MEASURING DEMOCRACY

IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index
MEASURING DEMOCRACY
IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

This report was prepared by:

Maswadi Rauf
Syarif Hidayat
Abdul Malik Gismar
Siti Musdah Mulia
August Parengkuan

Data Processing Team

Wynandin Imawan
Uzair Suhaimi
Teguh Pramono
Edy Waryono
Tanno Kamila Helaw
Tono Iriantono
Maman Rahmawan
Dewi Triana

Contributors
Raden Siliwanti
Otho Hernowo Hadi
Irman G. Lanti
Rita Djayusman
Muhammad Husain
Fajar Nursahid
Terra Taihitu
Eka Leni Yuliani

Editor for English Version

Karoline Kemp

Design Concept
Taufik Bayu Nugroho

Published by:

United Nations Development Programme, Indonesia

Menara Thamrin Bldg, 8th Floor
Jl. M.H. Thamrin 3, Jakarta 10250, Indonesia
 Contents
Foreword——vi Index Compiling Technique——33
Foreword——vii Scale of Democracatic Performance——38
Methodological Limitations——39
Chapter 1
Introduction——3 Chapter 4
Background——3 The 2009 Indonesia
Significance and Benefit of the IDI——5 Democracy Index——43
A General Description of the
Chapter 2 Indonesia Democracy Index——43
The Conception Of Democracy National Democracy Index
Under The Indonesia according to Aspects——43
Democracy Index——9 Provincial Democracy Index
The Basic Concept of Democracy ——9 According to Aspects——45
Operationalization of Concepts in the IDI: Ranking Democracy in 33 Provinces——46
Aspects, Variables, and Indicators——15 Percentage of Provincial Democracy
Performance——48
Chapter 3 Index for Civil Liberties——49
Methodology——23 Index for Political Rights——60
Question to be answered Index for Institutions of Democracy ——67
with the IDI——23
Aspects, Variables and Chapter 5
Indicators of the IDI——23 Conclusion——79
Data Collection Methods——25 Bibliography——82
Data processing——30 Appendix——87

El-Mostafa Benlamlih
UN Resident Coordinator Indonesia
Democracy in Indonesia
has come a long way since
reformation began in 1998.
“Measuring Democracy in
Indonesia: 2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index” is a
result of the commitment
of the Government of
Indonesia to strengthening
the political and
institutional structures
which contribute to a
vibrant democracy.
vi
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Foreword
Foreword
The National Planning and Development Agency
(Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional-BAP-
PENAS) has led the development of the Index, and has
worked in partnership with the Ministry of Home Affairs,
the Central Statistics Agency and provincial governments.
Engagement with civil society organizations and academics
from across Indonesia has also strengthened the results of
the report.
The Indonesia Democracy Index measures civil liber-
ties, political rights and institutions of democracy across all
33 provinces, and provides an in-depth assessment of the
status of democracy according to these indicators. The In-
dex shows that progress in the development of democracy
has been made, but that further support is required in order
to realize a truly democratic Indonesia for all. The data pro-
vided in the Index is important for the government and a
range of other stakeholders, as it assesses democracy at the
provincial level to ensure that good governance is on track
with democratic reforms and goals. The data can therefore
be used as a tool for evidence based analysis and policymak-
ing for local governments and authorities (including police,
courts, civil society organizations and others) to specifically
target areas for intervention, as well as share good practices
in order to further consolidate democracy in Indonesia.
The United Nations Development Programme is
pleased that the Government of Indonesia has made a com-
mitment to the Indonesia Democracy Index, which signifies
the priority it places on strengthening democracy. We hope
that this report, and the others that follow, will help the
government to consolidate its efforts in empowering demo-
cratic institutions to realize the civil liberties and political
rights of all Indonesian citizens.
Jakarta, June 2011
El-Mostafa Benlamlih
UN Resident Coordinator Indonesia
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Foreword 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Foreword
We thank God Almighty for the successful publication
of the report on Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI).
Our thanks are given in consideration for the lengthy
process of developing the IDI 2009, starting with data
collection, processing and analysis to its publication.
With the publication of the IDI 2009, we hope
that curiosity for IDI will be answered due to the
comprehensive nature of this IDI report
The Indonesian Democracy Index or IDI 2009 is
the second index on democracy in Indonesia since the
first compilation of IDI 2007 (published in 2008). The
compilation we have at hand is markedly significant as the
Prof. Dr. Armida S. Alisjahbana, MA
Minister of National Development Planning/ IDI 2009 will set the benchmark for future compilations
Head of Bappenas
of indices on democracy in Indonesia. The results and
findings from this report will serve as a ‘reminder’, or
The Government
benchmark to be compared with results from future IDIs.
of Indonesia has
In conjunction with other democratic achievements,
designated the IDI Indonesia has successfully developed a tool to measure
as one of the sectoral the progress of democracy that is specific for Indonesia
targets to be achieved in and not developed by other countries. At its core, the
the National Medium- IDI is a country-led assessment developed based on a
Term Development Plan foundation of national ownership. As a nation, we all
(Rencana Pembangunan should be proud with our achievements, particularly,
having the IDI.
Jangka Menengah
As a tool to measure Indonesia’s unique style of
Nasional, RPJMN) 2010-
democracy, the IDI is highly useful. The IDI presents
2014. This illustrates clear indicators of democracy which illustrate the level of
government’s high democratic progress in provinces throughout Indonesia.
commitment in Based on these indicators, national or sub-national
democracy as one of governments can determine its development priorities
development priorities for democracy and governance. Indicators with low
in the political sector marks will be improved, while indicators with high
marks will be maintained. This is the exact purpose for
the development of the IDI, to assist the government in
its development planning in democracy and governance.
For non-governmental actors and stakeholders, the IDI
is a tool to monitor development planning process and

vii

its implementation through national and
sub-national development policies.
The Government of Indonesia has
designated the IDI as one of the sectoral
targets to be achieved in the National
Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional,
RPJMN) 2010-2014. This illustrates
government’s high commitment in
democracy as one of development priorities
in the political sector. This effort needs the
support of all segments of the society, as
democracy belongs to the people and not
only to the governnment, and marks the
necessary participation of the people. Hence
the IDI considers both, the people and the
government, actors of equal importance in
determining the performance of democracy.
The compilation of the IDI 2009 reflects
the synergy between different stakeholders-
from academics, activists from civil society
organizations, the media, and of course
government officials- who are members of
IDI working groups at the provincial level
tasked to provide support and guidance for
data collection and quality control.
With this publication of the IDI 2009, on
behalf of the Government of Indonesia I
would like to express my sincere gratitude
and appreciation for the contribution, hard
work, and extraordinary effort of the IDI
Expert Board, BPS-Statistics Indonesia team,
the Ministry of Home Affairs, provincial
governments and Provincial IDI Working
G ro u p s , a n d o t h e r p a r t i e s w h o h a v e
provided assistance in the compilation of the
viii
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Foreword
IDI 2009. I would like to especially thank the
UNDP for its support in the compilation of
the IDI. I hope we can continue and expand
our collaboration in the future.
It is of note, that the compilation of IDI
2011 will be done using state budget, which
will be coordinated by the Coordinating
Ministry of Politics, Law and Security, in
collaboration with BPS-Statistics Indonesia,
the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the
National Development Planning Agency
(Bappenas).
It is my sincere hope that this IDI 2009
will motivate provincial governments and
their people to improve democracy in their
area. Hard work to improve conditions of
democracy at the provincial level will in
turn improve democratic performance at
the national level. With the IDI to measure
democratic progress, we all hope that
democracy in Indonesia will continue its
consolidation through continued good
cooperation between the people and their
government.
Jakarta, June 2011
Minister of National Development Planning/
Head of Bappenas
Prof. Dr. Armida S. Alisjahbana, MA
Introduction

1
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 1 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Chapter 1
Introduction
The Indonesia Democracy Index (IDI) refers to numerical indica-
tors which measure aspects of democracy across the provinces of
Indonesia. These include civil liberties, political rights, and institu-
tions of democracy. Measuring democracy poses a challenge due to
the broadness of the term – the construction of the IDI uses the
three aspects of democracy mentioned above, and further breaks
them down into 11 variables and 28 indicators.

The Indonesia Democracy Index
aims to quantify the development
of democracy at the provincial level
in Indonesia. The index provides
information about the progress of
democracy in each province, and
also allows for comparisons between
provinces. The Indonesia Democ-
racy Index therefore refers to the
provinces of the country as a group
or set, and does not include national
level data.
Therefore, the word “Indonesia”
or “national” in this IDI refers to
all the provinces across Indonesia
[collectively] as a group or a set. Of
course, the development of democ-
racy at provincial level differs from
the development of democracy at
national level. A national level IDI
must therefore be compiled using
data sourced from the central or
national government in Jakarta and
from all the people of Indonesia,
while the IDI compiled at this stage,
that is, this provincial level IDI, is
based on data drawn from the gov-
ernments of the country’s provinces
and the district/ city governments
and people in the provinces.
1.1 Background
After the fall of the New Order
regime, which culminated in the
stepping down of Soeharto from
presidency in May 1998, the oppor-
tunity to revert back to democracy
appeared. Indonesian people saw
this as the only option to replace the
authoritarian political system of the
New Order regime. The citizens of
the nation created a spontaneous
mass movement to democratize the
country, and soon after Soeharto of-
ficially stepped down as president,
community leaders established po-
litical parties and exercised freedom
of association and speech. Existing
laws, such as the Law on Political Par-
ties and the Functional Group Party
(Golongan Karya-Golkar) barred the
creation of new political parties (and

3

in fact only recognized two political
parties and one functional group.
However, the government did not
wish to risk acting against the will
of the people, and moved to open
up the country to begin the process
of democratization. New laws on
politics were issued in early 1999, and
the 1945 Constitution was amended
to enforce democracy in the national
political system. Democratization
at the national level was carried out
in conjunction with provincial and
district/city level governments. The
Law on Regional Autonomy was
passed to provide broad based au-
tonomy to provincial governments,
and the freedom that was opening
up at the national level was trickling
down to the regional level.
In line with the development
of democratization at the national
level, the position and function of the
Regional Houses of Representatives
(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah
--DPRD) was also strengthened so
that parliament had the same level
of authority as provincial governors.
The Governor was no longer the sole
ruler of the province, thus negating
the Law on Regional Governments
which had been in effect under the
New Order regime. The Regional
House of Representatives, in their
roles as regional legislative institu-
tions, worked together with gover-
nors, as heads of the executive branch
of provincial governments – and the
two parties combined had the au-
thority to create regional regulations
4
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 1
(perda). At the same time, provincial
parliaments became increasingly
independent, as their members were
elected through democratic general
elections. Through these elections,
voters gained the political right to
choose the political parties which
would represent them in the Regional
House of Representatives.
The freedom created at national
level as a result of democratization
has also been created at subnational
level. People’s participation in fight-
ing for their demands and keeping
an eye on the way the government
of a province runs the province has
become a common phenomenon in
all the provinces in Indonesia. Nu-
merous demonstrations have been
organized by different community
groups, not only in big cities but
also in the remotest villages across
Indonesia. People have become
increasingly aware of their rights.
They have become increasingly sen-
sitive to practices of administering
governance that are not right and
detrimental to people. This requires
the government to be more sensitive
to the aspirations which are develop-
ing in society.
Democratization brought about
political changes both at national
and subnational levels, and became
a means to establish a democratic
political system which would provide
broad based rights to the people, and
prevent the abuse of power.
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 1 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

1.2. Significance and Benefit of the level of democracy development

the IDI in provinces across Indonesia.
More than ten years after Indo- The index also serves a purpose
nesia began the process of democra- for the governments and citizens,
tization, it is important to examine as it can identify specific indicators
how this has developed. To date, with low scores, this providing the
democracy has only been measured opportunity to address those par-
qualitatively – that is, based on sub- ticular issues directly.
jective estimations, without any clear
benchmark data. It is therefore im-
portant to measure the development
of democracy across all of Indonesia,
as the diversity of the country is
likewise represented in the level and
shape of democracy. Quantitative
measurement will provide a clear
picture on the level of democracy,
and will enable comparison in order
to address inconsistencies or deficits.
The information gleaned from the
Indonesia Democracy Index can be
used for various purposes. The index
can be used to academically evaluate
the level of democracy develop-
ment in each province in Indonesia,
providing an important baseline for
further analysis by academics and
journalists.
The index can also be used for
development planning at the provin-
cial level, using the data to pinpoint
underdeveloped or less developed
sectors, regions or aspects of democ-
racy. While clear and quantitative
data for economic development
provides a useful basis for economic
planning, the IDI can likewise pro-
vide a clear benchmark for assessing

5
The Conception Of
Democracy Under
The Indonesia
Democracy Index

2
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Chapter 2
The Conception Of Democracy
Under The Indonesia
Democracy Index
Indonesia is now regarded by the world as a democracy. Freedom
House1 has included Indonesia in the group of countries that are
“fully free,” which includes the United States, United Kingdom,
Japan, Korea, and others. This 2008 ranking is intended to keep
watch over and monitor the development of democracy in the
world, and to identify factors that can strengthen or weaken
democracy in a given country.

The ranking by Freedom House is Due to these disparities, it is relevant

based on a ‘freedom index’ construct-
ed from variables and indicators of
democracy and measures, in a clear
and simple manner, how democratic
or how undemocratic a country is.
This index is helpful for evaluating
the development of democracy and
related factors that are intertwined
with the level of democracy in a coun-
try, including human and economic
development and ethnic and regional
diversity. The index for human and
economic development is relatively
high in Indonesia, at both national
and provincial levels.
Indonesia is a huge country with
a high level of diversity in terms of
economic growth, people’s welfare,
income disparity, law enforcement,
communal conflict and other factors.
1
Freedom House is a non-government organization based in Washington, D.C which focuses on research and advocacy in the field
of democracy, political freedom and human rights. Every year, Freedom House publishes a report that analyses the global condition
of democracy.
to address the diversity of democracy
outcomes among and between the
provinces of Indonesia in order to be
able consolidate strategic political
and democratic action plans.
It is in this context that the In-
donesia Democracy Index (IDI) is a
crucial empirical measurement tool
for assessing the progress (or lack)
of democracy across provinces in the
country. To this end, it is fundamen-
tally important to first understand
what ‘democracy’ itself means and
then derive its dimensions, variables
and indicators from this definition.
2.1. The Basic Concept
of Democracy
Defining democracy poses a par-
ticular challenge, as it can describe

9

an ideal or populist view (a system
of government ‘from, by, and for the
people’). However, democracy in the
real sense of this meaning never truly
exists - no government has ever been
run directly by all the people; and
never has there been a government
that is [run] fully for all the people
(Dahl 1971; Coppedge and Reinicke
1993). In practice, those who run the
government are not the people, but
are generally part of a ruling elite.
There has never been a government
whose proceeds are distributed to
all the people evenly; differences
always result in disparities. Because
of this, if the meaning of a ‘populist
democracy’ is to be maintained, Dahl
proposes the concept of ‘polyarchy’
to replace the concept of ‘populist
democracy.’ Polyarchy is considered
more realistic to describe a certain
political phenomenon in the his-
tory of human civilization because
it refers to a system of government
by ‘many peoples’ and not by ’all
the people.’
Democracy, in this sense of pol-
yarchy, is a system of government
where citizens have the liberty to:
1) establish and participate in an
organization; 2) express themselves
or to voice their opinions; 3) to be-
come public government officials; 4)
to compete among citizens to fight
for public positions; 5) to cast their
votes in general elections; 6) to have
honest and just general elections; 7)
to have alternative sources of infor-
mation other than those provided
10
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2
by the government; and 8) to have
an institutional guarantee that the
adoption or the non adoption of gov-
ernment policies is based on voting
and other forms of the expression of
wish (Dahl 1971: 3).
The definition of democracy is
therefore a system of government
marked by, among other factors,
the existence of freedom provided
for under laws pertaining to public
interest. Given that civil liberties is
one of the essences of the conception
of democracy, Gastil, the intellectual
behind Freedom House, uses the
term ‘liberty,’ and not ‘democracy’
to describe a level of democracy in
countries all over the world (Gastil
1993: 22).By referring to the main
characteristics of democracy defined
by Dahl (1971), Gastil (1993) and
Bollen (1993) delineate the concept
of democracy, polyarchy, or freedom
into two dimensions or aspects: politi-
cal rights and civil liberties.
William Case (2002) distinguishes
two main categories of democracy:
substantive procedural democracy. The
characteristics of substantive democ-
racy include inter-class, ethnic, and
gender equality and other forms of
identity or affiliation in society, and
are similar to the concept of populist
democracy. Meanwhile, the charac-
teristics procedural democracy include
civil liberties and the implementation
of regular general elections and can
be further broken down into semi-
democracy and pseudo-democracy.
Semi-democracy is characterized by
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
the implementation of regular gen-
eral elections, but civil liberties is
limited - opposition parties therefore
usually continue to be given the op-
portunity to exist, but are restricted
by the ruling regime to reach out to
broader constituents. Case (2002:
6-7) elaborates:
In a semi-democracy practice], ...
government regularly hold elec-
tions, thus offering a snapshot
of propriety on voting day. But
they have limited civil liberties
beforehand, thereby hindering
opposition parties in contesting
effectively. More specifically, op-
position parties are permitted to
organize, operate head-quarters,
solicit contributions, select their
own leaders and candidates, then
recruit cadres and core constituen-
cies. On the other hand, they are
prevented from reaching wider
audiences by the government’s
owning most media outlets, they
are restricted in circulating their
own party publications, and they
are barred from organizing mass
rallies, even daring campaign
periods.
The characteristics of pseudo-
democracy also include the implemen-
tation of regular general elections,
but the election process itself is often
tainted by dishonesty and civil liber-
ties is almost completely restricted.
Both freedom of expression and
parliament (as a representative insti-
tution) are very strictly controlled by
the government. On the other hand,
in spite of their existence, opposition
parties almost have no autonomy at
all due to the dominant intervention
of the government in the formation of
their institutional structure, appoint-
ment of personnel, the recruitment
of cadres and financial control. Case
(2002: 8) describes the characteristics
of pseudo-democracy as follows:
Beyond semi-democracies, one
find pseudo-democracies, a catego-
ry in which elections are also held
regularly. However, these elections
are rigged, while civil liberties are
nearly extinguished, with rights
of expression, information, and
assembly all rigidly controlled.
But the most striking qualitative
difference between semi and
pseudo-democracies appears in
the respective approaches taken
toward opposition parties. Put
simply, in pseudo-democracies,
opposition parties are permitted
no autonomy, with governments
interfering deeply in their forma-
tion, organizational structure, se-
lection of officers and candidates,
fund-rising, and campaigning.
Thus, while opposition parties
may win legislative seats, they
are barred from performing even
limited accountability functions.
The reality of democracy in Indo-
nesia cannot be separated from the
dynamics of the shift in state-society
relation that has taken place in the
post-Soeharto period. One of the
11
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2

main characteristics in this shift dur- between the ruling elite and the elite
ing the transitional period towards of society – which has dominated
post-Soeharto democracy was the political processes both in terms of
extension of the role of society. How- decision making and policy imple-
ever, the extension of people’s par- mentation stage - has been difficult
ticipation has brought about a greater to avoid.
awareness of conflicts of interest In general, it can be said that in
among the ruling elite. This tendency a democratic regime, the pattern of
is in some ways easy to understand, interaction between state and society
because society in the sense of civil is very dynamic. There is a two-way
society itself has not been fully ready interaction between state and society
to play a role in the new structure. As in decision making processes (policy
a consequence, the opportunity for making) and policy implementation. In
people’s participation in the period principle, therefore, the decisions
of transition towards democracy has made by the state are a compact
been used to the advantage of the between the demands of society and
elite, who have claimed to represent the interest of the state itself. That is,
the mass of citizens in their dealing even if the state has legal and official
with the state. authority, its role in the decision
Thus, the pattern of interaction making process is technically only
between state and society during as role of mediator to handle the
the period of transition towards interests of citizens.2
democracy is generally limited to The opposite tendency takes place
interaction between the ruling elite in authoritarian regimes, marked
(state actors) and the elite of society by the domination of the state, both
(society actors). Conflict of interest in decision making process (policy

