This article asserts that Indonesia’s current system of government is not conducive to stability and accountability. Over three decades have passed since the fall of Suharto in 1998, in which time democracy has been consolidated through a series of free and fair elections. Legitimacy has been granted via pluralism. The rule of law, however, remains tenuous, often being in effect to permit corruption and ensure that the required infrastructure is in place to service it. The basic precept of democracy is that of accountability and stability; the current system of government is not suited to this end. It is proposed that a model of governance that prioritises the rule of law and strong institutional structures would be more befitting of Indonesia’s ambitions.

The rule of law is fundamental to any system of government. It is the bedrock of democracy that ensures that all exercise of power is conducted within the parameters of the law and that all citizens are treated equally and protected from arbitrary action. Yet, in Indonesia, the rule of law remains weak. The country’s democracy is still undermined by high levels of corruption, by patronage networks and by selective enforcement of the law. Despite the provisions in the Constitution and the existence of several strong institutions such as the Constitutional Court and the Corruption Eradication Commission, there are many instances in which judges and prosecutors are involved in........

© Eurasia Review