Indonesia’s “New Order,” the authoritarian military regime led by General Suharto from 1966-1998, originated following the kidnapping and killing of six Army generals on September 30th-October 1, 1965. The conventional narrative often depicts this regime change as a sudden event, but historian Norman Joshua, APARC's 2023-24 Shorenstein postdoctoral fellow on contemporary Asia, challenges this view.  Joshua’s research explains why the civil-military relationships and social militarization that emerged in Indonesia from the period under Dutch colonial rule in the preceding decade allowed the New Order to solidify power in 1965.

In a recent seminar hosted by APARC’s Southeast Asia Program, “Militarization Overlooked: Rethinking the Origins of Indonesia’s New Order, 1950-1965,” Joshua shared his insights into the complex phenomenon of militarization within Indonesian society, spanning from the tumultuous post-independence era to the present day. Through a historian's lens, he traces the origins of militarization and its far-reaching impacts on political, social, and cultural dynamics in Indonesia.

An Environment Conducive to Militarization

At the heart of this narrative lies the period following Indonesia's revolutionary struggle and independence from Dutch colonial rule. Scholars have portrayed the 1950s favorably as a time when Indonesia embarked on an experiment with liberal and constitutional democracy. Joshua, however, argues that, instead of heralding an era of stability and democratic governance, “the post-revolutionary landscape was fraught with underdevelopment, persistent conflict, and political instability.” This environment provided fertile ground for the gradual militarization of Indonesian society, as the military sought to quell armed groups and revolutionary violence.

"In essence, my current project is an endeavor to write a social and cultural history of Indonesian authoritarianism," Joshua explains. He frames this process as militarization, wherein civil society organizes itself for the production of violence.

Joshua's scholarly curiosity about Indonesian authoritarianism stems from his deep-seated interest in the country's post-revolutionary period. He is particularly drawn to the oft-overlooked years of the 1950s and 1960s, which he deems pivotal in comprehending Indonesia's authoritarian trajectory. He was also drawn to the topic by a family member’s involvement in the revolutionary and Communist movements, leading to their exile from Indonesia after the 1965 massacres, “which sparked my interest in studying ‘those who were on the wrong side of history,' so to speak.”

Joshua sheds light on the role of armed revolutionary factions like the Gerombolan, whose lingering presence posed a challenge to the nascent Indonesian government's efforts to establish control and maintain order, even bearing responsibility for the murder of Yale professor Raymond Kennedy and Time-Life reporter Robert Doyle.

"Militarization produced a militarized society that was regimented and conditioned towards the use of violence," Joshua asserts. His analysis reveals how militarization permeated various facets of Indonesian society, from the adoption of military symbolism to the normalization of violence in everyday life.

An Enduring Legacy of Militarization

Joshua cites the continuing role of the military and police in post-1998 Indonesian society. The Army—and the Police, which is in many ways a constabulary force—have retained their territorial organization, and former and active-duty military and police often participate in non-security affairs. He also highlights the important role of security forces in facing domestic challenges such as the ongoing insurgency in Papua.

Joshua considers militarization from a cultural standpoint, including the fetishization of uniforms, marches, and militia-like organizations. Militarization, he notes, is often manifested in slogans, songs, ceremonies, and indoctrination programs. For example, the slogan "Ganyang Malaysia," originating from Sukarno's call to "crush" Malaysia, became emblematic of Indonesian nationalism and militarism.

Challenges for Democracy

Despite the downfall of the New Order regime, Joshua underscores the implications of the enduring legacy of militarization in contemporary Indonesia. Just two months ago, Indonesian voters elected Prabowo Subianto, a former special forces commander with a controversial history, as their next president. Expressing apprehensions about the potential for further militarization, Joshua points to the ascendancy of leaders like Prabowo. "Militarization under Prabowo would be evident in two ways," he cautions, citing increased military budgets and an expanded role for the military in non-security affairs. “While we have yet to hear about the shape of Prabowo’s cabinet, I believe that we will see an increasing role for the military and police—whether active-duty or retired—in non-military affairs,” he said.

“This trend started during the Jokowi administration and will continue under Prabowo, and has invited concerns from civil rights organizations and human rights groups. Ultimately, I think Prabowo’s election is a test for Indonesia’s democratic values and how resilient the civil society is.”