2
Theoretically, the argument on the pattern of state-society interaction in a democratic regime is based on the concept of the state
according to a pluralist definition. Martin Smith (1995: 209-210) argues that: “The key feature of pluralism is difference or diversity.
The complexity of the modern liberal state means that no single group, class or organization can dominate society. Hence, the role
of the state is to regulate conflicts in society rather than to dominate society in pursuit of particular interests.” Furthermore, David
Marsh and Gerry Stoker (1995: 230) note that: “Within the pluralist paradigm, the polity is comprised of a multiplicity of competing
groups, all of which seek to influence the decision-making process. Rule purports to be in the interest of all and not that of any one
section or alliance of sections. The duty of government is to harmonize and co-ordinate.” It is important to mention here that there are
several variances in the perspective of pluralism itself. Martin Smith (1995: 210) recorded at least four variances of the perspective
of pluralism, that is: classical pluralism, reformed pluralism, plural elitism, and eeo-pluralism. However, the basic concept of all four
variances of this perspective emphasize state, or more concretely the government, must be responsive to the demands of society.
Furthermore, in the study of state-society relations, the conception of the state according to the perspective of pluralism is extensively
used as a theoretical platform to analyse, study and explain the characteristics of the pattern of state-society interactions in a democratic
regime, which is methodologically known as the society-centred approach. Academics who have applied the perspective of pluralism
in the study of state-society relations include Grindle and Thomas (1989). These two authors, argue that: “…the causes of decisions
made to adopt, pursue, and change public policies lie in understanding relationships of power and competition among individuals,
groups, or classes in society or in international extensions of class-based or interest-based societies” (page 216). Furthermore, it is
said: “In pluralist approaches to political analysis, public policy results from the conflict, bargaining, and coalition formation among a
potentially large number of societal groups, organized to protect or advance particular interests common to their members” (page 218).

12
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

making) and policy implementation. processes, as well as the implementa-

The role of society in decision mak- tion of policies. Meanwhile, society
ing process is very much limited is conditioned to be passive, and
(if not completely removed). With its role is generally marginalized.
such characteristics, the pattern of The dynamics in decision making
interaction between state and society processes reflect conflicts of interest
in an authoritarian regime is essen- between and among a number of
tially one way. Relationships between state actors (the elite of the central
state and society in decision making government).
processes are generally limited to During the transition towards
conflicts of interest, coalitions. com- democracy, authoritarianism is never
promises and deceitfulness between completely absent. Despite the po-
or among members of the state elite litical reform requiring an extension
(state actors).3 of the role of society, the state still
In an authoritarian regime, dominates national decision making
the pattern of interaction between processes. In certain cases, the state
state and society tends to be one way. can even forces its will. On the other
This means that the state always hand, the disloyalty between state
dominates national decision making

3
Theoretically, the argument on the pattern of state-society interaction in an authoritarian regime is built based on the conception
of state according to the perspective of elitism (see Marks Evans, 1995), and at a certain level, is also influenced by the perspective
of Maxism (see Gramsci, 1971; Poulantzas, 1976; Jessop, 1990; and Skocpol, 1985). As written by Mark Evans (1995: 228), there
are at least three key figureheads who have played a major role in giving birth to the initial perspective of elitism,including: Vilfredo
Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels. Therefore, it is understandable if, in its developments, the elitism perspective is very
much dominated by the basic thoughts of the three figureheads. Mosca (1939:30), for instance, explicitly states: In all societies – from
societies that are very meagrely developed and have barely attained the dawning of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful
societies – two classes of people appear, that is, a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always less numerous,
performs all political functions, monopolzses power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, more numerous
class, is directed and controlled by the first. Meanwhile, Pareto (1966) argues that: “…historical experience provides testimony to the
perpetual circulation of elites and oligarchy”. A similar premise has also been put forward by Michels (1962: 364): the practical ideal
of democracy consisted in the self-government of the masses in conformity with the decision-making of popular assemblies. However,
while this system placed limits on the extension of the principle of delegation, it fails to provide any guarantee against the formation
of an aligarchical camerilla [political structure]. In short, direct government by the masses was impossible.
Futhermore, in the study of state-society relation, the concept of state according to such perspective of elitism has been extensively
used as a theoretical platform to analyse and explain the characteristics of the pattern of state-society interaction in an authoritarian
regime, which is methodologically known as the state-centred approach. Academics who have applied the perspective of elitism in
the analysis of state-society relations include Grindle and Thomas (1989). According to these two authors, the main characteristics
of the pattern of interaction between state and society in decision making in an authoritarian regime are as follows: “…the perception
and interactions of policy elites and the broad orientations of the state more generally account for policy choices and their subsequent
pursuit” (page 216). Furthermore, by quoting the basic argument of rational actor model, Grindle and Thomas (1989) write: “…because
of the complexity of perfectly rational choice, and its costs in terms of time and attention, decision makers (whether individuals or
organizations) do not usually attempt to achieve optimal solutions to problems, but only to find ones that satisfy their basic criteria for
an acceptable alternative or ones that meet satisfactory standards” (page 220). The nuance of the domination of state over society is
increasingly visible when Grindle and Thomas (1989) explain the basic argument of the state interest approach: “…states are analyti-
cally separable from society and considered to have interests that they pursue or attempt to pursue. Among the interests of the state
are the achievement and maintenance of its own hegemony vis-à-vis societal actors, the maintenance of social peace, the pursuit of
national development as defined by policy elites representing particular regimes, and the particular interests of regime incumbents in
retaining power” (pages 220-221).

13
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2

actors in pursuit of their personal society in the sense of civil society itself
interests continues. has not been ready to play a role.
The opening up of opportunities Therefore, it is understandable if the
for participation also demands a opportunity for people’s participa-
more nuanced interaction between tion during the period of transition
state and society during the period towards democracy has been used
of transition towards democracy. by the elite, as they have claimed to
Under the authoritarian regime, the represent the mass in dealing with
pattern of interaction between state state actors.
and society is primarily one way, The pattern of interaction between
but during the period of transition state and society in the period of tran-
towards democracy it begins to sition towards democracy is tilted
become more open and interactive. more towards interaction between
At the same time, complete balance the ruling elite (state actors) and
is not yet achieved, as the state can the elite of society (society actors).
still force its will to society.4 Therefore, the competition of conflict
One implication of the extension of of interest between the ruling elite
people’s participation during the pe- and the elite of society which has
riod of transition towards democracy dominated political processes both
is the increasing transparency of con- in terms of decision making and
flicts of interest between and among policy implementation – is difficult
society actors. This tendency is of to avoid. Meanwhile, political col-
course easy to understand because lusion and conspiracy between the

4
In building the concept of state-society interaction during the period of transition towards democracy, the theoretical platform that
the author used includes, among others: concepts of corporatism (Philippe Schmitter, 1974), the restricted pluralism model (Liddle,
1985, 1987), and the preposition put forward by MacIntyre (1992) from the result of his study on Business and Politics in Indonesia.
The basic concept of corporatism, according to Schmitter, (1974: 93) is as follows: Corporatism can be defined as a system of interest
representation in which the constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, non-competitive, hierarchi-
cally ordered and functionally differentiated categories, recognized or licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate
representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and
articulation of demands and supports. Schmitter then distinguished corporatism into two main categories: state corporatism (commonly
found in authoritarian regimes), and societal corporatism (usually practiced in a democratic regime). By referring to the categorization
of corporation according to Schmitter, Alfred Stepen (1978) distinguished two forms of state corporatism, that is, what he refers to as
the inclusionary pole and the exclusionary pole. Specifically, MacIntyre (1992: 246) notes that: The exclusionary end of the spectrum
is characterised by a more repressive approach and a heavy reliance by the state on coercion. At the inclusionary end, while the state
remains dominant, there is much greater scope for societal participation. Even though Liddle (1985, 1987) did not explicitly position
himself as supporting the concept of inclusionary corporatism put forward by Stepen as mentioned above, he argues that: “even if
state actors in Indonesia (during the period of the New Order regime) continued to play a key role in national decision making process,
at a certain level, there is still room for extra state actors to influence the process. MacIntyre (1992) appears to be more explicit in
positioning himself and also in building a theoretical speculation on the pattern of state-society interaction based on this perspective
of corporatism. MacIntyre states: Indonesia seems to be in the process of evolving from an exclusionary to a inclusionary style of
corporatism (pages 246-247).
With the assumption that the shift towards democracy is a transitory period in which there is a transfer from an authoritarian political
system to a democratic political system, it is too early to expect that the pattern of interaction between state and society will be at what
Schmitter (1974) refers to as: societal corporatism. Most likely, there will be a shift from the pattern of exclusionary corporatism to
inclusionary corporatism, as described by MacIntyre (1992).

14
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
two elite strongholds (the elite of the
mass and the ruling elite) in pursuing
their own interests have become the
main characteristics of the pattern of
interaction between state and society.
2.2. Operationalization of Con-
cepts in the IDI: Aspects,
Variables, and Indicators
Democracy is a broad concept,
and any effort to measure democracy
will inevitably involve debates con-
cerning which aspects of democracy
are the most significant and how to
measure them. Civil freedom, for
instance, is an aspect agreed upon
by many experts as the most fun-
damental aspect of democracy. A
new political regime is considered
democratic when civil freedom is
made into one of the pillars of the
constitution of the state and is put
into practice. Even in the tradition of
liberal democracy, civil liberties are
a main pillar. How important this
freedom is in the tradition of liberal
democracy is very much felt in, for
instance, the assessment of Freedom
House, which puts countries in the
world into two categories: free or not
free. In this case, all the procedures
of democracy boil down to one thing,
that is, guaranteeing the existence of
freedom. The Indonesia Democracy
Index is aware of how important
civil liberties are in the construct of
democracy in Indonesia, and this is
therefore one aspect used to measure
democracy. However, it is not the
only one: the IDI also sees Indone-
sia’s experience of transitioning to
democracy and also places value on
political rights and institutions of
democracy as aspects of democracy
that must be seen equally as impor-
tant as civil liberties – these aspects
are therefore also included in the IDI.
By taking into account the theo-
retical and empirical dimensions of
democracy as mentioned above, the
three aspects have been agreed upon
as objects of study in the context of
construction of the 2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index (IDI) are civil liber-
ties, political rights and institutions
of democracy. These three aspects
were also used in the 2007 IDI.
While civil liberties and political
rights reflect the essence of the con-
cept of democracy, it is unlikely that
democracy would be able to work
without a platform or structure, as
well as supporting procedures. It is
therefore crucial that institutions of
democracy must also be articulated
as an integral aspect of democracy.
2.2.1. The Civil Liberties Aspect
Theoretically, the concept of civil
liberties refers to freedom of self-
expression and movement, as well as
freedom from arbitrary arrest (Frank
Bealey, 2000: 56). Freedom is a con-
dition that is crucial to democracy,
because without freedom, people
cannot demand accountability from
the government. However, freedom
has different meanings. According
to Isaiah Berlin (1969), freedom
can be defined either negatively or
positively. Negative freedom refers to
freedom from interference (including
15
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2

threats, disturbances or restrictions) originate from two main sources -

from outside - negative freedom
can be expressed as ‘freedom from.’
Meanwhile, positive freedom is
the freedom to actualize or realize
potentials linked to the guarantees
of for example, education or health
and can be expressed as ’freedom to’.
In both theory and practice,
liberal democracy in the West, espe-
cially in the United States, negative
freedom is often taken for granted,
and receives limited attention. The
emphasis in the discourse on freedom
is more on positive freedom, but in
transitioning countries, including
Indonesia, the dominant type of free-
dom required is very often freedom
from threats or pressures. Threats
to the freedom of an individual or a
group of people may come not only
from the state or its officials but may
also come from an individual or
another group of people. Realizing
this, the IDI focuses on the aspect
of negative freedom, reflected in
indicators on civil liberties.
The elements that comprise
civil liberties are also varied, but
generally, civil liberties include the
freedom to voice one’s opinion (free-
dom of expression), press freedom
(freedom of the press), freedom of
association (freedom of assembly),
and freedom of belief (freedom of
worship) (Bealey, 2000: 56).
Threats to civil liberties generally
from holders of state authority, also
known as supreme coercive authority
(governments are often threatened
by civil liberties such as freedom of
expression or association because it
disturbs their political hegemony),
and from what John Stuart Mill refers
to as the ‘tyranny of the majority’ –
which does not always come from the
state, but may actually be exerted by
other civil society groups. (Bealey,
2000: 57).
Civil liberties can be simply
defined as the freedom of citizens
and groups of individuals to come
together and to associate or organize,
to voice their opinions or speak up
and to have a belief or faith in some-
thing. It also means freedom from
discrimination, and from restraint
exercised by other individuals in the
name of the state.
In the context of the IDI, civil liber-
ties are analysed only on the basis of
freedom of individuals and groups
related to the power of the state. In
other words, the IDI does not see the
freedom of an individual in relation
to another individual or citizen.
This particular approach was taken
due to the fact that in many places
where democracy is still young, civil
liberties are defined by the issues of
freedom from state intervention, and
because methodologically, to collect
data measuring the freedom of an

5
The 2007 IDI served as a pilot for the compilation of the Indonesia Democracy Index. Therefore, the full concept and operationaliza-
tion was not established for the 2007 IDI, but provided the basis for the 2009 IDI, including the elimination and addition of variables
and indicators.

16
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
individual from pressure imposed
by another citizen, in a country as
diverse and large as Indonesia, would
be difficult to carry out.
It is also necessary to point out that
the definition of the ‘state’ referred
to here includes local governments,
the administration of local govern-
ments, members of local parliaments,
members of provincial parliaments
(including the Papua People’s Assem-
bly or MRP – specific to Papua), Re-
gional General Election Commissions
(Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah) and
Regional Police (Polda). Meanwhile,
the definition of the term ‘groups of
people’ here refers to people-based
organizations based on, among other
factors, shared religion, ethnicity,
race, scope of work, and similarities
in group objectives.
To obtain data and information for
constructing the IDI, civil liberties
aspect has been disaggregated into
a number of variables:
1) Freedom of assembly and freedom of
association: The term ‘assembly’
here refers to a societal/people-
based activity in the form of a
meeting involving more than
two persons. The term ‘asso-
ciation’ refers to the activity of
establishing or forming an or-
ganization, either registered or
not with a government agency/
institution.
2) Freedom of expression: This
refers to the freedom of an
individual and/or group to
voice their opinions, views, will
and feelings without impedi-
ments in the form of physical
or psychological pressure and
restrictions.
3) Freedom of belief/faith (freedom
of religion): This refers to the
freedom of an individual to
embrace a belief or a religion
outside the beliefs or religions
officially adopted/recognized
by the government, and the
absence of repressive acts by
one group of society against
another group of society who
refuse to accept the policy of
the government regarding those
beliefs/faiths.
4) Freedom from discrimination:
This refers to the freedom from
treatment that discriminates
against the rights and obliga-
tions of individual citizens on
the grounds of gender, religion,
political affiliation, ethnicity/
race, age, HIV/ AIDS status,
and other physical barriers.
The aspects of civil liberties com-
prise ten indicators, with two or three
indicators for each variable. This is
different from that of 2007 IDI, which
applied 20 indicators (see Appendix
1: Aspects, Variables, and Indicators
of the 2007 IDI). This change was
brought about by conceptual and
methodological considerations.
17

2.2.2. The Political Rights Aspect
Bollen (1993) wrote that: political
rights exist to the extent that the national
government is accountable to the gen-
eral population and each individual is
entitled to participate in the government
directly or through representatives.”
This statement implicitly indicates
that political rights are sufficiently
comprehensive indicators of political
democracy, including participation
and competition. Given the impor-
tance of this political rights aspect,
Robert Dahl (1971) gave five indi-
cators of political rights: the right
to cast a vote, the right to fight for
public positions, the right to compete
for votes, free and fair elections, and
policy making based on public votes
or inputs.
In the context of the 2009 IDI,
political rights are elaborated into
two variables, including:
1) The right to vote and the right to
get elected in a general election;
the first right refers to the right
of each individual to freely give
his/her vote in the election of
a public official. The right to
get elected is the right of each
individual to freely compete
for votes in an election for the
post of a public official.
2) Political participation in decision
making and watchdog; The term
participation’ in a political
context refers to involvement
or engagement in political
18
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2
processes. One of the forms of
political participation is the
right of citizens to vote in a
general election. Another form
of participation is the involve-
ment of citizens in all stages of
policy making - starting from
decision making, to assessing
or evaluating that decision and
the opportunity to participate in
the implementation or monitor-
ing of that decision. People’s
involvement can be seen from
the frequency of involvement,
either individually and as part
of a group - in various activities,
including, for example public
hearings, demonstrations or
strikes. Keeping a watch over
the government by citizens
can be carried out in the form
of reports or complaints about
the way the government runs
the country - through press or
media releases or complaints
filed to the police.
The two variables above simplify
the three used in the previous IDI,
which also included the variable
on the right to vote and the right
to get elected, as well as people’s
participation in politics and people’s
participation in keeping an eye on
the government.
In terms of indicators, the aspect
of political rights has seven indica-
tors, which consist of between two
and five indicators, differing from
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 2 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
the 2007 IDI, which applied ten in-
dicators. (See Appendix 1: Aspects,
Variables, and Indicators of the 2007
IDI).
2.2.3. The Institutions of Democracy
Aspect
As mentioned in the previous
theoretical analysis, it would not be
possible to actualize civil liberties and
political rights as pillars of democracy
without being supported by institu-
tions of democracy. Institutions of
democracy are therefore seen as
inseparable from civil liberties and
political rights by many academics.
The crucial role of the institutions
of democracy is such that those
who subscribe to this perspective
frequently say that one of the dif-
ferences between ‘democracy’ and
‘anarchy’ is that civil liberties in the
practice of democracy are carried out
institutionally, or in other words,
based on rules, norms, procedures
and a collectively agreed institutional
framework.
Even though the word ”institu-
tion” itself often has meanings that
differ from one scientific discipline
to another, in the context of political
science, the term has been defined
as a public body established to
regulate and carry out the activities
of the state, and/or the government
(Bealye, 2000: 166). Linked to the
concept of democracy, the institutions
referred to here are no other than
state bodies tasked with supporting
the formation and maintenance of
a democratic political system. This
means that institutions of democracy
may exist in the form of a ‘suprastruc-
ture’ — which includes the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of
government, as well ‘infrastructure,’
including general elections, political
parties, press and interest groups.
For the purpose of measuring
the democracy index for Indonesia,
institutions of democracy have been
broken down into the following
variables:
1) Free and fair general elections:
This refers to general elections
that meet democratic stand-
ards, which are reflected in,
for example, the existence of
the same opportunites for all in
election campaigns, the absence
of manipulation in the count-
ing of votes and the absence of
intimidation and/or physical
violence in the casting of votes.
2) The role of regional parliament
(DPRD): It is important to refer
to the effectiveness of the im-
plementation of the functions
of regional parliaments in con-
solidating democracy because
parliaments represent people.
An effective parliament is the
one that prioritizes the interests
of the people as indicated by
high levels of political participa-
tion and free competition, the
effective working of checks
19

and balances, strong political
accountability and the exist-
ence of strong relationships
between politicians and their
constituents.
3) The role of political parties: A
political party is an organized
group whose members have
the same orientation, values,
and aspirations. The objec-
tive of this group is to obtain
political power and position
— constitutionally — to imple-
ment their policies (Miriam
Budiardjo, 1983: 160). A political
party has a number of func-
tions, including representing
people’s aspirations, carrying
out political communication
(between constituents and state
administrators), the formation
of cadres and the recruitment
of prospective political leaders
and political awareness raising
(La Palombara and Weiner,
1966: 3).
4) The role of regional government
bureaucracy: In this case, the
role of regional government
administration is limited to
consolidating democracy, that
is, the openness and commit-
ment of regional government
in representing people in a
transparent manner.
5) The role of an Independent judici-
ary: This refers to the imple-
mentation of the rule of law
that is free from intervention,
consistent law enforcement
20
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 2
and equality before the law.
This is important because the
supremacy of the law as the
basis of democracy. A judici-
ary free from bureaucratic and
political intervention (and the
intervention of other branches
of government or powers), and
consistent law enforcement
indicates that the supremacy
of the law is being held in high
esteem.
Institutions of democracy are bro-
ken down into eleven indicators, with
between two and three variables.
This is different from the 2007 IDI,
which had thirteen indicators (See
Appendix 1: Aspects, Variables, and
Indicators of the 2007 IDI).
Appendix two provides a detailed
overview of all of the measurements
used to calculate the 2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index, which incudes
three aspects, eleven variables and
twenty eight indicators.
Methodology

