democracy which

is expected to be a way out of Indonesian politics that

was closed in the past will be able to provide a sense

of justice to all Indonesian people both for the

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3

authorities, their supporters, the opposition or for the

people who really need justice from the governmen.

2 FEUDALISM AND

DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA

As it is known that democracy is a political system

that prioritizes people's sovereignty as the main basis

of its power. In the context of Indonesia, democracy

experiences ups and downs especially after the

independence. Democracy repeatedly changes its

form, format, or also its implementation. Indonesia

has experienced a number of forms of democracy

based on the interpretations of the authorities, for

example after independence 1945 - 1957 Indonesia

used parliamentary democracy, then changed its face,

form and format into guided democracy in

accordance with Sukarno's understanding.

After Sukarno ended democracy again underwent

a transformation into Pancasila democracy in

accordance with Suharto's interpretation of

democracy, the climax is the third post-reform

democracy transformation which is claimed to be a

pure and modern democracy in accordance with the

term democracy itself which is based on the people's

freedom and sovereignty.

Understanding and interpretation of democracy is

constantly changing because democracy cannot have

only one face. The United States alone, which is

considered the most important user of democracy in

the world, has a different face from France or Britain,

two countries which first proclaimed themselves to be

users of modern democracy after the Industrial

Revolution.

Not to mention how difficult it is to imply

democracy to countries that do not have historical

roots and good relations with democracy, usually the

countries that have advantages in the number of

ethnic religions, for example, are countries in Africa

and also some countries in Asia. Arendt Lijhpart, a

western scholar, has tried to provide solutions to

countries that have this advantage by giving a face of

democracy which he called as a constitutional

democracy or democracy of consensus. A term of

democracy which accommodates all elements in the

religious and ethnic context which unite in a

democracy which has its origins as happened in

Malaysia (Lijhpart, 1977). Suppose he is that

democracy can be lived well if the countries that have

plural society should make an agreement or

deliberation in playing on their democracy so that it

is referred to as consotional democracy.

In a different context also in Indonesia has

different democratic characteristics, Indonesia

prefers the approach of openness and equality of

position in the context of the Indonesian republic.

What is the real problem of democracy in

Indonesia? not only procedural or empirical issues as

said by Maswadi Rauf about Indonesian democracy

(1998) but also how cultural values are in the political

context in Indonesia. For this reason, it is necessary

to trace the history of Indonesian politics. Broadly

speaking, Indonesia is a country rooted in a system of

feudalism. When the archipelago was still the name

of this region, many kingdoms dominated the

archipelago, such as Samudra Pasai Kingdom in

Aceh, Malay kingdom in North Sumatra,

Minangkabau kingdom in West Sumatra, Sriwijaya in

Palembang, Singosari, Majapahit, Mataram in the

land Java and several kingdoms in Kalimantan,

Sulawesi and Papua. The kingdoms were spread

evenly with all kinds of rules, the feudal system then

became a political system that was directed until the

Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese and British colonies

came to Nusantara. The invaders did not bring a new

system but they still brought the feudal system in their

colonial structure.

The face of Indonesian politics today is

inseparable from the condition of the nation's past, for

more than a century we lived under the shadow of the

royal system that spread from Sabang to Merauke. In

the condition of life under the domination of the

kingdom, of course we also live under a system of

hierarchy that controls the lives of the people with

feudal rules, that the king is everything, is not

blameworthy and worshiped. In fact, in some cases

the king is the representative of God on earth so that

these doctrines do not provide an opportunity for the

people to blame the king even with his family.

After the royal system changed under colonial

rule, feudalism did not even change at all because the

colonizers further perpetuated the feudal system to

strengthen their position on the colonized earth.

Rather than that more than three centuries under the

power of our colonizers is inseparable from the

system of feudalism which is thick with hierarchical.

That culture continues to be traditionalized even

when this nation is already independent. Under the

regime of the ruling regime which is said to be

democratic and chosen based on a democratic system.

The democratic system, as we know it, is very far

from the values of feudalism because it follows that

democratic ebbination removes feudal values and it

specifically prioritizes collective values in the people,

because indeed the people are the owners of

sovereignty in the state.

Feudalism in Indonesia Democracy

In this context, despite the nation's claim that

Indonesia is a country that uses democracy as a

political system and its government, this is indicated

by the use of democracy starting in post-

independence using Parliamentary Democracy,

continuing with Guided Democracy and Pancasila

Democracy and ultimately this country using modern

democracy (just name) to show that we are a

democratic country. From there we can judge that this

nation is actually committed to becoming close to

democracy and trying to implement it in the right

way. However, the facts show that the past life of this

nation which deeply animates feudalism causes the

values, culture and sentiments towards feudalism to

be truly manifested in social and political life in

Indonesia.