Assessing the health of Indonesian democracy, Joshua notes fluctuations that warrant concern. "Indonesian democracy is still working well, especially compared to neighboring countries," he observes. “I think the election of Prabowo shows the robustness of Indonesian democratic procedures, as the 2024 Presidential Election was conducted peacefully and with relatively minor complaints of voting fraud or irregularities.” However, he highlights potential challenges ahead. “It appears that Indonesian democracy will face a great challenge in the next four years, and we will see if the guardrails of democratic procedure will hold or not.”

An Interdisciplinary Scholar Community

As a Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow, Joshua connected with APARC scholars to further his research. “I work mostly with Southeast Asia Program Director Don Emmerson and am glad to be connected with APARC faculty Stephen Kotkin, who I found as an inspiration for my work,” he notes. Engaging with Lee Kong Chian Fellow on Southeast Asia Soksamphoas Im, who works on authoritarian politics in Cambodia, with fellow scholar Yuya Ouchi, and Visiting Scholar Gita Wirjawan, who is an expert practitioner of Indonesian politics, has also been an enriching experience, Joshua says. conversations with .”

Delving into the Hoover Institution archives, Joshua examined the papers of Guy Pauker, an Indonesianist and “Cold Warrior” in the 1960s, and his engagement with Indonesian poet, writer, and scholar Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, who was a fellow at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

“I am grateful to have spent my postdoctoral fellowship at APARC, as it allows me to spend more time working on my dissertation toward transforming it into a monograph,” said Joshua.

“The interdisciplinary nature of APARC is particularly helpful for a young scholar like me and helped the process of refining my arguments, especially in terms of engaging with people outside of my field and academic discipline."

After his time at APARC, Joshua will serve as the Hoover History Lab’s Research and Teaching Fellow at the Hoover Institution under Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Kotkin.

Joshua’s research provides a comprehensive exploration of the nature of civil-military relations within Indonesian society. By tracing its historical roots and examining its contemporary manifestations, he provides valuable insights into how militarization has shaped Indonesia's political, social, and cultural milieu.

His analysis of the militarizing process offers scholars insights into an understudied period in Indonesian history and helps us better understand the origins of authoritarian military regimes worldwide. As Indonesia continues to navigate its path forward, grappling with the legacies of its militarized past will undoubtedly remain a complex and pressing challenge.

“I believe that history serves as more than just a chronicle of the past,” Joshua reflects. “It serves as a vital lens through which we can comprehend and contextualize the events that are still unfolding in our contemporary world.”
 

The April 10 parliamentary elections in South Korea resulted in a landslide victory for the liberal opposition, dealing a resounding setback to President Yoon Suk Yeol and his ruling conservative People Power Party. While the liberal Democratic Party fell short of achieving a super majority, the outcome reflects pervasive public discontent with Yoon's administration amid economic challenges and political controversies, placing Yoon in a difficult position for the remainder of his three-year term.

“In a sense, this was a rematch between President Yoon and Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung, whom Yoon defeated in the 2022 presidential race by a razor-thin margin, and Lee won in a big way,” explains Stanford sociologist and APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin. “Now the Democratic Party really became Lee’s party.”

Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and the director of the Korea Program at APARC, joined the Korea Society for a livestreamed election analysis session. Watch it here:

The election outcomes reflect the increased political division and polarization gripping South Korea, which is poised to be a major issue for Korean politics in the coming years, Shin notes. Shin has written extensively about the roles of illiberalism, populism, and polarization in the decline of Korean democracy and their implications for Korean society and politics.

“I have said before that Korea is facing a crisis in democracy. Now I can say that Korea is also facing a crisis in political leadership,” he tells Korea Society Policy Program Officer Chelsie Alexandre.

In this session, Shin explores in detail what the election results mean for Korea’s political, economic, and social policy, its alliance with the United States, and its relations with regional states.

Shin has also contributed to election analysis in national and international media.

Reboot of Adversarial Politics

South Korean voters’ verdict on the Yoon government’s performance reflects deep disappointment and even resentment about some of his policies and leadership styles, Shin shares with Bloomberg News. As the opposition holds a large majority in the National Assembly, Yoon appears destined to complete his remaining three years in office as a lame duck, unable to push for any major policy initiatives, domestic or foreign. We should expect a reboot of adversarial politics in South Korea as the opposition looks to obstruct Yoon’s legislative agenda, Shin predicts. 