3
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Chapter 3
Methodology
“The challenge of the research is to relate theory and research in such
a way that questions are answered. Both theory and data are required.
Data cannot be collected without some idea (theory) about the answer
to the questions. Theories alone are unsatisfactory because they are only
ideas which is much more sounding at abstract level.”
(Bouma, 1993: 17)

Survey activities are actually a survey design, the collection and

‘compound’ or a combination of two
main elements, that is, discipline and
process. As a discipline, a survey
must be carried out on the basis of
a number of principles in order for
it to be academically sound. Such
academic principles stipulate that the
survey shall include empirical ques-
tions and a specific focus of study, a
clear conceptual and theoretical basis,
accuracy and that the survey shall
recognize the limitations of the study
conducted (Vredenbregt, 1978: 1-20).
Meanwhile, as a process, a survey
must undergo stages, though these
require a degree of flexibility. While
survey methods and procedures may
differ from one survey to another in
line with the objective and the object
of study, all surveys have the same
stages. Clear methods and proce-
dures must be in place in order to
ensure integrity and credibility The
stages of survey conduct include the
formulation of issues to be surveyed,
the formulation of survey variables
and indicators, the formulation of
processing of data and the analysis or
interpretation of that data (Bouma,
1993: 8-9).
3.1. Question to be answered
with the IDI
In general, the IDI is designed
to reveal the status and condition
of the development of democracy
across all provinces in Indonesia,
through an analysis of the aspects
of civil liberties, political rights and
institutions of democracy. At a more
concrete level, by using the indica-
tors, the IDI can assess whether there
are applicable regulations, events
or conditions that reflect either the
existence or absence of democracy
development in a province.
3.2. Aspects, Variables and
Indicators of the IDI
The Indonesia Democracy Index
(IDI) is a composite index that is
based on three aspects, consisting
of eleven variables and twenty eight
indicators, including the following:

23
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3

Table 3.1. Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the IDI

Indicators
A. CIVIL LIBERTIES
I. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association
1 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association
2 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association
II. Freedom of expression

3 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of expression
4 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression
III. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion)

5 Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions
6 Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require
people, to practice the teachings of their religions
7 Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings
IV. Freedom from discrimination

8 Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups
9 Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds
of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups
10 Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/
or vulnerable groups
B. POLITICAL RIGHTS
V. The right to vote and get elected in a general election

11 Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed

12 Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they
cannot exercise their rights to vote
13 The quality of the permanent voter list (Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT)
14 Percentage of population who use their right to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in a
general election (voter turnout)
15 Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament
VI. Political participation in decision making and watchdog

16 Percentage of demonstrations /strikes that turn violent compared to the total number of
demonstrations/strikes

24
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Indicators
17 Complaints on the running of government
C. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY
VII. Free and fair elections

18 Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering
general elections
19 Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes
VIII. The role of regional parliament (DPRD)

20 The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita
21 Percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by DPRD
compared to the total number of regional regulations produced
22 Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive
IX. The role of political parties

23 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections
24 Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level
X. The role of regional government bureaucracy
25 Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of certain nominees/candidates /political
parties in legislative general elections
26 Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative
general elections
XI. The role of an independent judiciary
27 Controversial rulings handed down by judges
28 Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police

3.3. Data Collection Methods refer to data collection in numerical

Data collection methods vary, but
typically include observation, docu-
ment reviews and direct interviews
with resource persons. Lawrence
Neuman (2000: 33) categorizes data
collection techniques into quantita-
tive and qualitative methods. Quan-
titative data collection techniques
form, which includes the use of ex-
perimentation, surveys and analysis
of contents and statistics. Qualitative
data refers to narrative, including
direct and indirect observations,
interviews, focus group discussions
and historical comparative data
collection. Nawawi (1983: 94-133)

25

distinguishes at least five data collec-
tion techniques, including: 1) Direct
observation; 2) Indirect observation;
3) Direct communication (structured
and in-depth interviews); 4) Indirect
communication (surveys/question-
naires); and 5) Documentary study/
bibliography.
Data collection techniques are de-
termined by the type of information
required. In the case of compiling the
Indonesia Democracy Index, it was
agreed that a triangulation method
(Denzin, 1978) would be applied,
using both quantitative and qualita-
tive methods and cross validating
the data. The four methods for data
collection included: media reviews
(analysis of relevant news articles),
document reviews (analysis of the
contents of official documents issued
by the government), focus group
discussions and in-depth interviews.
3.3.1. Media and Document
Review
Media and document reviews
belong to the category of quantita-
tive data, and are used to obtain
information pertaining to research
variables and indicatory by analysing
the contents of written and symbolic
materials, including news articles,
photos and legal regulations. These
sources are considered invaluable in
providing realistic sources of infor-
mation for quantitative data, given
that observation is carried out over
a one-year period.
While the analysis of documents,
such as laws and other regulations is
26
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3
imperative to a study on democracy,
media analysis is perhaps slightly
more unusual. However, news-
papers record written accounts of
everyday life in Indonesia, including,
for example, the process and pace
of democratization. At the same
time, it must be acknowledged that
despite the independent nature of
the media in Indonesia, the potential
for editorial or journalistic bias and
the limited scope of coverage, space
and expertise of journalists. Despite
these potential limitations, the media
is still an excellent source of data on
the condition of democracy in Indo-
nesia’s provinces, as they record the
participation of citizens in political
life. In order to ensure that bias is
limited, focus group discussions and
in-depth interviews have been car-
ried out to cross check data.
Neuman (2000: 34) notes that at
least four key requirements must be
met for media and document reviews.
First, the subject of study must be
speficically formulated. Second, it is
necessary to determine, in advance,
the documents to be studied. Third,
a mechanism or system to ’record’
the data is required. Fourth, the
collected data must be measured and
presented statistically.
In the context of the compilation
of the IDI, the first requirement
refers to the aspect, variables and
indicators defined by the index.
The documents chosen include one
leading newspaper in each province
(see Appendix 3: List of Newspapers
used as Sample/Data Resources),
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
as well as official documents is-
sued by regional governments and
regional parliaments (DPRD) – such
as regulations (Perda), gubernatorial
decrees/decision letters and other
official documents, including data
on demonstration from the police,
and statistics on voters issued by the
Regional General Elections Commis-
sion (KPUD).
3.3.2. Focus Group Discussion
Focus group discussions can be
defined as a very specific process
of collecting data and information
on a certain issue by way of group
discussion (Irwanto, 1998: 1). Pow-
ell (1996: 499) wrote, “Focus group
discussion is a group of individuals
selected and assembled by researchers to
discuss and comment on, from personal
experience, the topic that is the subject
of the research.” Meanwhile, Barnett
(2008:1) notes that, “Focus groups are
comprised of individuals assembled to
discuss a particular subject.” These
definitions indicate that focus group
discussions are similar to group in-
terviews. Focus group discussions
differ from group interviews in the
depth of the data obtained from
interaction amongst focus group
discussion participants, while group
discussions rely more on dialogue
between the researcher and interview
participants. (Gibbs, 1997:2). Focus
group discussion participants not
only provide researchers/facilita-
tors with information about their
value systems and orientations, but
participants may also ask questions
amongst themselves and evaluate
each other ’s understanding on the
issues being discussed (Kitzinger,
1995).
Focus group discussions are a
common methodology in research
because they allow researchers to
gather diverse information on the
views, opinions, experiences and
reactions of participants, and they
allow researchers to obtain suffi-
ciently comprehensive information
in a relatively short period of time
(Gibbs, 1997: 2). At the same time, it
is important to note that focus group
discussions also have limitations –
the information gained is often not
strong enough to generalize more
broadly due to the fact that the data
collected only reflects the views and
opinions of a limited number of
participants (Hoppe, 1995).
Focus group discussions are a
form of qualitative data, and can
be used as either a main method of
collecting data, or to complement
other methods. If the main objective
of the focus group discussion is to
conduct investigation and explore the
orientation, experiences, and value
systems of the participants regard-
ing a particular issue, then a focus
group discussion function as the
main method. However, if the focus
group discussion acts as a means of
verifying other information already
collected through other means, then
it is only complementary (Bernett,
2008: 1-2).
Given that the IDI is compiled
using more than one data collection
27

methods and that the focus group
discussions in this case are used to
capture quantitative data, their role
is complementary to media and
document reviews.
In this case, then, the main objec-
tive of focus group discussions in
constructing the IDI has been to cap-
ture qualitative data pertaining to the
aspects, variables and indicators set
out by the researchers. Therefore, the
objective of focus group discussions
has been to collect information con-
cerning the opinions of participants
(verification, confirmation, contesta-
tion) on quantitative data pertaining
to the IDI collected through the
media and document reviews, to
explore cases which have a high level
of relevance to IDI indicators and
to unearth qualitative information
pertaining to IDI indicators which
has not been obtained through the
media and document reviews
3.3.3. In-depth interviews
In-depth interviews, like focus
group discussions, belong to the cat-
egory of qualitative data collection.
In-depth interviews are generally
carried out in order to: 1) obtain
information about experiences, feel-
ings and motivations; 2) reconstruct
past experiences; 3) project future
experiences; and 4) verify data and
information obtained from other
sources (Moleong, 2005: 186).
In-depth interviews are generally
also used to obtain more compre-
hensive information or to explore
the views and perspectives of
28
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3
participants concerning the issues
being discussed (Guion, 2006; Berry,
1999). Because of this very specific
objective, in-depth interviews are
fundamentally different from struc-
tured or regular interviews. These
fundamental differences include: 1)
the open-ended format of questions;
2) the conversational tone of the
interview; and 3) the ability of the
interviewer to interpret responses
and then ask for further clarifica-
tion. Berry (1999: 1-2) notes that
the “in-depth interview involves asking
informants open-ended question, and
probing wherever necessary to obtain
data deemed useful by the researcher.”
The use of in-depth interviews
requires special skills on the part
of interviewers, and must also fulfill
seven stages of conducting in-depth
interviews as detailed by Kvale (1996)
in the writing of Lisa A. Guion (2006:
2-4). The first involves setting the
theme or objective of the interview,
and preparing issues which will be
discussed. The second is the design
of the instrument or tool that will
be used to obtain data in the form
of an interview guide. Third, the
interview will be conducted with re-
spondents. The forth stage involves
the transcription of the interview,
which compiles the result of into a
narrative. The fifth stage involves
analysis and brings together the in-
formation obtained in the interview
and the theme or issue being studied.
Sixth, the verification of the validity
of the data is required. The seventh
and final stage is reporting, which
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
brings together all of the interview
results and analysis.
In the context of the construc-
tion of IDI, in-depth interviews are
used to verify and further explain
information obtained in the media
and document reviews, as well as
the focus group discussions. For
this reason, in-depth interviews are
not the main data sources, but are
complementary to the other methods.
In-depth interviews are only carried
out after focus group discussions, in
order to gain a deeper understanding
of the issues. They are therefore used
as a type of filter for the information
already gathered, and also can filter
biases relating to the IDI aspects,
variables and indicators.
The methods of data collection
used in the IDI are used in conjunc-
Diagram 3.1. Flowchart on the compilation of the IDI
Data Collection
Methodology
Media & Document
Review
28 Indicators Focus Group
Discussion (FGD)
In-depth interview
Contribution
toward 11
Variables
Contribution Democracy Index
toward 3 of
Aspects Each Province
tion with one another. The media and
document reviews serve to capture
quantitative data pertaining to the
IDI aspects, variables and indica-
tors. This data is the verified and
elaborated upon using the qualitative
data obtained through focus group
discussions and in-depth interviews.
The index of each IDI indicator
(28) in each province contributes to
the calculation of the index of the
11 variables and this is then used
to calculate the index of the three
aspects. It is the composite index
of this third aspect of the IDI which
reflects the democracy index in each
province.
The operationalization of the four
data collection methods in the compi-
lation of the IDI is briefly described
in Diagram 3.1.
Quantitative
Data
Final Score
of Each
Indicator
Verification
(Qualitative Data)
29
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3

Based on the data collection meth- The data gathered in documents

ods described above, a number of and media sources was not cumu-
instruments were employed, includ- lative with regards to incidence or
ing document coding, newspaper occurence. Rather, the source with
content coding, focus group discus- the higher number of incidence was
sion guides, focus group discussion chosen, taking into account that
recordings, tabulation of focus information in both sources was
group discussion results, in-depth the same, as well as the fact that the
discussion guides, and transcripts source with the smaller number of
of interview results. incidence was counted in the source
with the higher number. This serves
3.4. Data processing to avoid duplication.
The main source of data for each It is also important to note that in-
indicator differs. Of the 28 indicators dicators 12 and 13 have been treated
measured in the IDI, ten indicators differently from the rest. This was
use newspaper coding as a data decided based on the assessment of
source, nine indicators use docu- an IDI panel of experts.6
ment coding as a data source and In indicator 13 – the quality of the
seven indicators use newspaper and Permanent Voters List (DPT) – the
document coding as a data source. panel of experts gave an assessment
Table 3.2 presents indicators based of 30 points for the index indicator,
on their data source and treatment based on the fact that in the 2009
in data processing. legislative general elections, lists of
fixed voters contained errors. This

Table 3.2. List of Indicators Based on Data Source

No of Source of Data
Treatment of Tabulation
Indicator Newspaper Document
1 √ Newspaper
2 √ Newspaper
3 √ Newspaper
4 √ Newspaper
5 √ Document
6 √ Newspaper

6
The team of the panel of experts for the 2009 IDI consists of is the following: Prof. Dr. Maswadi Rauf (from the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences of the Universitas Indonesia), Prof. Dr. Siti Musdah Mulia (from the ICRP –Indonesian Conference on Religion and
Peace), Dr. Syarief Hidayat (from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)), Dr. Abdul Malik Gismar (from Kemitraan/ Partnership),
and August Parengkuan (Kompas Daily).

