Thammasat University students interested in political science, history, ASEAN studies, Indonesia, international law, sociology, diplomacy, and related subjects may find it useful to participate in a free 16 May Zoom webinar on Stalled Reforms? Institutional, Legal, and Political Changes in Indonesia After 25 Years.
The event, on Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 1:30pm Bangkok time, is presented by ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore and the Institute of Public Policy at the Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia (UAJ).
The TU Library collection includes several books about different aspects of political life in Indonesia.
Students are invited to register at this link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Sn-DrsXlQhuG3R4uvg7aLQ#/registration
The event announcement states:
ISEAS – UAJ JOINT HYBRID SEMINAR
About the Hybrid Seminar
Twenty-five years ago, on 21 May 1998, Indonesians witnessed the fall of the authoritarian Suharto regime. That strife was the beginning of the Reformasi era and has opened doors for significant reforms in many aspects of the nation’s development, including politics and civil liberties, separation of the army and the police, as well as decentralisation. Since then, Indonesia has had five administrations with different sets of policy directions and political leadership.
To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Reformasi era, this seminar will delve into the current state of Indonesian government institutions, the legal system, and social movements. In a roundtable discussion, the speakers will examine Indonesia’s successes and failures in creating good governance, strengthening law enforcement, and fostering societal transformations over the past quarter-century. It will also explore the direction of Indonesia’s future movement, particularly in light of the upcoming leadership succession for the new administration in 2024.
About the Speakers
Dr Yanuar Nugroho is a Visiting Senior Fellow at ISEAS and a Lecturer at Driyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta. […]
Dr Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law Atma Jaya Catholic University and the Executive director of Atma Jaya Institute of Public Policy (AJIPP). […]
Dr Muhammad Fajar is Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Research at Atma Jaya Catholic University (IFAR-UAJ).
The TU Library collection contains research published by Dr Nugroho.
Last month, Dr Nugroho posted an article online about Policy Lessons from the Cancellation of Indonesia’s Host Rights for the FIFA U-20 World Cup:
On 29 March 2023, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) cancelled Indonesia’s host rights for the Under-20 (U-20) World Cup “due to the current circumstances” following the debate in Indonesia over the Israeli youth team’s expected participation. While FIFA did not specifically refer to the debate for its decision, its official statement mentioned the October 2022 Kanjuruhan stadium tragedy as one reason.
Indonesia now faces potential additional sanctions by FIFA but the cancellation has cost the country millions of dollars in preparatory work. The government had already spent approximately 675 billion rupiah (about US$45.2 million) on organising, training, and renovation costs. This cost-sharing was also borne by a programme called FIFA Forward 3.0 for as much as US$5.6 million (or 83.6 billion rupiah). This latter amount would have gone to a permanent training facility for Indonesia’s national team in the proposed Nusantara, Indonesia’s new capital city (IKN) but FIFA has frozen this money indefinitely.
The cancellation also shattered the dreams of Indonesia’s youth soccer team, which was looking forward to its first-ever U-20 World Cup and left millions of Indonesian football fans bitter and angry.
How did this happen?
Indonesia was appointed host after winning the bid against Brazil and Peru at end-2019. President Joko Widodo had issued Presidential Decree (Kepres) No. 19 of 2020 to set up the Indonesia FIFA U-20 World Cup Organising Committee (INAFOC) and Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 8 of 2020 to guarantee the mobilisation of support for the event, including ensuring the commitment of the central and six provincial governments expected to host the competition. […]
Almost a month has passed since FIFA’s decision to cancel Indonesia’s host rights. In hindsight, this episode raises an alarm in terms of Indonesia’s policy coordination and implementation.
First, Indonesia does not have any diplomatic relations with Israel, like many other majority-Muslim countries, as a consequence of the Indonesian Constitution’s mandate. In the existing regulatory framework, the two governors had cited Foreign Ministerial Regulation No. 3 of 2019 when rejecting the presence of the Israeli players, although the Foreign Ministry (Kemlu) has said that the regulation should not be used in this way. Here, it seems that there has been little or no coordination across ministries and the relevant departments to identify all the consequences of this policy or to ensure consistency in its implementation.
Indonesia has had a difficult history over the issue of Israeli athletes in sports. In 1958, Indonesia, Turkey, and Sudan dropped out of the World Cup qualifiers to avoid playing against Israel. During the 1962 Asian Games, the Indonesian government refused to issue visas to Israeli participants. In 2006, Indonesia pulled out of an international tennis tournament because it was held in Tel Aviv. But in recent years, a few instances of Israeli players competing in Indonesia in badminton (2015, at the World Championships in Jakarta); rock climbing (2022, in Jakarta); and cycling (February 2023, at the UCI Track Nations Cup) have passed without controversy.
More consistency in the implementation of policy where Israel is concerned will be key in the future when Indonesia hosts any international event, in sports or other activities. Otherwise, the politicisation of such events is a risk that international organisers may be loath to run. As it is, it is now unclear if the World Beach Games, scheduled to be held in Bali from 5-12 August 2023 and when Israel is expected to participate, will take place.
In hindsight, this episode raises an alarm in terms of Indonesia’s policy coordination and implementation.
Second, this incident showed a problematic relationship between the central and provincial governments where the two governors objecting to the Israeli team failed to see the national cause. While decentralisation since 1999 gave a mandate to subnational governments in many policy areas, foreign policy remains the sole prerogative of the central government. By going against the 2020 Kepres and Inpres, Wayan Koster and Ganjar Pranowo not only went against their initial commitment to support the U-20 Cup but more seriously can be considered as directly violating the president’s position. However, the governors have not faced any governmental consequences for their statements.
Third, the domestic debate shows weak management of the communication of policies and coordinating domestic responses on foreign policy issues. It was not enough for President Widodo to just say, “Do not mix sports with politics!”. As the issue escalated nation-wide, the president should have taken the lead in communicating what its implications and consequences were for Indonesia, and what he would do. After FIFA’s decision, everyone denied responsibility.
There is no apparent orchestration to manage the fallout even in the government’s post-cancellation communications. While the Minister for Tourism said that the cancellation negatively impacted tourism and the creative economy sectors, and the Ministry for Cooperatives and MSMEs tried to address the estimated total loss of 3.7 trillion rupiah (US$248 million), Kemlu sang a different tune: that if the U-20 Cup took place as planned, this would jeopardise Indonesia’s global reputation.
Indonesia’s policymaking processes may be driven by good intentions but their implementation is seriously fragmented. As the U-20 World Cup cancellation shows, ensuring delivery and sound policy coordination, and identifying and anticipating the unintended consequences of certain policies, remain a challenge.
(All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)