Maybe we reject that assumption, but the fact that

it really happened feudal mentality still resides in this

nation. For example, in a democratic institution itself,

namely a Political Party, when the domination of a

political party to determine who is a suitable

candidate to be the head of the region then resulted in

the domination of dynasties in one party, for example

in the central political parties, almost all general

leaders of political parties put families in line with

their blood in a party structure such as the Indonesian

Democratic Party of Struggle, placed Megawati

Sukarnoputri as the irreplaceable general Chairperson

and placed her two children in the structure of the

leadership of the political parties namely Puan

Maharani and Prananda Prabowo. In a different party

we can see in the Democratic party led by former

President of the Republic of Indonesia Soesilo

Bambang Yudhoyono who also placed his two

children in the party leadership structure namely

Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono and Edhie Baskoro

Yudhoyono, besides that we can also see in several

political parties such as in Perindo, Nasdem and

others. In democracy, democracy instruments,

especially democratic values, should be implemented

well, frequent circulation of power, limitation of

power so that there is no monopoly and of course

guarantee the rights of individuals to rule.

Another example at the regional level is that many

high-ranking local party leaders take advantage of

their position as to the region and at the same time as

the leader of a particular political party and through

that power they place themselves and their families

within the circle of power both in the executive and

legislative branches as a form of conserving power in

certain regions. This power takes advantage of the

opportunities contained in democracy itself because

every individual has the same rights in politics, each

individual is a person who has the right to power, to

join in any political party. So if we see many regional

heads who are at the same time the heads of certain

political parties and they place their families in power

such as members of political parties, as members of

the legislature and also as the driving wheel of the

economy through family businesses that utilize local

projects, control the business through tenders that

have been mobilized through under the table or an

agreement in a coffee shop.

Of course it is very easy for local rulers to move

their political machinery, because they form political

dynasties through the power of power, the power of

capital and also their influence in society so that the

mobilization of the times is very easy. They are

interest groups that structurally cause a setback in

democracy, they have a level of influence that is

stratified and interconnected with the stages of

development achieved by society.

Democracy is equality, equality is not degraded

by feudalism (it should be), while feudalism is

hierarchical, structural and oppressive is coupled with

sycophants. So it is rather strange indeed when

democracy becomes a reference in the state, culture

and traditions of feudalism that remains comfortable

in the democratic life of this nation. In democratic life

when this feudalism does not live as a system but it

lives in the values of national culture, peaceful in

bureaucratic structures, academic, both local and

central government and becomes common in the

application of his life.

It can be seen in bureaucratic life, why there are

transactional positions because feudal mentalities are

still living peacefully in the bodies of these

individuals, the regional head is the ruling king in

their territory, the employees there are servants who

have to serve them, so it happens structured sale of

positions from the lowest level to the top level. In

addition, government activities are always under the

spotlight, if in the past the government had TVRI as

a means of broadcasting all government activities, the

community lined up to welcome the head of state or

his minister to be present in the regions and in some

cases even schools were closed. On several occasions

in some regions even now the disease began to spread

again, for example school children lined the edge of

the field to welcome the head of state and so forth.

Therefore, even though there are provisions in the

constitution that limit political power and the

restrictions are openly recognized by the authorities,

they are still violations of the exercise of power with

very serious consequences, this happens in the cases

mentioned above where certain individuals or groups

are denied the right to gather, to express opinions, to

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3

form associations and joint actions through threats

and countermeasures.

Sometimes in democracy in Indonesia there are

still power interventions even through power

monopolies caused by the feudal mentality. There are

often fundamental violations and defeats of the

legitimacy of democracy, there are strong groups with

their power supported by military apparatus and

institutions, or groups of economic power or

influential families that can operate outside the realm

of democratic power control. In this way they raised

themselves to the position of the highest authority in

various fields of community life.

Obstacles and attitudes that want to be respected

are usually passed through approaches of power,

material, patronage relations that cause dependence.

In addition, the attitude of perpetuated Javanese by

calling or mentionings honorary titles in the

community sometimes they do not like to be called if

it is not complete with their titles such as pak haji,

datuk, pak Wali, Ibu Wali, pak Bupati, Ketua, Pak

Menteri , Abangda and others. Even in academic

institutions, academic vocation such as doctorates,

prof, etc. makes feudal values appear and blossom in

academic nuance.

Although in fact institutionally the noble titles had

long disappeared in the community such as the Raden

title in Javanese aristocratic society, the progenitor of

the aristocracy was Malay and so on but in a different

form mentally and that value still resides in the soul.

In the class structure those classified as the upper

class or bourgeoisie still hold the dominance of the

class structure because they have positions, the power

of money, and power relations. No longer limited to

being a king, landowner, vassal, Baron or lord in the

era of the royal system or colonialism and

imperialism.

Although socially, politically and economically,

the system has changed but the mental, feudal values

and culture are still present and fertile in the souls of

the Indonesian people in each class structure of their

society. From the post-independence era through

parliamentary democracy, especially when guided

democracy and Pancasila democracy, feudalism was

strengthened by a structure of power through

bureaucracy if in the context of the new order through

ABRI, Bureaucracy and Golkar which indeed at that

time hegemony economic, social and political

structures.