30
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

No of Source of Data
Treatment of Tabulation
Indicator Newspaper Document
7 √ Newspaper
8 √ Document
9 √ Newspaper
10 √ Newspaper
11 √ Document
12 √ Expert Judgment
13 √ √ Expert Judgment
14 √ Document
15 √ Document
16 √ √ Newspaper
17 √ √ Newspaper
18 √ √ Document
19 √ √ Document
20 √ Document
21 √ Document
22 √ Document
23 √ √ Newspaper
24 √ Document
25 √ √ Document
26 √ √ Document
27 √ Newspaper
28 √ Newspaper

was caused in part by poor voter in information, including name spell-

coverage, where the lists did not
include the names of all of the people
who had the right to vote. Some lists
contained the names of people who
were no longer living, or had moved
to another electoral district. Other
lists contained the names of minors,
or recorded the same names more
than once. In addition, inaccuracies
ing or home addresses, also hindered
the ability of some to vote.
Indicator 12 was also amended.
This indicator measures whether
or not people with disabilities were
able to vote based on the available
facilities. The panel of experts gave a
score of 50 points for the index based
on the following considerations: 1)

31

there were no facilities in the poll-
ing stations which guaranteed that
people with disabilities would be
able to exercise their right to vote in
the 2009 legislative general elections;
and 2) the permanent voter list did
not address the issue of disability
and the assistance needed by people
with disabilities. However, the panel
of experts realized that not all polling
stations were visited by voters with
disabilities
The qualitative data obtained
from focus group discussions and
in-depth interviews must be carefully
assessed. Because their function is
to confirm, clarify and complement
the data obtained from newspaper
coding and document coding, the
information resulted from focus
group discussions and in-depth inter-
views are classified into four groups:
1) data which is irrelevant to the
indicators; 2) qualitative data used
only to confirm quantitative data; 3)
data which adds to the incidence of
quantitative data; or 4) qualitative
data which reduces the incidence of
quantitative data.
The process of formating the IDI
is one that quantifies democracy in
Indonesia. The transformation of
qualitative data into quantitative data
is therefore required. This process
must take into account the following:
1. The function of the qualitative
data obtained from focus group
discussions and in-depth inter-
views is to confirm, clarify and
32
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3
complement the quantitative
data obtained from newspapers
coding, so that the value as-
signed to the qualitative data
does not exceed the value of
the quantitative data;
2. The transformation of value
through the conversion of quali-
tative data into quantitative
data has to include valuation, in
order for the value assigned to
the qualitative data to have the
same meaning as quantitative
data; and
3. To guarantee the accuracy of
the mathematical operations,
the quantitative value assigned
to the qualitative data must be
of the same unit as that of the
quantitative data.
Based on these considerations, the
qualitative data in group 1 which
are irrelevant data and in group
2 which are used only to confirm
quantitative data do not affect the
number of quantitative data occur-
rences and because of this, are scored
0. The qualitative data in groups 3
and 4 which describe the addition or
the reduction of occurrences to and
from data quantitative are given the
score of 10 percent index points. The
mathematical operation of addition/
reduction is performed on the index
value obtained from quantitative
data so that it is free from unit. The
score of 10 percent points serves as
an element adding to the index of
quantitative data when the indicator
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
is such that the greater the number
of occurrences, the better the level of
democracy is. Conversely, the score
of 10 percent points serves as an
element which reduces the quantita-
tive data index when the indicator
is such that the greater the number
of occurrences, the poorer the level
of democracy is.
3.5. Index Construction Technique
The Indonesia Democracy Index
is calculated in three stages: 1)
calculating the final index for each
indicator; 2) calculating the index
for each province; and 3) calcu-
lating the overall index, taking into
account all aspects, variables and
indicators – for each province. These
three stages relate to each other hie-
rarchically - the calculation of the
index for indicators precedes and
contributes to the calculation of the
index for variables; the index for
variables determines the calculation
of the index for aspects; the index
for aspects determines provincial in-
dexes; and finally, provincial indexes
determine the Indonesia Democracy
Index. Before the index itself can
be calculated, a separate process is
carried out to calculate the weight of
each indicator, variable, and aspect
which constitutes the entire index.
3.5.1. Determining the Weight of
Indicators, Variables and
Aspects
The aspects of civil liberties, po-
litical rights, and institutions of de-
mocracy have different contributions
to democracy in Indonesia, but are
nonetheless important. The same can
be true of the variables and indicators
used in the index. To this end, they
must have weights associated with
each of them in order to determine
their importance. These weights can
be theoretically determined by, for
example, ensuring that each aspect
contributes in the same way. This,
however, is “a priori” determina-
tion, which may differ from reality
or empirical understanding on the
part of academics or practicioners
of democracy.
In this case, IDI utilizes “weights”
which were calculated through an
analytical hierarchy procedure.
This approach determines priority
amongst a number of complex crite-
ria by relying on expert assessment,
which made two way comparisons
between assessment indicators. The
IDI employed 14 experts, including
academics, politicians and civil so-
ciety representatives.
As a technique which combines
qualitative-psychological assess-
ments of each expert and a math-
ematical calculation, the analytical
hierarchy procedure can produce
c o m p re h e n s i v e a s s e s s m e n t s o f
the weights in order to determine
the extent to which the aspects,
variables and indicators contribute
to the development of democracy in
Indonesia. According to this process,
political rights contribute the most
to the development of democracy in
Indonesia (41%), followed by civil
liberties (33%) and institutions of
33
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3

List of Analytical Hierarchy

Table 3.3. Procedure Expert Assessors
Name of Expert Background
Dr. Valina Singka Subekti, M.Si Lecturer at FISIP UI
Drs. Andrinof Chaniago, M. Si Lecturer at FISIP UI
Ita Fathia Nadia Women Activist
Erna Ratnaningsih YLBHI
Anwar Ma’ruf Committee of Independent Unions Action (KASBI)
Rustam Ibrahim Head of NGO Accountability Working Group
Dr. Made Suwandi, M. Soc. Sc. Expert Staff of MoHa
Dr. Siti Nurbaya Bakar, M. Sc Secreatry General of DPD RI
Letjen (Purn) Agus Widodo TNI Retired
Dr. Ir. Andi Yuliani Paris, M.Sc Politician - PAN
Nurul Arifin Politician - Golkar
Indah Nataprawira Megawati Institute
HM. Nasir Djamil Politician - PKS
Bestian Nainggolan Research and Development Department of Kompas

Graph 3.1. Weight of IDI Aspects

0.413

0.327

0.260

Civil Liberties Political Rights Institutions of Democracy

34
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

democracy (26%). This is reflected weight. Below is a graph which de-

in Graph 3.1. scribes the weights of the variables
Each variable of the three aspects, in each aspect.
followed by each indicator the It is these weights which deter-
variables are also given a respective mine the index for each indicator,

Graph 3.2. The Weights of Variables in the Aspect of Civil Liberties

0.584

0.239

0.084 0.093

Freedom of Freedom of Freedom of Freedom from

Assembly and Expression Belief/Faith Discrimination
Freedom of (Freedom of
Association Religion)

Graph 3.3. The Weights of Variables in the Aspect of Political Rights

0.5 0.5

The right to vote and get Political participation

elected in a general in decision making
and watchdog
election

35

The Weights of Variables in the Aspect
Graph 3.4. of Institutions of Democracy
0.197
0.152
Free and fair The role of
election regional
parliament
(DPRD)
variable, and aspect. In some cases,
despite having a high score, an
indicator does not translate into a
high index, because the weight of the
indicator is low. (For more information
on the weight of each aspect, variable
and indicator of the IDI, please refer to
Appendix 4).
3.5.2 Calculating the Index of Each
Indicator, Variable and Aspect
The process associated with pro-
cessing the data from the media and
document reviews all the way to the
calculation of the index indicators
relies on the conversion of quantita-
tive data into qualitative data (in the
form of a score). These scores are
then combined with the information
garnered from focus group discus-
sion and in-depth interviews in order
to produce index indicators. The
process is described in Figure 3.2.
36
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3
0.227 0.227
0.197
The role of The role of The role of an
political regional independent
parties goverment judiciary
bureaucracy
Each indicator categorized as a
variable index is then weighted using
the indicator weighting obtained in
the analytical hierarchy procedure.
This weighting determines the
contribution of each indicator to
the variable in which the indicator
constitutes one of its components.
The variable index is then con-
verted into the aspect index. In the
process of establishing a score for
each aspect, each variable is weighted
using the weighting of the analyti-
cal hierarchy procedure. The aspect
index is then converted into the IDI.
Based on these results, the level of
democracy in the provinces can be
categorized into poor, medium or
good. The conversion from indicators
into the IDI is presented in Figure 3.3.
Different from the scores of the
aspects of provincial IDI [provincial
democracy indexes] that are calcu-
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Scheme of Calculation of Final Score

Figure 3.2 . of Each Indicator

Quantitaive Data
- Newspaper Review
- Document Review

Quantitative
Data Score

Qualitative Data
- Focus Group
Discussion
- In-depth Interview

Indicator Index

Scheme of Process of Calculating

Figure 3.3 . the 2009 IDI (Provincial)

Weighting (AHP) Weighting (AHP) Weighting (AHP)

Quantitative Data Score of Score of

-Newspaper Reviews Quantitative Score of
Indicator Variable Aspect IDI
-Document Reviews Data Score

Qualitative Data Category

-Focus Group - Poor
Discussion - Medium
-In-depth Interview - Good

37
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3

lated from the scores of the aspects’ a scale of 1 – 100 is used. This scale
variables, the scores of the aspects is a normative scale in which an
for the Indonesia IDI is obtained index of 1 point indicates the lowest
from the weighted average of the performance and an index of 100
outcomes of the scores of the aspects points indicates the highest perfor-
of provincial [indexes] in Indonesia. mance. The lowest performance
After the score for each aspect is ob- is theoretically possible if all the
tained, they are then weighted using indicators receive the lowest score.
the weight obtained from the AHP The highest performance, equal to an
to produce the Indonesia IDI. The index of 100 points, is theoretically
process of calculating the national IDI possible if all the indicators receive
is presented in the following scheme: the highest score, that is, 5.
In order to assign further
3.6. Scale of Democratic meaning from the variation of the
Performance provincial indexes obtained, 1 – 100
To describe the outcome of democ- scale is divided into three categories
racatic performance in each province, of democratic performance: 1) good
Scheme of Process of Calculating
Figure 3.4 . the 2009 IDI (Indonesia)

Weighting
(AHP)

Provincial Aspect Indonesian

Score IDI
Aspect Score

Weighting
Aspect 1 and 3: Population
Aspect 2: Total Eligible Voters

38
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 3 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

(index >80); 2) medium (index 60 – facilitators also have an impact

80); and 3) poor (index < 60). on the results.
4. In-depth Interviews: the different
3.7. Methodological Limitations skills of the interviewers in the
All research faces methodological 33 provinces resulted in differ-
limitations caused by the methodo- ing quality of interviews.
logy chosen for the research and the 5. Data Analysis: while coding
conditions and circumstances under allows qualitative data to be
which the research is carried out. quantified, it can also lead to a
Some of the methodological limita- loss of data, due to the fact that
tions of the IDI are listed below: variations in the extent or mag-
nitude of an event or situation
1. Media Reviews: not all the data are not recorded (for example,
for the indicators were found, a demonstration is put in the
in part because of the limited same category, regardless of
ability on the part of data collec- whether that demonstration is
tors to conduct media reviews, in opposition to the President,
or because the media itself did or whether protesters are de-
not report on the issues related manding that a damaged road
to the indicators. be repaired).
2. Document Reviews: the difficulty
in obtaining documents for
review was a significant barrier
to the IDI survey, particularly
those required from govern-
ment offices.
3. Focus Group Discussions: not all
categories of participants who
were expected to participate
were able to participate in focus
group discussions. This limits
the range of opinions that can
be elicited from participants
and in turn reduces the wealth
of information that can be
unearthed. The different abili-
ties of focus group discussion

39
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 3

40
The 2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index

4
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Chapter 4
The 2009 Indonesia
Democracy Index
4.1. A General Description of Graph 4.1 below shows that the
the Indonesia Democracy 2009 national democracy index is
Index 67.30. The indexes of the three aspects
of the IDI are 86.97 for civil liberties;
4.1.1. National Democracy Index 54.60 for political rights; and 62.72
according to Aspects7 for institutions of democracy. The
As has been mentioned in previous distribution of the indexes of these
chapters, the Indonesia Democracy three aspects indicates the contribu-
Index (IDI) applies three democracy tion of each aspect to the total index
performance aspects: civil liberties, on a national scale. The contribution
political rights, and institutions of of each of these three aspects very
democracy. Each of these aspects clearly describes that even though
consists of a number of variables and civil liberties is high, (86.97), the total
each variable consists of a number index that can be achieved is only
of indicators (see Chapter 2).

Graph 4.1. National Democracy Index by Variables

Overall 67.30

Civil
Liberties 86.97

Political
Rights 54.60

Institutions
of Democracy 62.72

7
The word “National” or “Indonesia” in this IDI refers to all the provinces across Indonesia [collectively] as a group or a set. Of course,
the development of democracy at provincial level differs from the development of democracy at national level. A national level IDI must
therefore be compiled using data sourced from the central or national government in Jakarta and from all the people of Indonesia, while
the IDI compiled at this stage, that is, this provincial level IDI, is based on data drawn from the governments of the country’s provinces
and the district/ city governments and people in the provinces.

43
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

67.30 because the other two aspects
are relatively low.
The index for civil liberties are
the result of the aggregation of the
indexes of the four variables: 1) free-
dom of assembly and association; 2)
freedom of religion; 3) freedom from
discrimination; and 4) freedom of
expression, all of which contribute
to a high index. The low index for
political rights is attributable to the
contribution of the low indexes of
the two variables for this aspect: 1)
political participation in decision-
making and watchdog; and 2) the
right to vote and to be elected in a
general election (less than 60). With
regards to institutions of democracy,
three of the five variables have a high
index: 1) the role of an independent
judiciary; 2) the role of government
bureaucracy; and 3) free and fair
general elections. The other two
variables have a lower index: 4)
the role of regional parliament; and
5) the role of political parties. The
aggregation of the indexes of these
five variables provides the national
index of 62.72 for institutions of
democracy. The aggregation of the
index of each variable that makes up
the IDI aspects is shown in Graph 4.2.
As demonstrated in Graph 4.1,
there is s significant difference in
value between the aspect of civil
liberties (86.97) and the other two

Graph 4.2. National Democracy Index by Variables

Freedom of assembly
and freedom of association 91.44
CIVIL LIBERTIES

90.67
ASPECT

Freedom of religion

Freedom from discrimination 88.92

Freedom of expression 83.97
POLITICAL

Political participation
55.16
ASPECT
RIGHTS

in decision making
and watchdog
The right to vote and get
elected in a general election 50.05

The role of
an independent judiciary 90.53
INSTITUTIONS OF

The role of regional

88.58
DEMOCRACY

goverment bereaucracy
ASPECT

Free and fair

election 87.67
The role of
regional parliament (DPRD) 38.03
The role of
political parties 19.29
44
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

aspects. The gap between the index 4.1.2. Provincial Democracy Index
for civil liberties and political rights According to Aspects
is 32.37 points, while the gap between The index at the national level
the index for civil liberties and in- exhibits a pattern that is relatively
stitutions of democracy is around consistent with provincial scores,
24.25 points. The numerical figure of as seen in Graph 4.3. Again, the
this index points to a significant gap aspect of civil liberties is highest in
between the aspects of democracy. the provinces, with the exceptions
The issue that must be addressed, of Aceh, West Sumatera, and South
therefore, is the meaning of the gap Kalimantan provinces. In Aceh, for
in index values of the three aspects instance, the index for civil liber-
as they relate to the “performance” ties lower than the political rights
of democracy in Indonesia. Given aspect, but above the index for the
the national index for the three as- aspect of institutions of democracy.
pects in Graph 4.1, one explanation In West Sumatera, the index for the
could include the fact that despite civil liberties aspect is well below
successes in allowing civil liberties, the indexes of the other two aspects.
and the setting up of institutions of Meanwhile, in the province of South
democracy, Indonesia lags behind Kalimantan, the index for is almost
other countries when it comes to equal to the aspect of institutions of
political rights. democracy.

Graph 4.3. Provincial Democracy Indexes According to Aspects

Civil Liberties Political Rights Institutions of Democracy
Aceh
North Sumatra
West Sumatra
Riau
Jambi
South Sumatra
Bengkulu
Lampung
Bangka Belitung
Riau Islands
DKI Jakarta
West Java
Central Java
DI Yogyakarta
East Java
Banten
Bali
West Nusa Tenggara
East Nusa Tenggara
West Kalimantan
Central Kalimantan
South Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
Norht Sulawesi
Central Sulawesi
South Sulawesi
North Sulawesi
Gorontalo
West Sulawesi
Maluku
North Maluku
West Papua
Papua

45

4.1.3. Ranking Democracy
in 33 Provinces
Complete information about the
index of democracy in its entirety
across the 33 provinces of Indonesia
is presented in Graph 4.4. in the data
shows that not a single province in
Indonesia has a “good” index of de-
mocracy belong to the high category
of index >80. The province which
ranks the highest in democracy is
Central Kalimantan, whose democ-
racy index is 77.63. Meanwhile, the
province which ranks the lowest is
West Nusa Tenggara, whose index
is 58.12. Compared to the National
Democracy Index, while the province
of Central Kalimantan has a higher
index than the national one, it still
belongs to the medium category
(index 60-80).
Moreover, when the total
democracy index for the province
Aspect Indexes in Provinces with the Highest
Table 4.1. and the Lowest Index of Democracy
Province IDI/Overall
Civil Liberties
Central Kalimantan
(A Province with the
77.63
highest Indonesia
Democracy Index)
West Nusa
Tenggara (NTB)
(A Province with the 58.12
lowest Indonesia
Democracy Index)
46
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
of Central Kalimantan is disaggre-
gated based on the contribution of
each index of the three aspects of the
IDI, it is apparent that the index for
civil liberties (98.45) is the highest
contributor to the total index, fol-
lowed by the index for institutions
of democracy (78.69), then political
rights (60.50) as shown in Table 4.1.
The reverse tendency can be seen in
the province of West Nusa Tenggara:
the indexes for civil liberties and
institutions of democracy are only
68.05 and 62.48, respectively, while
the index for political rights is 47.50
(see Table 4.1.).
The configuration of the indexes as
presented below clearly shows that as
far as the province of Central Kalim-
antan is concerned, the contribution
of the index on the aspect of civil
liberties (98.45) plays a large role in
supporting the province’s total index
Aspect Indexes
Institutions of
Political Rights
Democracy
98.45 60.50 78.69
68.05 47.50 62.48
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Graph 4.4. Provincial Indexes According to Ranks

INDONESIA 67.30

Central Kalimantan 77.63

Riau 75.85
DKI Jakarta 73.91
Riau Island 73.61
Gorontalo 73.50
South Sumatera 72.52
West Kalimantan 72.38
East Kalimantan 72.31
East Nusa Tenggara 71.64
West Java 71.07
Jambi 71.00
North Sulawesi 70.94
Bali 70.35
Maluku 69.07
West Sulawesi 67.99
Banten 67.98
DI Yogyakarta 67.55
Lampung 67.47
North Maluku 67.21
Bangka Belitung 67.01
South Kalimantan 66.63
Central Java 66.45
Aceh 66.29
Southeast Sulawesi 66.02
Bengkulu 64.76
North Sulawesi 64.29
Papua 63.80
West Papua 63.06
East Java 62.49
South Sulawesi 61.48
West Sumatera 60.29
North Sumatera 60.20
West Nusa Tenggara 58.12

47

of 77.63. Meanwhile, the province of
West Nusa Tenggara ranks the low-
est in terms of provincial democracy
index (58.12), caused by the relatively
low contribution of the index on
the civil liberties and institutions of
democracy aspects, which is made
worse by the contribution of the low
index for political rights (47.50).
4.1.4. Percentage of Provincial
Democracy Performance
It is important to translate the
outcomes of the provincial de-
mocracy indexes into the three cat-
egories of democratic performance:
Graph 4.5. Percentage of Provincial Democracy Performance
Medium
performing
democracy
97%
48
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
high, medium and poor. The results
of the 2009 IDI present numeri-
cal data that provide the basis for
analysis, which is especially impor-
tant because none of Indonesia’s 33
provinces has received a high rating
for democratic performance. While
one province (West Nusa Tenggara)
belongs to the category of poor per-
formance, the remaining 32 provinces
have been rated as medium, as seen
in Graph 4.5.
The following is a more detailed
description of the index for each
aspect of democracy performance
in the 33 provinces.
Low
performing
democracy
3%
High
performing
democracy
0%
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
4.2.1. Index for Civil Liberties
C i v i l l i b e r t i e s a re m e a s u re d
through four variables: including: 1)
freedom of assembly and association;
2) freedom of expression; 3) freedom
of religion; and 4) freedom from
discrimination.
Freedom of assembly and as-
sociation is measured through two
indicators: 1) the number of threats
of violence or use of violence by
government officers which curbs
freedom of assembly and freedom
of association; and 2) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by people which curbs freedom of
assembly and association.
Freedom of expression is also
measured through two indicators:
1) the number of threats of violence
or use of violence by government
officers which curbs freedom of
expression; and 2) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by people which curbs freedom of
expression.
Freedom of religion is measured
through three indicators: 1) the num-
ber of written rules which restrict
the freedom of people, or require
people to practice the teachings of
their religion; 2) the number of ac-
tions taken by or statements made by
government officers/officials which
restrict the freedom people, or require
people to practice the teachings of
their religions; and 3) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by one group of people against an-
other group of people pertaining to
religious teachings.
Freedom from discrimination is
measured through three indicators:
1) the number of written rules that
are discriminatory on the grounds of
gender, ethnicity or against vulner-
able groups; 2) the number of actions
taken or statements made by regional
government officers/officials that
are discriminatory on the grounds of
gender, ethnicity or against vulner-
able groups; and 3) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by people for reasons associated with
the gender or ethnicity of the victim
and/or vulnerable groups.
4.2.1.1. Indonesia Index for
Civil Liberties
Civil liberties have the highest
index in the IDI, which, at 86.97, be-
longs to the category of good democ-
racy. This figure can be interpreted
as a success of the Government of
Indonesia in developing a democ-
ractic system. At the same time,
because the aspects of institutions
of democracy and political rights are
low, there is still work to be done.
These following paragraphs will
elaborate on the outcome of the index
on the Civil Liberties aspect, and
explain which factors contribute to
the hight contribution in relation to
the other aspects.
The aspect of civil liberties is
based on the four variables as seen
in Graph 4.6. Freedom of assembly
49

