Middle Class and Socio-Political Dynamics in Indonesia

Middle class is a phenomenon both in developed and developing countries. The influence of this social entity is not only economical as consumer of any products, but also social and political. Even though it is relatively small in number, middle class cannot be neglected as socio-political driver in many countries, including in Indonesia as a democratizing country. In the case of Indonesia, I argue that middle class has vital role during reform process in 1998 and still has significant role in socio-political dynamics after regime changes.


By definition, middle class is the layer of people who socially situated intermediate between higher and lower class who has average condition of income, education, status and taste (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2006). More economical, The Economist (2009, cited in Abjorensen 2010) made a definition of middle class as “having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand to mouth as the poor do, and defined it as beginner at the point where people have roughly a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter”.

Because they has been fulfilled their basic need, middle class could be more independently thinking about politics and other social issues. Moreover, many Marxist theorists viewed middle class as key agent of historical change and tend to support political changes, or shaping an intermediate area as opponent of the state (Rueschemeyer et. al. 1992 cited in Hattori, 2003, p.131). Furthermore, Hara (1999 cited in Hattori 2003, p.131) argued that middle class “having attained economic homogeneity, begin to be united by similar political aspirations, and establish themselves as the agent of a collective political action”.

These characteristics above also identical with Indonesian middle class, that genealogically as the product of modernization and economic growth that Hattori et. al. (2003) stated similar with what happened in many Asian countries. These urban people rise from lower class and in many cases become spearhead of democratization movement. Moreover, Shiraishi (2003) argued that middle class in Indonesia is the product of financial globalization and regionalization of production during the New Order era.

During New Order regime, in 1995 those who classified as middle class profession constituted 8.6% of total working population or about 7.4 million people. This class was growing rapidly, that in the capital city itself in 1980 there are about 400,000 or 20.7% middle class people and growing to become 810,000 or 25% in 1995. In addition, Shiraishi (2003) stated that characteristic of Indonesian middle class during Soeharto era is ethnically divided between Pribumi (indegeneous Indonesian) and Non-Pribumi, while in the same time more dispersed in religion background than before.

Mietzner (2010) argued that Soeharto’s authoritarian regime as the core of New Order regime came to power and had survived because three factors. Firstly, support from the United States as anti-communist ally in the Cold War, secondly, support from Indonesian military as Soeharto background, and thirdly, better economic condition because of oil boom from 1973 until 1983. In this power building process, almost all of government institutional body was under Soeharto’s control that, unfortunately, boost New Order regime became a corrupt and rent seeker.

The declining of the New Order regime, explained by Mietzner (2010), start from unfavourable economic situation when Indonesia was seriously affected by Asian financial crisis in the middle of 1997. Indonesia’s economy was deteriorated significantly, as currency free fall when foreign debt ratio was 147 percent of GDP, capital outflow and the collapse of banking system that make Soeharto had to call the IMF for rescuing scheme. However, IMF forced the government to decline fuel subsidies in May 1998 that badly affected many poor people. The result very deteriorated for security when protest turned to violent in Medan, than spread quickly to Jakarta and Solo. Bad economic situation boost political situation to become out of control and caused the fall of Soeharto from its power.

Middle class has important involvement in Indonesian transition in 1998. They held online political discussion about democracy to avoid censorship. The influx of non-government organization (NGO) before 1998 formed by middle class indicates the early stage development of democratization process. These civil society organization that acting as political pressure-groups that operated in anti-corruption (Transparency International Indonesia), human right (Kontras), consumer protection (YLKI), and also environment protection (WALHI). They was introducing terms such as democracy, civil society, good government, transparency and accountability. They influenced the public political consciousness through many media that finally could generate reform movement in 1998.

The result of reform movement for Indonesian political scene changes was very dramatic, such as indicated by the existence of multiparty system, free press, direct president election and also decentralization of government. The other result is revitalization of other institutions for instance House of Representatives, Supreme Audit Board, Supreme Court, the Central Bank that previously controlled by Soeharto. To correct the failure in the past, along with amendment constitution also formed new institutions such as Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and Constitutional Court as success story of Indonesian reform.

However, in the post-Soeharto era middle class still has vital role in Indonesian socio-political scene. In less than three months, more than one million online social network (facebook) members support online petition for the release of two KPK leader from prosecution, that viewed by the public as victim of criminalization by the National Police and the Attorney General Office (Loubke, 2010, p.172-176). Politically and socially there are three development caused by this social movement, that are the release of Bibit – Chandra under the public pressure, the more importance of public opinion in Indonesia, and forming process of middle class entity through online social networking.

In addition, almost one million facebook members also support online petition for the release of Prita Mulyasari from the trial because of unjust judicial system in post-Soeharto era. Many political elite figures met Prita to give support, as the case emerged near to the general election. The movement of “coin donation for Prita” to pay the fine imposed to Prita Mulyasari as sarcasm critics was forming social solidarity of middle class to help the unlucky against unjust of judicial system.

In summary, these evidences above seem to indicate that middle class in Indonesia is in the growing and mature process. The influence of middle class to the socio-political change is up and down relying on the political and economic situation. Many cases proofed that middle class have their own mechanism to influence ongoing political process such as by setting the agenda, as pressure groups or boost public opinion toward better and more accountable governance.

References:

Abjorensen, Norman 2010, ‘Ellite, middle class and globalization’, Slide presentation on Comparative Government and Politics class, 14 September 2010, Australian National University, Canberra.

Hattori, Tamio, Funatsu Tsuruyo, and Torii Takashi, 2003, ‘Introduction: the emergence of the Asian middle class and their characteristics’, The Developing Economies, Vol. XLI-2.

Loubke, Christian Von, 2010, ‘The politics of reform: political scandals, elite resistance, and presidential leadership in Indonesia’, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, USA.

Mietzner, Marcus 2010, ‘Globalization and public policy in Indonesia’, Slide presentation on Comparative Government and Politics class, 10 August 2010, Australian National University, Canberra.

Shiraishi, Takashi 2003, ‘The rise of new urban middle classes in Southeast Asia: what is its national and regional significance?’, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 04-E-011.

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2006, Random House Inc.

Picture from: hanif-boedoet.blogspot.com