In modern democracies that we see today after the

reform of attitudes, mentality and values are still

fertile embedded in the mind and soul of a cross-

structure society. Decentralization produced political

oligarchies in the regions (Hadiz and Robinson,

2002). These local elites strengthened their hegemony

because their regional or environmental situation was

very supportive, for example in some regions these

local elites were rich people while the surrounding

communities lived in poverty thus forming patron

patterns and client. They strengthen their hegemony

through religious, political, financial, regional and

organizational power (Robinson and Hadiz 2004, Van

Klinken, 2007). There is cooperation between local

authorities or local strongmen with the bureaucracy

or legal institutions in an area to strengthen the

position of feudalism in different forms. Local

strongman or local bossism is indivisu or local elite

groups that are powerful both through business,

influence, power, violence and so on who are able to

rule in one region and give influence both in the

economic, social and cultural context. (Migdal, 1988;

Sidel 1998) or in other terms is the Shadow state or

individu or local groups that control the bureaucracy

(Hidayat and Gismar 2010; Argenti, 2018).

From some of the cases and explanations above,

we understand that culture, values and mental

feudalism still live in a democratic system even

though they actually oppose this behavior, along with

eliminating the dominance of the monarchy in the

French and industrial revolutions, but modernization

does not necessarily eliminate feudalism even though

in a different form. These values and culture are still

well-traded in the political, social and economic

spheres and structures of society from the elite to the

lower levels.

3 CONCLUSIONS

A good democracy especially in this modern era

should eliminate the values of individuals and groups.

Reducing tyranny eliminates dictatorship, but there

are individuals, groups or even one regime that still

wants to perpetuate their power in certain ways. They

enter the circle of democracy to strengthen their

power, maintain their faudalistic power through

political power, economic and social domination.

Detachment and conservatism in power make some

dominant groups in politics, they arrange in such a

way that the rules of democracy to perpetuate power

either through family, group or regime. The power of

this feudal elite circle is usually strengthened through

regulations whether it is a law or a regional

regulation.

In addition, at the community or lower class level,

they are dominated and must obey, submit to power

and the economy. They are hegemony and resigned to

be controlled. People because of social factors,

Feudalism in Indonesia Democracy

especially the economy inevitably participate in this

feudalism. Flattery, licking, and respect are carried

out with various motives, such as power, security,

economy, social status and so on.

For this reason, it is necessary to reduce the

democratic system in Indonesia, so that these positive

values are not harmed by servitude that hinders

individual competition, meritocracy and so on.

However, indirectly, feudal values, culture and

mentality will.

REFERENCES

Argenti, G., 2018. Civil society, shadow state dan local

strongmen dalam kajian politik lokal. Jurnal

Cosmogov: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 4(1), 58 – 70.

Cantwell, D., 2019. Political elite has brought feudal system

to America. Reno Gazette Journal. Retrieved from

https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/ 2019/

01/13/rise-lords-america-cantwell/2565243002/

(1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New

Haven : Yale University Press.

Dahl, R.A, 1999. On Democracy, Yale University Press.

New Haven and London.

Epstein, ,S. R., 2007. Rodney hilton, marxism and the

trasition from feudalism to capitalism, London School

of Economic. London.

Fukuoka, Y., 2012. Olygarchi and democracy in post-

Suharto Indonesia. Political Studies Review, 11(1), 52-

64. Sage Journals. Retrieved from https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00286.x

Grimmelman, J., 2000. Virtual world feudalisme. Yale L.J.

Pocket Part 126.

Hidayat, S., Gismar, A.M., 2010. Good governance vs

shadow state dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintah

daerah. Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 7(1), 1-13.

Huntington, S.P., 1995. Gelombang demokrasi ketiga,

Pustaka Utama Grafiti. Jakarta.

Lijhpart, A., 1977. Democracy in plural societies: a

comparative exploration, Yale University Press. New

Haven.

Suseno, F.M., 2001. Pemikiran Karl Marx: Dari sosialisme

utopis ke perselisihan revisionisme, PT Gramedia

Pustaka Utama. Jakarta.

Moore, J.W., 2002. The crisis of feudalism: An eviromental

history. Organization and Environment Journal, 15(3),

301 – 322.

Rauf, M., 1998. Demokrasi dan demokratisasi: Penjajakan

teoritis untuk Indonesia, Mizan – Laboratorium Ilmu

Politik FISIP – UI. Jakarta.

Robinson, R., Hadiz, V.R., 2004. Reorganizing power in

Indonesia: The Politics of oligarchy in an age of

markets, Routledge Curzon. London.

Tornquist, O., 2001. What's wrong with Indonesia's

Democratisation? Economic And Political Weekly,

36(14/15), 1185-1187. JSTOR.

Van Klinken, G., 2007. Communal violence and

democratization in Indonesia: Small town wars,

Routledge. London.

ICOSOP 3 2019 - International Conference on Social Political Development (ICOSOP) 3