Graph 4.6. National Index on Civil Liberties
91.44 90.67
Freedom of Freedom
assembly and of religion
freedom of
association
and association received a scoring
of 91.44, while freedom of religion
stands at 90.67. The freedom from
discrimination variable was scored
at 88.92 and freedom of expression
received a scoring of 83.97. These
are relatively high scores, and will
be explained in detail below.
The index of freedom of assembly
and association ranks highest among
the four variables in the aspect of
civil liberties. The index is obtained
from two indicators: 1) the number of
threats of violence or the use of vio-
lence by government officers which
curbs freedom of assembly and free-
dom of association (91.21); and 2) the
50
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
88.92
83.97
Freedom from Freedom of
discrimination expression
number of threats of violence or the
use of violence by people which curbs
freedom of assembly and freedom of
association (93.03) as shown in Table
4.2. The high indexes of the two
indicators demonstrate Indonesia’s
success in allowing room for freedom
of assembly and association. One of
the factors which contributes to this
is that the actual number of these
types of incidencts is low, indicat-
ing that both the government and
individual citizens have made an
effort to enforce democracy by tak-
ing measures to eliminate all forms
of threats and use of violence which
may restrict the right of citizens in the
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Freedom of
Table 4.2. Assembly and Association
Indicators for Freedom of Assembly and Association
Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs
freedom of assembly and association
Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of as-
sembly and association
context of freedom of assembly and
freedom of association. At the same
time, it is interesting to note that the
indexes of the indicators seem to
suggest that the level of awareness
and commitment on the part of the
people to build freedom of assembly
and freedom of association (93.03) is
higher than that of the government
(91.21). This is interesting given
that the government is responsible
for guaranteeing these fundamental
rights of Indonesian citizens.
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators
Tabel 4.3. of Freedom of Expression
Indicators for Freedom of Expression
Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs
freedom of expression
Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expres-
sion
Index
91.21
93.03
The national index of the 2009 IDI
for freedom of expression is 83.97.
This index is the result of the calcula-
tion of the indexes of the two indica-
tors in the variable: 1) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by government officers which curbs
freedom of expression (83.43); and
2) the number of threats of violence
or use of violence by people which
curbs freedom of expression (86.67),
as shown in Table 4.3.
Compared to the other three
variables in the civil liberties aspect,
Index
83.43
86.67
51
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

the index of this variable ranks the
lowest. This is perhaps because
in a democratic system, freedom
of expression covers a very broad
spectrum, including efforts to ex-
press one’s thoughts orally by way
of a speech, a dialogue, a discussion
and so on; through writing in the
form of petitions, pictures, posters,
brochures, handouts, and banners; or
through hunger strikes and protests,
demonstrations, rallies, public meet-
ings or forums that include drama,
dance and the screening of films.
Freedom of expression also includes
freedom to be critical of government
officials and public figures. Gene-
rally, those being criticized are not
ready to accept criticism as part of
efforts to build democracy, and as a
result, those being criticized often
issue threats or even use violence
against those who criticize them.
Such threats and use of violence
may of course restrict the growth
of freedom of expression, which is
an important pillar of democracy. It
is apparent from the graph above
that threats of violence or use of
violence by a group of people or by
government officers are still common
in Indonesia, impeding freedom of
expression.
It is again apparent that the effort
to enforce the right of freedom of
expression is supported to a larger
extent by individual citizens (86.67),
than the government (83.43).
The freedom of religion variable
has an index of 90.67 and ranks se-
cond after freedom of assembly and
association. This high index is a result
of the accumulation of the indexes of
three indicators: 1) the indicator on
the number of written rules which
restrict freedom or require people to
practice their religions (91.70); 2) the
indicator on the number of actions

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of

Table 4.4. Freedom of Religion

Indicators for Freedom of Religion Index

Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people to practice
the teachings of their religion 91.70

Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which

restrict the freedom of people, or require people to practice the teachings of 91.97
their religion
Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another
group of people pertaining to religious teachings 85.76

52
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
taken by or statements made by
government officers which restrict
freedom or require people to prac-
tice the teachings of their religions
(91.97); and 3) the indicator on the
number of threats of violence or use
of violence by a group of people
against another group of people for
reasons pertaining to religious teach-
ings (85.76), as shown in Table 4.4.
In contrast to freedom of as-
sembly and association freedom of
expression, the commitment of the
government appears to be higher
than the commitment of the people in
efforts to enforce religious rights and
freedoms. In other words, threats to
the fulfillment of religious rights ap-
pear to come mostly from particular
elements within society.
Despite these statistics, it is im-
portant to note that the government
must continue to increase their efforts
in enforcing or fulfilling religious
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of
Table 4.5. Freedom from Discrimination
Indicators for Freedom from Discrimination
Written rules that are discriminatory on the the grounds of gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable groups
Actions taken, or statements made by regional government officers/officials
which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against
vulnerable groups
Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the
gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups
rights and freedoms. As shown in the
graph above, there are still incidents
in which government or government
officials have made rules, taken
actions or made statements which
restrict freedom or require people
to practice religion. The government
has an obligation to guarantee the
freedom of religion of Indonesian
people in accordance with the provi-
sions of the constitution.
The index for freedom from dis-
crimination is 88.92, which is lower
than the indexes for freedom of as-
sembly and association, as well as
freedom of religion, but it higher
than the index for freedom of expres-
sion. The index for freedom from
discrimination is compiled from
three indicators: 1) the number of
written rules that are discriminatory
on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable groups (88.89); 2)
the number of actions taken or state-
Index
88.89
84.09
93.03
53

ments made by regional government
officials which are discriminatory on
the grounds of gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable groups (84.09);
and 3) the number of threats of vio-
lence or the use of violence by people
for reasons pertaining to gender,
ethnicity of the victim and/or vul-
nerable groups (93.03), as depicted
in Table 4.5.
The commitment of the people
appears to be higher than the commit-
ment of the government in efforts to
enforce freedom from discrimination.
In other words, threats to the fulfill-
ment of freedom from discrimination
tend to come from the government,
rather than from elements in society,
despite the fact that the government
has the obligation to protect and
fulfill the rights of citizens to be free
from any forms of discrimination,
especially on the grounds of gender
and ethnicity.
4.2.1.2. Provincial Indexes
for Civil Liberties
Provinces with the Highest
Table 4.6. Indexes for civil liberties
Province
Central Sulawesi
Central Kalimantan
West Kalimantan
54
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
The following description will
provide further elaboration on the
results of the assessment of the index
of democracy for the aspect of civil
liberties at the provincial level.
Graph 4.7 presents the indexes
for the aspect of civil liberties across
Indonesia’s 33 provinces. Most prov-
inces rank high (29 out of 33), with
indexes of more than 80.00. Only
four provinces belong to the medium
category (with indexes ranging from
60.00 to 80.00), including South Kali-
mantan, West Nusa Tenggara, Aceh,
and West Sumatera. Meanwhile,
none of the provinces received a low
index (lower than 60.00). Of course,
this index for civil liberties can not
be taken alone, as it must be added to
the indexes of the other two aspects
in order to obtain a comprehensive
index representative of the achieve-
ment of each province in their efforts
to fully develop democracy.
The three provinces with the
highest index are Central Sulawesi
(98.51), followed by Central Kalim-
Index
98,51
98,45
98,29
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Graph 4.7. Provincial Indexes for civil liberties

Central Sulawesi 98.51

Central Kalimantan 98.45
West Kalimantan 98.29
East Kalimantan 98.22
Bangaka Belitung 96.51
Riau Island 96.22
Gorontalo 96.05
Jambi 95.86
East Nusa Tenggara 95.55
Banten 95.46
South Sumatera 95.42
North Sulawesi 94.66
Bengkulu 94.26
Bali 93.97
West Sulawesi 93.82
North Maluku 93.61
Riau 93.14
West Papua 93.14
Papua 92.83
Maluku 92.77
North Sulawesi 92.23
DI Yogyakarta 92.15
DKI Jakarta 91.65
Lampung 90.57
Central Java 86.48
West Java 85.84
North Sumatera 84.16
East Java 83.30
South Sulawesi 82.94
South Kalimantan 68.24
West Nusa Tenggara 68.05
Aceh 64.42
West Sumatera 63.06

55

antan (98.45) and West Kalimantan
(98.29), as stated in the graph 4.7.
In order to explain this further, it
is important to examine the factors
that cause the index for civil liberties
to be so high. The following table
Distribution of Indexes on the
Table 4.7. Variables in Provinces with the
Highest Indexes for Civil Liberties
Variables for Civil Liberties
Freedom of assembly and association
Freedom of expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from discrimination
presents the indexes of the variables
for this aspect.
The table shows that the differenc-
es among the three provinces are very
small. Central Sulawesi presents an
interesting example, where three of
the variables get a perfect score, but
the fourth variable (freedom from
discrimination), is lower (at 93.75)
than the indexes of the other two
provinces. This variable is affected
by the indicators, and in particular,
the number of actions taken or state-
ments made by regional government
officials which are discriminatory on
the grounds of gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable groups. The index
of this indicator is 77.50, which points
to the fact that although the province
56
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
has taken a number of important
steps towards ensuring civil liber-
ties, the government still has a role
to play in strengthening the rights of
citizens in this particular area.
Provincial Index
Central Central West
Sulawesi Kalimantan Kalimantan
100.00 91.25 100.00
100.00 98.33 100.00
100.00 100.00 98.21
93.75 97.22 97.22
The province of Central Kali-
mantan ranks second in the aspect
of civil liberties. The high index of
this province can be mostly attributed
to the perfect index of the variable
of the freedom of religion (100.00).
This means that there are no written
rules that are discriminatory and no
threats or use of violence by people
or by government officials which
restrict the freedom of religion of its
citizens. Moreover, the high index
of the province is also supported by
the high indexes of the other three
variables, freedom of assembly and
association (91.25), freedom of ex-
pression (98.33), and freedom from
discrimination (97.22).
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

The province of Central Kali- indicator on actions taken or state-

mantan is still not free from threats
of violence or use of violence which
may restrict the fulfillment of the
freedoms of people related to as-
sembly, association and expression.
However, the province still has
cases of actions taken or statements
made by government officials which
discriminatory on the grounds of
gender, ethnicity or against vulner-
able groups.
The province of West Kalimantan
ranks third in terms of civil liberties,
which is attributable to the perfect
indexes (100.00) of the variables re-
lated to freedom of assembly and as-
sociation and freedom of expression.
The other two variables – freedom
of religion (98.21) and freedom from
discrimination (97.22) also support
this high score, while the indicator
on threats of violence or use of vio-
lence by people against freedom of
religion is slightly lower at 90.00. The
same index is also obtained by the
ments made by regional government
officials which are discriminatory
on the grounds of gender, ethni-
city or against vulnerable groups.
At a glance, the indexes of the four
variables in the province of West
Kalimantan appear to be higher than
the index of the province of Central
Kalimantan. However, because
the freedom of religion variable is
considered a key variable, and thus
has the heaviest weight among the
four variables in the aspect of civil
liberties, the total index is lower for
West Kalimantan.
Despite receiving high rankings,
not a single province has achieved a
perfect index, which means that all
provinces experience constraints in
civil liberties.
The following graph describes
the outcome of the three lowest
provincial ratings for civil liberties.
The province of West Nusa Tenggara
has index of 68.05, Aceh rates 64.42,

Distribution of Indexes on the Variables in Provinces

Table 4.8. with the Lowest Indexes for Civil Liberties

Provincial Index
Variables for Civil Liberties
West West Nusa
Aceh
Sumatera Tenggara

Freedom of assembly and freedom of association 91.25 90.00 98.75

Freedom of expression 91.67 26.12 72.23
Freedom of religion 45.91 67.94 51.03
Freedom from discrimination 83.91 61.74 97.22

57

and West Sumatera has an index of
63.06. Table 4.8 shows further details.
The Table 4.8 presents the three
provinces which rank lowest in terms
of civil liberties. The province of West
Sumatera occupies the lowest posi-
tion, which is particularly attribut-
able to the low index of the variable
of freedom of religion (45.91). This
index is low due to low scores of
indicators: 1) the number of written
rules which restric the freedom of
people or require people to prac-
tice the teaching of their religion
produces the lowest index (34.78);
2) the number of actions taken or
statements made by government
officers/officials which restrict the
freedom of people or require people
to practice the teachings of their
religion (77.50); and 3) the number
of threats of violence, or the use of
violence, by a group of people against
another group of people pertaining
to religious teaching issues (70.00).
These statistics indicate that the
people of West Sumatera face sig-
nificant barriers related to religion.
This is also demonstrated by the fact
that there are as many as 15 written
government policies, in the form of
provincial regulations, which are
discriminatory on the grounds of
religion. These are considered as a
key indicator in the 2009 IDI, and
therefore have the heaviest weight
amongst the indicators related to
civil liberties. It is for this reason
that the index for West Sumatera is
58
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
so low, despite having high scores on
the variables of freedom of assembly
and association (91.25) and freedom
of expression (91.67). The variable
related to freedom from discrimina-
tion is also low in West Sumatera
(83.91), due to the fact that there
exist a number of written rules that
are discriminatory on the grounds of
gender, ethnicity or against vulner-
able groups.
Aceh is also ranked low on the
aspect of civil liberties, in large
part because of the very low index
for freedom of expression (26.12).
This is based on the two indicators
for this variable: 1) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence
by government officers which curbs
freedom of expression (23.33); and
2) the number of threats of violence,
or use of violence, by people which
curbs freedom of expression (40.00).
These are significant barriers, and are
also compounded by the low index
related to freedom of religion (67.94),
which is based on the following
indicators: 1) the number of written
rules which restrict the freedom of
people or which require people to
practice their religions (78.26); 2)
the number of actions taken by or
statements made by government
officers/officials which restrict the
freedom of people or require people
to practice the teachings of their reli-
gion (0.00); 3) the number of threats
of violence, or use of violence, by
a group of people against another
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
group of people for reasons pertain-
ing to religious teachings (70.00).
Freedom of religion in Aceh suffers
from significant barriers because
there are written government policies
in the form of regional regulations
which are discriminatory on the
grounds of religion, and there are
significant incidents of actions taken
or statements made by government
officials which restrict the freedom of
people or require people to practice
the teachings of their religions. These
are infringements on citizens which
pose a distinct threat to democracy.
The low index related to civil liber-
ties in Aceh can also be attributed
to the variable related to freedom
from discrimination, which has
an index of 61.74, based primarily
on the indicator which scores the
number of threats of violence, or use
of violence, by people for reasons
pertaining to gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable groups (33.33).
This is a constraint to freedom of
religion and freedom of expression,
and take the form of, for example,
threats of violence made, or the use
of violence by the government or
by certain groups among the people
themselves. Moreover, constrains
coming from both elements of the
people and or government officers
are also still hampering efforts to
enforce freedom of assembly and
association and freedom from dis-
criminatory rules and treatment.
The province of West Nusa Teng-
gara has also received a low score,
based on the variables of freedom
of religion (51.03) and freedom of
expression (72.23). The index for
freedom of expression is low due to
the indicator related to the number
of threats of violence or the use of
violence by government officers
which curbs freedom of expression
(66.67). The index for freedom of re-
ligion is low despite the fact that one
of the indicators in this variable has
received a perfect score. However,
the number of written rules which
restrict or require people to practice
the teachings of their religions is
low (43.48), and the indicator on
the number of threats of violence
made, and the use of violence, by
certain groups of society for reasons
pertaining to religious teachings is
also low (50.00).
The low indexes related to civil
liberties can be linked, primarily, to
three indicators: 1) the number of
threats of violence or use of violence,
by government officers which curbs
freedom of expression; 2) the number
of written rules which restrict the
freedom or require people to practice
teachings of their religions; and 3)
the number of threats of violence or
use of violence, by a group of people
against another group of people per-
taining to religious teachings. This
implies that efforts to strengthen civil
liberties must be focused on meas-
ures that fulfill, protect and enforce
freedom of expression and religious
rights. Despite receiving relatively
high rankings, civil liberties must
59

still be a priority for Indonesia, as
the citizens of the country demand
human rights.
4.2.2 Index for Political Rights
The second aspect measured by
the 2009 IDI is political rights. These
are vital to democracy because they
determine which freedom is accorded
to each individual in order for them
to carry out their role as citizens.
While there are many different
kinds of political rights, the 2009 IDI
measures only: 1) the right to vote
and to get elected; and 2) the right to
participate in decision-making and
to keep watch over the government’s
actions. Political rights span such a
broad range of issues, and thus, both
variables and indicators could have
been increased. However, due to the
challenges in gathering empirical
evidence for further variables and
indicators, these were chosen for
their significance in contributing to
the development of democracy.
The first variable comprises a
number of indicators: 1) the number
of incidences in which people’s right
to vote and get elected is curbed;
2) the number of incidenceswhich
indicate a lack or shortage of facili-
ties for people with disabilities- as a
result of which they cannot exercise
their rights to vote: 3) the quality - of
the permanent voters list (DPT); 4)
the percentage of population who
use their right to vote compared to
the total population who have the
right to vote in general elections
60
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
(voter turnout); and 5) the percent-
age of women elected as members
of provincial parliament compared
to the total members of provincial
parliament.
The first indicator, which measures
barriers to voting or being elected,
indicates a significant violation of
political rights. The more barriers
there are to this indicator, the lower
the level of democratic development.
The same is true for the second in-
dicator, which measures the ability
of people with disabilities to vote.
The quality of the permanent voter
list (DPT) was a particular issue in
the run up to the 2009 elections, as
so many mistakes were found on the
lists. The IDI therefore uses this as
an indicator based on the assump-
tion that the poorer the quality of
the permanent voter list is, the more
barriers there will be to people being
able to exercise their democratic right
to vote. Voter turnout is also used
as an indicator for this same reason.
The percentage of voter turnout is
also used as an indicator because a
great number of people who use their
right to vote indicate a high level of
political awareness on the part of
citizens and lack of weaknesses in the
way general elections are organized/
administered. The same thing also
applies to the percentage of women
elected as members of a provincial
parliament to the total members of
the provincial parliament. The more
women are elected as members of
parliament, the higher the gender
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
awareness is, which means that
the democracy development in the
province in question is getting better.
The second variable measures
political participation in decision-
making and keeping a watch over the
government, based on two indicators:
1) the percentage of demonstrations/
strikes that turn violent compared
to the total number of demonstra-
tions/strikes; and 2) the number of
complaints on the running of go-
vernment. The first indicator aims to
determine the tendency of violence
in people’s efforts to lobby the go-
vernment through demonstrations
or strikes. The higher the percentage
of demonstrations and strikes which
involve physical violence, the lower
the level of democratic development.
The second indicator measures the
number of complaints made through
newspapers on government related
Graph 4.8. National Index on Political Rights
55.16
Political participation in
decision making and
watchdog
issues affecting their lives. These
include, for example, complaints
about poor road quality or damaged
bridges. The more complaints made
by citizens in relation to the way the
government meets its responsibilities
means the higher the political aware-
ness of the citizens. It means that the
level of democracy development in
the province is high.
4.2.2.1. Indonesia Index for
Political Rights
Nationally, political rights has the
lowest index compared to civil liber-
ties and institutions of democracy.
The index for political rights is 54.60
(while the index for civil liberties is
86.97 and institutions of democracy
is 62.72).
Political rights are measured by
two variables: 1) the right to vote
and get elected, which is rated at
50.05
The right to vote and
get elected in a general
election
61
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

50.05; and 2) the right to participate
in decision-making and watchdog,
rated at 55.16. These indexes are low.
The main factor which causes the
low index for the first variable is the
quality of the permanent voter list
(30.00), which is the lowest amongst
the indicators for this particular vari-
able (and also fourth lowest amongst
all of the indicators in the 2009 IDI).
Also low are the indicators on fa-
cilities for people with disabilities
(50.00) and the percentage of women
elected to provincial parliament
(52.07). Somewhat more promising
are the other indicators – voter turn
out is rated at 73.82 and the number
of incidences in which the right to
vote or get elected is hampered is
84.52, as shown in Table 4.9.
The table below also indicates that
barriers to vote or be elected are not
so strong, and voter turnout is quite
high. These are significant indica-
tors of democratic development, as
they signify high participation in
democratic processes. While prob-
lems with the permanent voter list
still exist, the data demonstrates that
their impact on voter turnout is not
as significant as expected. The low
number of women in parliament is
also demonstrated by the data, and
is something that must be monitored
in the future.
In the variables related to par-
ticipation in decision-making and
watchdog, the first indicator (related
to violent demonstrations or strikes)
is high (81.75). At the same time, the
indicator which measures people’s

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of

Table 4.9. Right to Vote and Get Elected

Indicators for the Right to Vote and

Index
Get Elected in a General Election

Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed 84.52

Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities as a

50.00
result of which they cannot exercise their rights to vote

The quality of the permanent voter list (DPT) 30.00

Percentage of population who use their rights to vote compared to the total
73.82
population who have the right to vote in a general election (voters turnout)
Percentage of women elected to provincial parliament to the total members
52.07
of provincial parliament

62
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Political

Table 4.10. Participation in Decision-Making and Watchdog

Indictors for Political Participation in Decision-Making and

Index
Watchdog
Percentage of demonstrations/strikes that turn violent to the total number of
81.75
demonstrations/strikes

Complaints on the running of government 28.56

complaints about the way the go-
vernment runs the country, gets an
index of only 28.56, bringing down
this overall index for participation
in this aspect to be low (55.16).
The low rating for people’s
complaints concerning the way the
government runs the country is
somewhat surprising. It is estimated
that people’s complaints in all the
provinces in Indonesia are quite
many as reflected in the freedom
of expression and the freedom of
the press. Since the process of de-
mocratization has been going on
for over ten years, the people of
Indonesia are relatively politically
aware. However, the differences
between provinces has resulted in
this low rating.
4.2.2.2. Provincial Indexes
for Political Rights
The following section will elabo-
rate on the aspect of political rights
in each province according to the
measurement of the 2009 IDI, as seen
in the Graph 4.9.
Based on Graph 4.9, the province
of Aceh scores the highest in terms
of political rights (70.39), followed
by West Java (68.48) and Riau (65.40)
while the three provinces with the
lowest indexes are West Papua

Provinces with the Highest Indexes

Table 4.11. for Political Rights

Province Index

Aceh 70,39

West Java 68,48

Riau 65,40

63
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

Graph 4.9. Provincial Indexes for Political Rights

Aceh 70.39
West Java 68.48
Riau 65.40
South Kalimantan 62.63
Central Kalimantan 60.50
Riau Island 59.47
North Sulawesi 58.50
Gorontalo 56.39
South Sumatera 56.07
East Kalimantan 54.78
Bengkulu 54.03
West Sumatera 53.57
West Kalimantan 53.46
West Sulawesi 53.09
DI Yogyakarta 52.52
DKI Jakarta 52.20
Maluku 52.05
Central Java 51.85
Lampung 51.81
East Nusa Tenggara 51.46
East Java 50.96
Jambi 50.41
Bali 49.82
Banten 49.47
Bangka Belitung 48.29
West Nusa Tenggara 47.50
North Maluku 46.30
Central Sulawesi 45.90
Southeast Sulawesi 43.97
Papua 43.84
South Sulawesi 42.36
North Sumatera 41.26
West Papua 37.09

64
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
(37.09), North Sumatera (41.26), and
South Sulawesi (42.36).
Table 4.11. indicates the highest
provincial indexes. This provincial
ranking is different from the national
ranking, which placed Central Ka-
limantan (77.63), Riau (75.85), and
the Special Capital Region of Jakarta
(73.91) at the top. In terms of political
rights, only Riau belongs to the top
three provinces, where it ranks third.
The other two provinces which also
belong to the top three provinces in
terms of political rights are Aceh and
West Java and yet, their ranks on the
national IDI are far below (10th and
23rd respectively). Even though the
ranks of Aceh and West Java as strong
nationally, their ranking in terms of
political rights is higher.
Within political rights, the prov-
inces with the highest scrores have
very low indexes on the right to
vote and to be elected: Aceh scored
45.80, West Java received a rating
of 43.48, and Riau scored 51.69. At
the same time, these three provinces
Distribution of the Indexes on the
Tabel 4.12. Variables in Provinces with the
Highest Indexes for Political Rights
Variables for Political Rights
Aceh
The right to vote and get elected in a general election
Political participation in decision-making and watchdog
had very high indexes for political
participation: Aceh scored 94.98, West
Java rated at 93.48, and Riau was at
79.11 (see Table 4.12.). This indicates
the importance of participation in
decision-making processes to the
development of democracy.
In the aspect the right to vote
and to be elected, West Java has a
low index (30.77) in the indicator
number of incidents in which peo-
ple’s right to vote or get elected is
curbed , indicating that constraints
have been found for this indicator.
At the same time, the province has
high voter turnout and a high number
of women elected to the provincial
parliament (83.33). Riau’s index
for the number of women elected to
provincial parliament (60.61). While
Aceh ranks highest in terms of politi-
cal rights, it has the lowest index for
the percentage of women elected to
provincial parliament (19.32).
Aceh’s index for the percentage of
demonstrations or strikes that turn
violent is 96.65, as is Riau’s – indicat-
Provincial Index
West Java Riau
45,80 43,48 51,69
94,98 93,48 79,11
65
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

ing that violent strikes rarely take
place in the two provinces. West
Java’s slightly lower ranking of 86.96
is not significant.
West Java has the highest index
(100.00) for the number of people
making complaints about the gov-
ernment’s running of the country,
indicating that the people of the
province frequently make their
opinions known. Aceh ranks only
slightly lower, while Riau has a score
of 62.57, which is rather low.
West Papua ranks lowest in terms
of political rights, with an index of
37.09. Nationally, West Papua ranks
at 28th, with an index of 63.06. North
Sumatera and South Sulawesi are also
in the lowest three, also rank low
nationally, so it is not surprising that
their low ratings for political rights
are also low (see Table 4.13). These
numerical figures indicate that the
indexes for political rights do not
differ greatly from the national fi-
gures, but also show that the province
with the lowest national IDI, West
Nusa Tenggara, whose index is 58.12,
ranks 26th (eight from the bottom)
for political rights.
The three provinces with the
lowest political rights indexes
also have low ratings for the vari-
ables for political participation in
decision-making and watchdog, over
the government, despite receiving

Table 4.13. Provinces with the Lowest Indexes for Political Rights

Province Index

West Papua 37,09

North Sumatera 41,26

South Sulawesi 42,36

Distribution of the Indexes on the

Table 4.14. Variables in Provinces with the
Lowest Indexes for Political Rights

Provincial Index
Variables for Political Rights
North South
West Papua
Sumatera Sulawesi

The right to vote and be elected in a general election 52,54 49,37 51,25
Political participation in decision-making and watchdog 21,64 33,15 33,48

66
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
relatively high scores for the right
to vote and be elected, as shown in
Table 4.14 below.
Despite their overall low ranking
in terms of political rights, the three
provinces all demonstrate a relatively
high index on the right to vote and
to be elected. At the same time,
voter turn out varies, from 81.22 in
West Papua, down to a low rating of
65.35 in North Sumatera. The three
provinces have similar rankings for
women’s election into provincial
parliament (roughly 53.00). West
Papua has low indexes for number
of complaints in the running of gov-
Graph 4.10. National Index for Institutions of Democracy
90.53 88.58 87.67
The role of The role of Free and fair
independent regional election
judiciary goverment
bereaucracy
ernment (12.84) and high numbers of
demonstrations/strikes that become
violent (30.43). North Sumatera
ranks at 52.17 for the number of
violent demonstrations, while South
Sulawesi receives a score of 55.22.
The number of people who complain
about the government is low in all
three provinces - 12.84 for West
Papua, 14.13 for North Sumatera and
11.74 for South Sulawesi.
4.2.3. Index for Institutions
of Democracy
4.2.3.1. Indonesia Index for
Institutions of Democracy
38.03
19.29
The role of The role of
regional political
parliament parties
(DPRD)
67

As seen in Graph 4.1, the index for
the aspect of institutions of democ-
racy for the IDI at the national level
is 62.72. Compared to the national in-
dexes of the other two aspects, this is
lower than civil liberties (86.97), but
higher than political rights (54.60).
The national indexes for institu-
tions of democracy are rated as
follows: 1) Free and fair general
elections (87.67); 2) the role of re-
gional parliaments (38.03); 3) the
role of political parties (19.29); 4)
the role of regional government
bureaucracy (88.58); and 5) the role
of an independent judiciary (90.53).
These statistics imply that despite
provincial success in some areas,
much work is to be done, particularly
at a provincial level, in enhancing
the role of regional parliaments, as
well as the role of political particies.
The variable related to the role
of political parties variable has two
indicators: 1) the number of cadre
formation activities carried out by
political parties which participate in
general elections; and 2) the percent-
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators
Table 4.15. of Role of Political Parties
Indicator for the Role of Political Parties
Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in
general elections
Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level
68
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
age of women in the stewardship of
political parties at provincial level.
The contribution of the index of each
indicator to the index of the role of
political parties can be seen in Table
4.15. These ratings indicate that the
national index for the role of political
parties is low, at 13.33, due to the
fact the number of cadre formation
activities carried out by political
parties participating in general elec-
tions is low.
The role of regional parliaments
receives the following ratings for its
indicators:, 1) the amount of budget
allocated for education (51.84); 2)
the amount of budget allocated for
health (56.39); 3) the percentage of
regional regulations originating from
the right to initiate the making of
a regulation exercised by regional
parliaments (DPRD) to the total
number of regional regulations pro-
duced (5.65); and 4) the number of
recommendations made by regional
parliaments to the executive (7.79),
as shown in Table 4.16.
Index
13.33
72.92
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of
Talel 4.16. Role of Regional Parliament
Indicators for the Role of Parliament
The amount of budget allocated for education per capita
The amount of budget allocated for health per capita
Percentage of number of regional regulations originating from the initiative right
[the right to initiate the making of a regulation regulation] exercised by regional
parliament (DPRD) to the total number of regional regulations produced
Recommendations put forward by regional parliament to the executive
The indexes clearly show that the
performance of regional parliaments
in producing regional regulations
based on their initiative and in mak-
ing recommendations to the execu-
tive as one of the forms of follow up
of people’s aspiration is still very low.
The variable which measures the
independent judiciary is measured
by two indicators: 1) the number of
controversial rulings handed down
by judges; and 2) the number of
Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators
Table 4.17. of an Independent Judiciary
Indicators within Independent Judiciary
Controversial rulings handed down by judges
Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police
Index
51.84
56.39
5.65
7.79
terminations of controversial inves-
tigations by prosecutors or police.
The distribution of the index of each
indicator of this variable can be seen
in Table 4.17.
These two ratings are high, and
make a significant contribution to
the index, and point to the fact that
across all of Indonesia’s 33 provinces,
the chance of finding controversial
rulings by judges, or the termina-
tion of controversial investigations
Index
85.91
95.15
69
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

Contribution of the Indexes on Indicators of Role of Regional

Table 4.18. Parliament Bureaucracy and Free and Fair General Elections

Indicators for the Role of Regional Parliament Bureaucracy Index

Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of
92.04
certain nominees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections
Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political
85.12
activities of political parties in legislative general elections

Indicators for Free and Fair General Elections Index

Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions

91.46
(KPUD) in organizing and administering general elections

Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes 83.89

is unlikely. The other variables, KPUD in the running and adminis-

which measure the role of the re-
gional government bureaucracy and
free and fair general elections also
make a significant contribution to
the national index for institutions of
democracy, as shown in Table 4.18.
Table 4.18. shows high indicators
for the two variables: 1) the number
of reports and news on the use of
government facilities for the interests
of candidates/political parties in leg-
islative general elections (92.04); and
2) the number of reports and news
on the involvement of civil servants
in political activities or political par-
ties in legislative general elections
(85.12). In terms of free and fair gen-
eral elections, the indicators score as
follows: 1) the number of incidences
which indicate the partiality of the
tration of general elections (91.46);
and 2) the number of incidences or
reporting on the fraudulent practices
in the calculation of votes (83.89).
4.2.3.2. Provincial Index for
Institutions of Democracy
This section will describe the as-
pect of institutions of democracy at
a provincial level, and will compare
the three provinces with the high-
est and lowest indexes. Graph 4.11
demonstrates that most of the prov-
inces in Indonesia (24 out of 33 – or
73%), have indexes belonging to the
medium category of democratic de-
velopment. Only one province falls
into the high category – the Special
Capital Region of Jakarta, while the
remainer – eight provinces, belong

70
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Graph 4.11. Provincial Indexes for Institutions of Democracy

DKI Jakarta 86.09
Central Kalimantan 78.69
East Nusa Tenggara 73.63
Bali 73.24
Jambi 72.43
Gorontalo 72.32
South Kalimantan 70.95
Riau 70.68
West Kalimantan 69.85
South Sumatera 69.83
Riau Island 67.62
East Kalimantan 67.57
West Sumatra 67.48
North Maluku 67.23
West Papua 66.48
Maluku 66.30
South Sulawesi 64.88
Central Java 64.43
North Sulawesi 63.91
Lampung 63.27
Banten 62.83
West Nusa Tenggara 62.48
Aceh 62.13
DI Yogyakarta 60.48
North Sumatera 60.14
Bangka Belitung 59.65
West Sulawesi 59.15
Papua 58.97
Southeast Sulawesi 58.37
Central Sulawesi 57.14
West Java 56.61
East Java 54.64
Bengkulu 44.70

71
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

to the poor category. The province
of Bengkulu falls even below this,
at 44.70.
Graph 4.11 shows consistency
between the national index of this
aspect and the distribution of the
indexes at the provincial level. The
national index for institutions of
democracy is 62.72 (see Graph 4.1),
which correlates directly with major-
ity of provincial results, which fall
into the same, medium category. The
three provinces with the highest rat-
ings are the Special Capital Region of
Jakarta (86.09), Central Kalimantan
(78.69), and East Nusa Tenggara
(73.63), as stated in the table 4.19.
When the Special Capital Region
of Jakarta is analysed at the level
of variables, it is apparent that this
province ranks first in terms of insti-
tutions of democracy because three of
its five variables have almost perfect
indexes: 1) free and fair general elec-
tions (100.00); 2) the role of regional
parliament bureaucracy (99.93); and

Provinces with the Highest Indexes

Table 4.19. for Institutions of Democracy

Province Index

DKI Jakarta 86,09

Central Kalimantan 78,69

East Nusa Tenggara 73, 63

Distribution of Indexes on the Variables

Table 4.20. in Provinces with the Highest Indexes
for Institutions of Democracy

Provincial Index
Variables for Institution of Democracy
Central
DKI Jakarta NTT
Kalimantan

Free and fair elections 100,00 98,10 86,71

The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 64,12 28,45 45,00

The role of political parties 71,13 64,44 34,55

The role of regional government bureaucracy 99,93 95,99 97,29

The role of an independent judiciary 95,00 100,00 100,00

72
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
3) an independent judiciary (95.00).
The indexes of the other two vari-
ables are slightly lower: 4) the role
of political parties (71.13); and 5) the
role of regional parliament (64.12),
as shown in Table 4.20.
The high index of the variable for
free and fair general elections can be
attributed to the contribution of two
indexes of the variable’s indicators
which received perfect scores - the
number of incidences which indicate
partiality on the part of the Regional
General Elections Commissions
(KPUD) in the running of general
elections (100.00) and the number of
incidences or reporting of fraudulent
practices in the calculation of votes
(100.00). The indexes of the two indi-
cators demonstrate that general elec-
tions in the Province of the Special
Capital Region of Jakarta have been
carried out freely and fairly, reflected
by impartiality on the part of the
KPUD in running general elections,
as well as a relative lack of fraudulent
practices in the calculation of votes.
In the province of Central Kalim-
antan, the distribution of the indexes
of the five variables for institutions
of democracy shows a significant
variation in which the independent
judiciary variable has a perfect index
of 100.00, free and fair general elec-
tions variable is rated at 98.10, and
the role of regional parliament bu-
reaucracy scores 95.99 – all belonging
to the high category. While the index
for the role of political parties belong
to the medium category (69.44),
the variable for the role of regional
parliament is the lowest among the
indexes at 28.45, belong to the poor
category (see Table 4.20). The statis-
tics demonstrate that even though
Central Kalimantan has a good record
in judiciary independence, free and
fair elections and service provision
by the regional government, the per-
formance of the regional parliament
still requires strengthening.
The independent judiciary
variable has a perfect index in the
province of Central Kalimantan due
to the perfect scores of its two indica-
tors: 1) the number of controversial
rulings handed down by judges;
and 2) the number of termination
of controversial investigations by
prosecutors or police. The role of
regional parliament variable receives
a low score due to the fact that two
out of its four indicators performed
poorly: 1) the percentage of regional
regulations originating from the right
to initiate the making of a regulation
exercised by DPRD compared to the
total number of regional regulations
produced (0.00); and 2) the amount
of budget allocated for health (18.40).
The other two indicators rank in the
medium category: 1) the number of
regional parliament recommenda-
tions to the executive (7.14); and 2)
the amount of budget allocated for
education (63.80).
The province of East Nusa
Tenggara ranks similarly to Central
Kalimantan in terms of institutions
of democracy. The independent ju-
73

diciary variable (100.00) makes the
highest contribution to the index,
followed by the role of regional
government bureaucracy (97.29)
and free and fair general elections
(86.71), as shown in Table 4.21. The
other two variables rank lower, at
34.55 for the role of political parties
and 45.00 for the role of regional
parliaments, ranking in the category
of poor contributions to the develop-
ment of democracy.
The distribution of the indexes of
these variables indicates that cumu-
latively, institutions of democracy
rank in the medium category in East
Nusa Tenggara (73.63), ranking in
the top three provinces, despite their
low indexes on the performance of
political parties and the regional
parliament.
The three provinces with the
lowest indexes for institutions of
democracy are Bengkulu (44.70), East
Java (54.64) and West Java (56.61), as
can be seen in Table 4.21.
In the province of Bengkulu, the
distribution of the indexes of the
Provinces with the Lowest Indexes
Table 4.21. for Institutions of Democracy
Province
Bengkulu
East Java
West Java
74
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4
five variables for institutions of
democracy indicates a wide range.
Two variables rank highly: 1) an
independent judiciary (90.00); and 2)
free and fair general elections (72.78).
At the same time, the remaining
three variables are extremely low:
3) the role of political parties (8.97);
4) the role of regional parliament
(9.03); and 5) the role of regional
government bureaucracy (42.57), as
shown in Table 4.23. These rankings
place Bengkulu in the poor category,
despite the success in maintaining an
independent judiciary and conduct-
ing free and fair general elections.
The provinces of East Java and
West Java occupy the second and the
third lowest positions for the aspect
of institutions of democracy. Table
4.22 indicates the same tendency
in the two provinces as in Beng-
kulu. Even though an independent
judiciary and free and fair general
elections rank relatively high, the
other three variables are very low.
Table 4.22 demonstrates that two of
the variables which make a very low
Index
44,70
54,64
56,61
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 4 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Distribution of the Indexes on the

Table 4.22. Variables in Provinces with the Lowest
Indexes for Institutions of Democracy

Provincial Index
Variables for Institution of Democracy
Bengkulu East Java West Java

Free and Fair Elections 72,78 94,56 94,19

The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 9,03 35,41 22,52
The role of political parties 8,97 8,29 19,24
The role of regional government bureaucracy 42,57 74,46 75,06
The role of independent judiciary 90,00 65,00 75,00

contribution to the index are the role
of political parties and the role of
regional parliament. In the province
of East Java, the index of the role of
political parties is only 8.29 and the
index of the role of regional parlia-
ment is 35.41. In West Java, the index
of the role of political parties and the
role of regional parliament are 19.24
and 22.52, respectively.
These three provinces Bengkulu,
East Java, and West Java share the
same characteristics of low ratings
for the roles of political parties and
parliament, caused by: 1) the absence
of cadre formation activities carried
out by political parties participat-
ing in general elections; 2) limited
numbers of regional regulations
originating from the initiative right
of the regional parliament; 3) the
low number of regional parliament
recommendations to the executive as
a follow up to the requests of citizens;
4) limited role of regional parlia-
ment in pursuing for the allocation
of a health budget; and 5) relatively
high use of government facilities for
the interests of certain candidates/
political parties in legislative general
elections.

75
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 4

76
Conclusion

5
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 5 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
Conclusion
The 2009 Indonesia Democracy
Index (IDI) is a compilation of val-
ues of the indexes of three aspects
of democracy that are considered
crucial: civil liberties, political rights
and institutions of democracy. The
index assessment used a score rang-
ing from 0 to 100, which was divided
qualitatively into three categories:
poor (for index < 60), medium (for
index ranging from 60 to 80), and
high (for index >80).
The 2009 IDI indicates that civil
liberties rate the highest at the na-
tional level (86.97). This demonstates
that rights related to civil liberties
are upheld by Indonesia. Freedom
of assembly and association rank
higest, at 91.44, followed by freedom
of religion at 90.67, freedom from
discrimination at 86.39 and freedom
of expression at 83.97. Despite these
high ratings, the indexes also show
that the threats to these rights come
primarily from the government,
which is actually responsible for
protecting these rights. These threats
take the form of written rules, actions
and statements made by government
officials. Freedom of religion, on the
other hand, is primarily threatened
by individual citizens or groups of
people, mostly in the form of threats
and violence. This is allowed to hap-
pen by a government which is not
impartial, and tends to allow these
acts to take place.
The provincial indexes for civil
liberties are also promising. As
many as 29 provinces rated above
80.00, and 24 provinces received
indexes of more than 90.00. Only
four provinces had scores lower than
80.00. The three provinces with the
highest scores were Central Sulawesi
(98.51), Central Kalimantan (98.45)
and West Kalimantan (98.29), while
the three provinces with the lowest
indexes were West Nusa Tenggara
(68.05), Aceh (64.42) and West Su-
matera (63.06).
Three indicators for civil liberties
were consistently low across the
provinces: 1) the number of threats
of violence or the use of violence by
government officers which curbs
freedom of expression; 2) the num-
ber of written rules which restrict
freedom or require people to practice
the teachings of their religion; and
3) the number of threats of violence
or the use of threats by one group
of people against another group
of people for reasons pertaining to
religious teachings.
The essence of democracy lies
in the protection of human rights,
particularly those related to civil
79

liberties. If these rights are fulfilled
adequately, citizens should be able
to live in peace and harmony. The
state and ruling government has a
duty to guarantee these rights, which
can be in the form of written rules
and policies, as well as actions and
statements of government officials.
Political rights are another im-
portant aspect of democracy. In the
2009 IDI, this is the lowest aspect,
rating below 60.00. This score places
political rights in the poor category,
standing in sharp contrast to the
high rating of civil liberties. This
ranking indicates that the citizens of
Indonesia are unable to fully exercise
their political rights.
The two variables for political
rights, political participation in
decision-making processes and
watchdog, as well as the right to
vote and to be elected, have low
indexes. The reasons for these low
ratings include barriers for people
with disabilities to exercise their right
to vote, the percentage of women in
provincial parliament and the quality
of the permanent voter list.
Voter turnout and the ability to
vote and be elected are relatively
high. These statistics indicate that the
citizens of Indonesia are interested
in politics, while the capacity of the
government is low, particularly in
running general elections.
80
MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Chapter 5
The indicators for political par-
ticipation in decision-making and
keeping a watch over the government
are vastly different from one another.
The statistics show that only a low
percentage of demonstrations or
strikes become violent in Indonesia.
At the same time, there are numerous
complaints made by people about
how the government carries out its
responsibilities, though this number
varies by province, and so the index
overall is relatively low.
The index for institutions of de-
mocracy is relatively low, at 62.72,
thus receiving a scoring in the me-
dium category for development of
democracy.
The five variables for this aspect
include: 1) free and fair general elec-
tions; 2) the role of regional parlia-
ment; 3) the role of political parties;
4) the role of regional government
bureaucracy; and 5) an independ-
ent judiciary. The indexes show that
across Indonesia, the 33 provinces
have been relatively successful in
creating an independent judiciary
(though the IDI does not measure
their quality or performance),
enhancing the role of regional gov-
ernment bureaucracy and carrying
out free and fair general elections.
In spite of this success, the role of
both political parties and regional
parliaments must be strengthened.
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Chapter 5 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index
The low index for the role of po-
litical parties is caused by the low
number of cadre formation activi-
ties carried out by political parties
participating in general elections.
The low national index for the role
of regional parliament variable is
caused by the poor performance of
regional parliaments in taking initia-
tive to produce a regional regulation
and in putting forward recommen-
dations to the executive as a follow
up of people’s aspiration. The index
for an independent judiciary is high
because the likelihood of finding
controversial rulings by judges and
terminations of controversial inves-
tigations by prosecutors or police is
relatively limited.
At the provincial level, the
index for institutions of democracy
indicates that most provinces in In-
donesia (24 out of 33) have an index
belonging to the medium category.
Only the Special Capital Region of
Jakarta falls into the high category,
while eight provinces belong to the
low category.
The distribution of the index for
institutions of democracy indicates
a strong consistency between the
national index and the distribution
of provincial indexes. The national
index is 62.72, while 24 out the 33
provinces fall within this same me-
dium category.
Overall, the following conclusions
for the 2009 Indonesia Democracy
Index can be drawn.
First, a high civil liberties index is
found almost evenly across all of the
provinces of Indonesia. This reflects
a state in which people are “free
to,” rather than “free from,” and is
important for decision makers and
policy analysts to understand.
Second, there is a gap between the
aspects of civil liberties and political
liberty and institutions of democracy.
Abundant civil liberties leads to high
political passion and participation
on the part of society, however, as
that statistics indicate, citizens face a
challenge in exercising this participa-
tion due to the poor management of
general elections.
Third, Indonesia has been success-
ful in the development of institu-
tions of democracy, but is hampered
by weaknesses in capacity. Cadre
formation amongst political par-
ties is weak, and the performance
of regional parliaments is poor.
Political freedom is high, but at the
same time, is not accompanied by
the institutions required to support
it. Coupled with the weakness on
the part of security officers in law
enforcement, this situation may give
rise to ‘street democracy’ which is
likely to degenerate into anarchy.
81
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Bibliography

Bibliography
Barnett, Jacqueline, M (2008), Focus Groups: Tips for Beginners (updated ver-
sion) (TCALL Occasional Research Paper No. 1, Texas Center
for Adult Literacy & Learning).

Berry, Rita, S.Y. (1999), Collecting Data By In-Depth Interviewing (Paper pre-
sented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Susex at Brighton, September 2-5,
1999).

Bollen, Kenneth A. (1993), Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement

Traps,” dalam Alex Inkelas (ed.). On Measuring Democracy.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher.

Bouma, G. D. (1993), The Research Process, Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.

Coppedge, Michael, dan Wolfgang H. Reinicke (1993), “Measuring Polyar-

chy,” dalam Alex Inkeles (ed).

Dahl, Robert A. (1971), Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Denzin, N.K. (1978), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Metod (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gastill, Raymond Duncan, “Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences

and Suggestions.” Dalam Alex Inkeles (ed.).

Gibbs, Anita (1997), Focus Groups, England: Social Research Update, Issue
19, the Department of Sociology, University of Surrey.

Guion, L. A. (2006), Conducting an In-Depth Interview, (FCS6012, one of a series

of the Family Youth and Community Sciences Department,
Florida Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida)

82
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
Bibliography 2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Hadari, Nawawi (1983), Metode Penelitian Bidang Sosial, Yogyakarta: Gad-

jahmada University Press.

Hoppe, M. J. et.al (1995), ”Using Focus Groups to Discuss Sensitive Topics

with Children”, Evaluation Review 19 (1): 102-14.

Irwanto (1998), Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Sebuah Pengantar Praktis, Ja-
karta: Pusat Kejian Pembangunan Masyarakat, Universitas
Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya.

Kitzinger, J (1995), ”Introducing Focus Groups”, British Medical Journal 311:

299-302.

Moleong, L. J. (2005), Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (edisi revisi), Bandung:

PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Neuman, W. Lawrence (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quan-

titative Approaches (4th ed.), London: Allyn and Bacon.

Powell, R. A., and Single H. M (1996), “Focus Groups”, International Journal

of Quality in Health Care 8 (5): 499-504.

Vredenbregt, J. (1978), Metode dan Teknik Penelitian Masyarakat, Jakarta: PT.

Gramedia.

83
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Bibliography

84
Appendix
Appendix 1 Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2007 IDI

Appendix 2 Aspects, Variables, and Indicators of the 2009 IDI

Appendix 3 List of Newspaper used as Sample/Data Resources

for 2009 IDI

Appendix 4 Weight of Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the

2009 IDI

Appendix 5 2009 Indexes on Aspects,Variables and Indicators in

33 Provinces

6
Appendix MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Appendix

ASPECTS, VARIABLES, AND INDICATORS

Appendix 1 INDONESIA DEMOCRACY INDEX 2007
Indicators
A. CIVIL LIBERTIES
I. Freedom of Assembly and Organisational Rights
1 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of assembly for general assembly of a political
party, demonstration and boycott.
2 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of association for political party, mass
organisations and religious affiliations.
3 Statements from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly of political party, demonstration and boycott.

4 Statements from local government deemed to limit freedom of association for political party, mass organisations and
religious affiliations.
5 Physical actions from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly for political party’s forming and activities.
6 Physical actions from local government deemed to limit freedom of assembly for mass organisations’ forming and activities

7 Actions from the local people deemed to limit to freedom of assembly in forming and political party activities.
8 Actions from the local people deemed to limit freedom of assembly in forming mass organizations and its activities.
II. Freedom of Speech

9 Local (perda) and governor (Pergub) regulations deemed to limit freedom of speech.
10 Statements from local government—written and or orally—deemed to limit freedom of speech.
11 Physical actions from the local government deemed to limit freedom of speech of the people.
12 Actions from one individual or community deemed to limit freedom of speech of the other individual or communities
III. Freedom of Religious Affiliation

13 The existence of any local regulations that limit or discriminate freedom of religious affiliation
14 The existence of discriminatory actions from local government towards the people to build their religious place
15 The existence of repressive actions from one community toward the other communities refusing certain local regulation
related to religious beliefs
16 Events of banning religious performance or discriminatory action from the local government
17 The existence of banning or discriminatory action from one community toward other community to perform their religious
beliefs

87
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Appendix

Indicators
IV. Freedom from Discrimination

18 The existence of discriminative regulations on gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS, physical disability
or other marginalized groups
19 The existence of discriminative behaviour from local government on gender, political affiliation, ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS,
physical disability or other marginalized groups
The existence of discriminative behaviour from the local people towards other community on gender, political affiliation,
20
ethnicity, age, HIV/AIDS, physical disability or other marginalized groups
B. POLITICAL RIGHTS

V. People’s participation in politics

21 Voters-turnout rate
22 Frequency/number of involvement from the people in hearing session with DPRD
23 Frequency/number of involvement from the people in audience session with local government (Pemda).

24 Involvement from the people representing how many groups in musrenbang

25 Frequency of involvement of the people in demonstration
26 Frequency of involvement from the people in boycott action
VI. Participation of the people in governance monitoring

27 The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local governance
through press statement/release in mass media
28 The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local governance
through official letter to local government (Pemda)
The frequency and substance of report from the people towards the government on the management of local govern-
29
ance to the police
30 The frequency and substance of news initiated by the mass media in covering news on the management of the local
governance
C. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY
VII. Free and fair election
31 The same opportunity for campaigning
32 Guarantee for vote tabulation without manipulation
33 Political intimidation (such as repressive action towards potential voters to vote for certain candidate, etc.)
34 Protests followed up by KPUD/Panwas in comparison with the number of protests done by contestants and the supporters
35 Violent actions done by supporters of one candidate towards supporters of other candidates

88
Appendix MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Indicators
VIII. Parliament’s role
36 DPRD’s role in making public-oriented APBD in education and health sectors
37 Written critiques from DPRD towards report of a regional head
38 Percentage of total local regulations derived from DPRD’s initiative in comparison with total local regulations been produced
39 Recommendations produced by DPRD as the follow-up action from people’s aspirations
IX. The role of political parties
40 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties
41 Double committee within a political party
X. The role of an independent judiciary
42 Political interventions from executive, legislative or judicative of the central and local government on judicial process
43 Controversial rulings handed down by the court

89
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Appendix

ASPECTS, VARIABLES, AND INDICATORS

Appendix 2 INDONESIA DEMOCRACY INDEX 2009

Indicators
A. CIVIL LIBERTIES
I. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association
1 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association
2 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of assembly and freedom of association
II. Freedom of expression

3 Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs freedom of speech
4 Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expression
III. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion)

5 Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of their religions
6 Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which restrict the freedom of people, or require
people, to practice the teachings of their religions
7 Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another group of people pertaining to religious teachings
IV. Freedom from discrimination

8 Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups
9 Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials which are discriminatory on the grounds
of gender, ethnicity or against vulnerable groups
10 Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the gender or ethnicity of the victim and/
or vulnerable groups
B. POLITICAL RIGHTS
V. The right to vote and get elected in a general election

11 Incidents in which people’s right to vote or get elected is curbed

12 Incidents which show lack/shortage of facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they
cannot exercise their rights to vote
13 The quality of the permanent voter list (Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT)
14 Percentage of population who use their right to vote compared to the total population who have the right to vote in a
general election (voter turnout)
15 Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared to the total members of provincial parliament

90
Appendix MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Indicators
VI. Political participation in decision making and watchdog

16 Percentage of demonstrations /strikes that turn violent compared to the total number of
demonstrations/strikes
17 Complaints on the running of government
C. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY
VII. Free and fair elections

18 Incidents that indicate the partiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing and administering
general elections
19 Incidents or reporting of the fraudulent counting of votes
VIII. The role of regional parliament (DPRD)

20 The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita
21 Percentage of regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regulation exercised by DPRD
compared to the total number of regional regulations produced
22 Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive
IX. The role of political parties

23 Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in general elections
24 Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level
X. The role of regional government bureaucracy
25 Reports and news concerning the use of government facilities for the interests of certain nominees/candidates /political
parties in legislative general elections
26 Reports and news concerning the involvement of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative
general elections
XI. The role of an independent judiciary
27 Controversial rulings handed down by judges
28 Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police

91
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Appendix

List of Newspaper used as

Appendix 3 Sample/Data Resources

NO Provinces Newspapers
1 Aceh Serambi Indonesia
2 North Sumatera Waspada
3 Riau Riau Pos
4 Riau Islands Batam Pos
5 West Sumatera Singgalang
6 South Sumatera Sriwijaya Post
7 Bangka Belitung Babel Pos
8 Jambi Jambi Independent
9 Bengkulu Rakyat Bengkulu
10 Lampung Radar Lampung
11 Banten Radar Banten
12 DKI Jakarta Warta Kota
13 West Java Pikiran Rakyat
14 Central Java Suara Merdeka
15 DI Yogyakarta Kedaulatan Rakyat
16 East Java Jawa Pos
17 West Kalimantan Pontianak Post
18 Central Kalimantan Kalteng Pos
19 East Kalimantan Kaltim Post
20 South Kalimantan Banjarmasin Post
21 Bali Harian Umum Nusa Bali
22 NTB Lombok Post
23 NTT Pos Kupang
24 South Sulawesi Fajar
25 Central Sulawesi Radar Sulteng
26 West Sulawesi Radar Sulbar
27 Southeast Sulawesi Kendari Pos

92
Appendix MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

NO Provinces Newspapers
28 Gorontalo Gorontalo Post
29 North Sulawesi Manado Post
30 North Maluku Malut Post
31 Maluku Suara Maluku
32 West Papua Cahaya Papua
33 Papua Cendrawasih Pos

93
 MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index Appendix

Weight of Aspects, Variables and Indicators of the

Appendix 4 2009 IDI

Aspects, Variables and Indicators LOCAL GLOBAL

I. CIVIL LIBERTIES 0.327 0.327

1. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association 0.084 0.028

1.1. Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs 0.875 0.024
freedom of assembly and freedom of association
1.2. Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of as- 0.125 0.003
sembly and freedom of association
2. Freedom of expression 0.093 0.030

2.1. Threats of violence or use of violence by government officers which curbs 0.833 0.025
freedom of expression
2.2. Threats of violence or use of violence by people which curbs freedom of expres- 0.167 0.005
sion
3. Freedom of belief/faith (freedom of religion) 0.584 0.191

3.1. Written rules which restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice 0.709 0.136
the teachings of their religions
3.2. Actions taken by or statements made by government officers/officials which 0.113 0.022
restrict the freedom of people, or require people, to practice the teachings of
their religions
3.3. Threats of violence or use of violence by a group of people against another 0.179 0.034
group of people pertaining to religious teachings
4. Freedom from discrimination 0.239 0.078

4.1. Written rules that are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or 0.391 0.031
against vulnerable groups
4.2. Actions taken, or statements made, by regional government officers/officials 0.278 0.022
which are discriminatory on the grounds of gender, ethnicity or against vulner-
able groups
4.3. Threats of violence or use of violence by people for reasons associated with the 0.330 0.026
gender or ethnicity of the victim and/or vulnerable groups
II. POLITICAL RIGHTS 0.413 0.413

1. The right to vote and get elected in a general election 0.500 0.206

1.1. People’s right to vote or get elected is not curbed 0.176 0.036

94
Appendix MEASURING DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA
2009 Indonesia Democracy Index

Aspects, Variables and Indicators LOCAL GLOBAL

1.2. Facilities for people with disabilities (diffable people) as a result of which they 0.077 0.016
cannot exercise their rights to vote
1.3 The quality of the permanent voter list(Daftar Pemilih Tetap –DPT) 0.497 0.102

1.4. Voter turnout 0.155 0.032

1.5. Percentage of women elected to as members of provincial parliament compared 0.096 0.020
to the total members of provincial parliament
2. Political participation in decision making and watchdog 0.500 0.206

2.1. Demonstrations/strikes 0.500 0.103

2.2. Complaints on the running of government 0.500 0.103

III. INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY 0.260 0.260

1. Free and fair elections 0.152 0.040

1.1. Impartiality of Regional General Elections Commissions (KPUD) in organizing 0.500 0.020
and administering general elections
1.2. Fairness on counting of votes 0.500 0.020

2. The role of regional parliament (DPRD) 0.197 0.051

2.1. The amount of budget allocated for education and health per capita 0.659 0.034

2.2. Regional regulations originating from the right to initiate the making of a regula- 0.156 0.008
tion exercised by DPRD
2.3. Recommendations put forward by DPRD to the executive 0.185 0.009

3. The role of political parties 0.197 0.051

3.1. Cadre formation activities carried out by political parties which participate in 0.900 0.046
general elections
3.2. Percentage of women in the stewardship of political parties at provincial level 0.100 0.005

4. The role of regional government bureaucracy 0.227 0.059

4.1. Guarantee of un-using government facilities for the interests of certain nomi- 0.500 0.029
nees/candidates /political parties in legislative general elections
4.2. Impartiality of civil servants in political activities of political parties in legislative 0.500 0.029
general elections
5. The role of an independent judiciary 0.227 0.059

5.1. Uncontroversial rulings handed down by judges 0.500 0.029

5.2. Terminations of controversial investigations by prosecutors or police 0.500 0.029

95
 Indexes on aspects, variables, and
Appendix 5 indicators in 33 provinces
DI West East South-
Aspects/Variables/ North West South Riau DKI West Central East West Central South East North Central South Goron- West North West
NO Aceh Riau Jambi Bengkulu Lampung Babel Yogya- Banten Bali Nusa Nusa East Maluku Papua INDONESIA
Indicators Sumatera Sumatera Sumatera Island Jakarta Java Java Java Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Sulawesi Sulawesi Sulawesi talo Sulawesi Maluku Papua
karta Tenggara Tenggara Sulawesi

OVERALL INDEX 66.29 60.20 60.29 75.85 71.00 72.52 64.76 67.47 67.01 73.61 73.91 71.07 66.45 67.55 62.49 67.98 70.35 58.12 71.64 72.38 77.63 66.63 72.31 70.94 66.02 61.48 64.29 73.50 67.99 69.07 67.21 63.06 63.80 67.30

ASPECT 1.
CIVIL 64.42 84.16 63.06 93.14 95.86 95.42 94.26 90.57 96.51 96.22 91.65 85.84 86.48 92.15 83.30 95.46 93.97 68.05 95.55 98.29 98.45 68.24 98.22 92.23 98.51 82.94 94.66 96.05 93.82 92.77 93.61 93.14 92.83 86.97
LIBERTIES

Variable 1. Freedom
of assembly
90.00 100.00 91.25 98.75 90.00 100.00 100.00 11.25 98.75 98.75 91.25 98.75 78.75 90.00 91.25 98.75 100.00 98.75 91.25 100.00 91.25 90.00 91.25 47.50 100.00 100.00 91.25 100.00 100.00 98.75 90.00 100.00 100.00 91.44
and freedom of
association

Threats of violence
or use of violence
by government
officers which
1 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 91.21
curbs freedom
of assembly
and freedom of
association

Threats of violence
or use of violence
by people which
2 curbs freedom 90.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 0.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 93.03
of assembly
and freedom of
association

Variable 2. Freedom
26.12 55.55 91.67 77.79 90.00 91.67 81.65 90.00 91.65 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.02 86.12 91.67 90.00 91.67 72.23 100.00 100.00 98.33 100.00 100.00 63.90 100.00 41.67 90.00 100.00 77.79 67.77 76.12 100.00 77.77 83.97
of expression

Threats of violence
or use of violence
by government
3 23.33 56.67 90.00 73.33 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 40.00 83.33 90.00 90.00 90.00 66.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 56.67 100.00 40.00 90.00 100.00 73.33 73.33 73.33 100.00 83.33 83.43
officers which
curbs freedom of
expression

Threats of violence
or use of violence
4 by people which 40.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 40.00 90.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 40.00 90.00 100.00 50.00 86.67
curbs freedom of
expression

Variable 3. Freedom
67.94 86.43 45.91 100.00 97.08 94.63 97.08 98.21 98.21 98.21 91.05 78.61 93.22 98.21 79.68 94.00 100.00 51.03 98.87 98.21 100.00 52.57 98.21 100.00 100.00 90.77 95.13 100.00 94.10 100.00 98.21 98.21 98.21 90.67
of Religion

Written rules
which restrict the
freedom of people,
5 or require people, 78.26 86.96 34.78 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 73.91 100.00 100.00 95.65 95.65 100.00 43.48 100.00 100.00 100.00 39.13 100.00 100.00 100.00 86.96 95.65 100.00 95.65 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 91.70
to practice the
teachings of their
religions

Actions taken by or
statements made
by government
officers/officials
which restrict the
6 0.00 77.50 77.50 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 87.50 100.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 77.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 91.97
freedom of people,
or require people,
to practice the
teachings of their
religions

Threats of violence
or use of violence
by a group of
people against
7 70.00 90.00 70.00 100.00 90.00 70.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 50.00 90.00 70.00 90.00 10.00 90.00 100.00 50.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 85.76
another group of
people pertaining
to religious
teachings
 DI West East South-
Aspects/Variables/ North West South Riau DKI West Central East West Central South East North Central South Goron- West North West
NO Aceh Riau Jambi Bengkulu Lampung Babel Yogya- Banten Bali Nusa Nusa East Maluku Papua INDONESIA
Indicators Sumatera Sumatera Sumatera Island Jakarta Java Java Java Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Sulawesi Sulawesi Sulawesi talo Sulawesi Maluku Papua
karta Tenggara Tenggara Sulawesi

Variable 4. Freedom
61.74 84.15 83.91 80.40 97.22 97.22 90.27 100.00 93.47 89.00 89.99 93.47 86.93 80.44 86.10 100.00 78.00 97.22 87.21 97.22 97.22 86.52 100.00 100.00 93.75 73.87 96.53 83.46 97.22 82.75 90.45 75.68 83.04 88.92
from discrimination

Written rules that

are discriminatory
on the grounds of
8 83.33 66.67 83.33 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.33 100.00 83.33 83.33 66.67 83.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.33 100.00 100.00 83.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 33.33 100.00 66.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.33 88.89
gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable
groups

Actions taken,
or statements
made, by regional
government
officers/ officials
9 which are 65.00 90.00 77.50 100.00 90.00 90.00 65.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 87.50 100.00 100.00 65.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 77.50 90.00 90.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 77.50 100.00 87.50 87.50 90.00 77.50 77.50 12.50 62.50 84.09
discriminatory on
the grounds of
gender, ethnicity or
against vulnerable
groups

Threats of violence
or use of violence
by people for
reasons associated
10 with the gender, 33.33 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 66.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 33.33 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 66.67 90.00 100.00 100.00 93.03
ethnicity of the
victim and/or
against vulnerable
groups

ASPECT
2. POLITICAL 70.39 41.26 53.57 65.40 50.41 56.07 54.03 51.81 48.29 59.47 52.20 68.48 51.85 52.52 50.96 49.47 49.82 47.50 51.46 53.46 60.50 62.63 54.78 58.50 45.90 42.36 43.97 56.39 53.09 52.05 46.30 37.09 43.84 54.60
RIGHTS

Variable 5. The
right to vote and get
45.80 49.37 50.76 51.69 50.77 49.78 48.43 50.78 50.02 49.26 52.64 43.48 42.59 52.25 48.53 52.07 50.55 49.20 50.26 48.21 52.09 49.66 52.02 47.56 49.59 51.25 49.82 52.16 51.30 56.36 50.26 52.54 50.49 50.05
elected in a general
election

Incidents in which
people’s right to
11 76.92 87.18 96.79 94.23 96.15 84.62 67.31 82.69 96.15 96.79 100.00 30.77 34.62 86.54 76.28 94.23 100.00 87.18 94.23 92.95 96.15 89.74 93.59 50.00 77.56 91.03 82.05 76.28 96.15 87.82 92.95 91.67 88.46 84.52
vote or get elected
is curbed

Incidents which
show lack/ shortage
of facilities for
people with
12 disabilities [diffable 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
people] as a result
of which they
cannot exercise
their rights to vote

The quality of the

13 permanent voter 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
list (DPT)

Percentage of
population who
use their rights to
vote compared to
14 the total population 75.31 65.35 70.46 68.11 74.57 76.70 74.77 74.34 69.77 59.51 56.90 73.11 71.26 72.95 68.45 71.66 76.70 75.09 81.40 73.36 69.35 71.38 67.19 78.77 78.18 73.40 75.30 83.18 77.98 81.10 79.53 81.22 89.70 73.82
who have the right
to vote in a general
election (voter
turnout)
 DI West East South-
Aspects/Variables/ North West South Riau DKI West Central East West Central South East North Central South Goron- West North West
NO Aceh Riau Jambi Bengkulu Lampung Babel Yogya- Banten Bali Nusa Nusa East Maluku Papua INDONESIA
Indicators Sumatera Sumatera Sumatera Island Jakarta Java Java Java Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Sulawesi Sulawesi Sulawesi talo Sulawesi Maluku Papua
karta Tenggara Tenggara Sulawesi

Percentage of
women elected
to as members
of provincial
15 parliament 19.32 53.87 42.42 60.61 37.04 44.44 65.22 62.22 37.04 44.44 78.01 83.33 70.00 72.73 60.00 58.82 24.24 36.37 24.24 18.18 59.26 42.43 66.67 81.48 53.03 53.33 51.85 74.07 37.04 100.00 29.63 53.03 23.81 52.07
compared to the
total members
of provincial
parliament

Variable 6. Political
participation in
94.98 33.15 56.39 79.11 50.06 62.36 59.63 52.84 46.56 69.69 51.77 93.48 61.11 52.80 53.40 46.86 49.10 45.80 52.65 58.71 68.90 75.60 57.55 69.44 42.21 33.48 38.11 60.63 54.89 47.75 42.34 21.64 37.20 55.16
decision making
and watchdog

Percentage of
demonstrations/
strikes that turn
16 violent to the 95.65 52.17 91.30 95.65 91.30 60.87 100.00 100.00 78.26 91.30 95.65 86.96 69.57 90.00 68.26 85.65 82.61 82.61 86.96 86.96 100.00 100.00 95.65 86.96 69.57 55.22 65.22 73.91 95.65 90.00 78.26 30.43 65.22 81.75
total number of
demonstrations/
strikes

Complaints on
17 the running of 94.31 14.13 21.47 62.57 8.81 63.85 19.27 5.69 14.86 48.07 7.89 100.00 52.66 15.60 38.53 8.07 15.60 8.99 18.35 30.46 37.80 51.19 19.45 51.93 14.86 11.74 11.01 47.34 14.13 5.50 6.42 12.84 9.17 28.56
government

ASPECT 3.
INSTITUTIONS OF 62.13 60.14 67.48 70.68 72.43 69.83 44.70 63.27 59.65 67.62 86.09 56.61 64.43 60.48 54.64 62.83 73.24 62.48 73.63 69.85 78.69 70.95 67.57 63.91 57.14 64.88 58.37 72.32 59.15 66.30 67.23 66.48 58.97 62.72
DEMOCRACY

Variable 7. Free and

57.77 25.43 97.47 75.83 86.08 79.37 72.78 76.99 89.64 97.73 100.00 94.19 94.94 91.66 94.56 89.50 98.10 88.49 86.71 100.00 98.10 99.37 98.73 97.47 91.02 95.20 65.25 93.93 80.38 95.57 98.10 94.94 87.97 87.67
fair elections

Incidents that
indicate the
partiality of
Regional General
Elections
18 63.64 9.09 100.00 90.91 100.00 95.45 100.00 81.82 81.82 95.45 100.00 90.91 100.00 90.91 95.45 95.45 100.00 90.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.91 95.45 54.55 95.45 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 91.46
Commissions
(KPUD) in
organizing and
administering
general elections

Incidents or
reporting of the
19 51.90 41.77 94.94 60.76 72.15 63.29 45.57 72.15 97.47 100.00 100.00 97.47 89.87 92.41 93.67 83.54 96.20 86.08 73.42 100.00 96.20 98.73 97.47 94.94 91.14 94.94 75.95 92.41 60.76 91.14 96.20 89.87 75.95 83.89
fraudulent counting
of votes

Variable 8. The
role of regional 47.60 48.31 28.15 45.62 41.98 60.57 9.03 51.15 67.18 21.71 64.12 22.52 69.88 19.88 35.41 36.07 51.43 36.17 45.00 40.57 28.45 41.69 48.43 29.63 21.20 56.42 23.91 36.10 27.09 28.45 37.37 18.43 15.59 38.03
parliament (DPRD)

The amount of
budget allocated
20 68.10 22.30 46.80 65.55 46.10 81.55 22.75 55.30 91.55 43.90 100.00 38.35 100.00 43.05 26.80 26.80 38.65 9.60 36.35 52.25 63.80 100.00 100.00 33.10 28.10 67.60 39.05 51.45 45.05 49.40 76.50 21.55 19.45 51.84
for education per
capita

The amount of
budget allocated for 60.40 100.00 36.50 68.70 81.10 100.00 4.60 95.70 100.00 21.90 94.30 29.90 100.00 15.20 80.50 80.50 51.50 100.00 100.00 70.70 18.40 24.70 43.40 56.70 19.30 100.00 33.40 25.90 29.40 30.10 25.90 34.30 27.80 56.39
health per capita

Percentage of
number of regional
regulations
originating from
the right to initiate
the making of
21 25.00 21.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45 7.14 0.00 23.08 7.14 0.00 0.00 3.45 14.29 23.08 0.00 0.00 5.65
a regulation
exercised by DPRD
compared to the
total number of
regional regulations
produced
 DI West East South-
Aspects/Variables/ North West South Riau DKI West Central East West Central South East North Central South Goron- West North West
NO Aceh Riau Jambi Bengkulu Lampung Babel Yogya- Banten Bali Nusa Nusa East Maluku Papua INDONESIA
Indicators Sumatera Sumatera Sumatera Island Jakarta Java Java Java Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Kalimantan Sulawesi Sulawesi Sulawesi talo Sulawesi Maluku Papua
karta Tenggara Tenggara Sulawesi

Number of
recommendations
22 put forward by 7.14 25.00 3.57 7.14 0.00 3.57 0.00 7.14 21.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 3.57 89.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.71 0.00 0.00 57.14 10.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.79
DPRD to the
executive

Variable 9. The
role of political 16.04 15.81 29.38 30.99 41.31 29.76 8.97 15.67 4.98 17.12 71.13 19.24 5.01 5.56 8.29 6.39 15.94 7.48 34.55 6.79 69.44 17.30 8.86 17.40 22.86 5.58 6.71 43.23 5.69 7.60 16.94 17.23 7.41 19.29
parties

Cadre formation
activities carried
out by political
23 10.00 10.00 24.29 28.57 38.57 24.29 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 71.43 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 28.57 0.00 67.14 10.00 0.00 10.00 14.29 0.00 0.00 38.57 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 13.33
parties which
participate in
general elections

Percentage of
women in the
24 stewardship of 70.41 68.07 75.24 52.73 65.97 79.05 89.70 66.67 49.83 81.20 68.44 63.83 50.07 55.56 82.90 63.93 69.44 74.79 88.35 67.89 90.15 82.98 88.60 84.02 100.00 55.77 67.08 85.13 56.94 75.97 79.37 82.30 74.07 72.92
political parties at
provincial level

Variable 10. The

role of regional
92.30 92.27 87.08 94.11 89.17 88.58 42.57 81.69 90.12 98.75 99.93 75.06 80.30 87.98 74.46 97.51 98.48 88.12 97.29 99.63 95.99 94.84 99.34 87.98 52.51 98.26 86.87 86.87 83.32 96.77 88.34 98.34 98.41 88.58
government
bureaucracy

Number of
reports and news
concerning the
use of government
facilities for
25 the interests of 93.69 95.15 78.71 98.83 95.01 89.28 0.29 98.24 96.92 97.50 99.85 86.49 90.90 98.68 58.00 99.56 100.00 98.97 99.12 99.27 99.56 95.74 98.68 98.68 94.42 99.56 96.48 96.48 86.34 98.09 99.41 99.71 99.85 92.04
certain nominees/
candidates /
political parties in
legislative general
elections

Involvement of civil
servants in political
activities of
26 90.91 89.39 95.45 89.39 83.33 87.88 84.85 65.15 83.33 100.00 100.00 63.64 69.70 77.27 90.91 95.45 96.97 77.27 95.45 100.00 92.42 93.94 100.00 77.27 10.61 96.97 77.27 77.27 80.30 95.45 77.27 96.97 96.97 85.12
political parties in
legislative general
elections

Variable 11.
The role of an
87.50 100.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 87.50 90.00 87.50 50.00 100.00 95.00 75.00 75.00 95.00 65.00 82.50 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 82.50 87.50 100.00 70.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 95.00 100.00 82.50 90.53
independent
judiciary

Controversial
27 rulings handed 75.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 90.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 50.00 50.00 90.00 40.00 65.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 65.00 75.00 100.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 65.00 85.91
down by judges

Termination of
controversial
28 investigations by 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 95.15
prosecutors or
policei