Voter turnout for the parliamentary elections reached 67 percent, marking the highest turnout for general elections in 32 years. Liberals expressed discontent with the government by sending a strong message through voting, while the ruling conservative party tried to mobilize its supporters to minimize losses. Ultimately "there were no major policy debates between the ruling and main opposition parties," says Shin in an interview with Singaporean public broadcast service CNA.

Shin anticipates the Democratic Party will likely contest Yoon's stance toward Tokyo and Washington. Speaking with French international news agency AFP, Shin explains the potential return of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who held high-profile but unsuccessful summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his presidency, could add to the tension. If Trump were to reengage with North Korea, then the Yoon government would have to decide whether to shift from its hardline policies against the North or risk friction between Washington and Seoul, Shin says.

The election outcomes could also hinder the Yoon government’s momentum for improving ties with Japan, especially since Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, too, is facing low domestic approval ratings, Shin tells The Korea Herald. "It is unfortunate for the Korea-Japan relationship that both leaders are politically struggling."

Despite facing legal issues, controversial opposition leader Lee Jae-myung remains a leading contender for the presidency when Yoon's term ends in 2027, echoing the situation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, he tells AFP.

Gender and Generational Gaps

The parliamentary election has also brought to relief the tremendous underrepresentation of women and young people in Korean politics. Only 20% of parliamentary seats are held by women, and over 85% of elected members are over the age of 50. The older establishment and the conservative People Power Party have failed to connect with South Korea's young people, Shin says. While the country is a global cultural force and excelling in semiconductor exports, South Korea’s younger people are facing intense competition in education, limited job prospects, and soaring housing prices. “The lack of understanding of the challenges the youth face is contributing to the country's rising generational conflict,” Shin explains via AFP.

Click the link for the transcript of “The Widening Cracks in Iran’s Regime.”
 

Unrest at Home

The March elections were the first held since the 2022 protests in response to the suspicious death of Mahsa Amini following her arrest for not wearing a hijab. The incident catalyzed the Iranian public into a movement calling for the support of “Women, Life, and Freedom,” and sparked the largest and most wide-spread public demonstrations since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In response, the regime claims more than 80,000 protestors were arrested, and reports claim executions reached record levels.

Even with this repression, people continue to push back, says Milani.

“There are people [in Iran] who are doing what Navalny was doing in Russia on a much smaller scale, and in a much more timid way, exposing the corruption of this regime and these sites within Iran. These defiant people who keep going to prison but don't stop exposing the deep corruption of the leaders of the Iranian regime and their multi-multibillion dollar heist of property.”

Some, like Iranian women’s rights activist Bahareh Hedayati, are even so bold as to openly advocate for a regime change. Even among hard-line supporters of the regime, Milani says there is growing recognition that business cannot continue as usual. 

“In a lead editorial in the newspaper Jomhouri-e Eslami, which Khamenei himself founded, it was said that these elections were a major defeat, and unless that message was heeded, the regime is going to lose,” Milani told McFaul.
 

Trouble in the Neighborhood

The elections also came on the heels of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, and the ensuing war in Gaza. While the Khamenei government initially tried to use the attacks to its advantage, Iran’s poor economy and its adamant opposition to a two-state solution has left it at odds with both the Iranian and Palestinian publics.

“Iran isn’t really standing up with Palestinians. If Iran was standing up with them in Gaza, the regime would have suggested what the majority of the Palestinians want, which is a two-state solution,” reasons Milani. 

There is a lingering question of why the U.S., and the democratic world in general, aren’t doing more to support democracy in Iran. Dr. Milani asserts that roots of the caution is two-fold: one part stemming from a perception among U.S. progressives that criticizing the Iranian regime could be viewed as Islamophobic, and the other from uncertainty over the status of Iran’s nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. 

The latter is a threat which needs to be taken seriously, says Milani.

“If you read what the Iranian officials have been saying, I think anyone has to be not paying attention if they’ve not concluded that Iran is clearly, unmistakably, threatening to go nuclear with weapons,” he cautions.
 

An Uncertain Road Ahead

There are no easy diplomatic solutions, given the breakdown of the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and Russia’s destabilization of nuclear policy norms and saber-rattling over the war in Ukraine. Russia, a strategic partner of Iran, is unlikely to be helpful in cooling such tensions, says Milani. But China might.

“I think China can make the regime understand,” says Milani. “Russia can work with the regime in espionage. Russia can help them in threatening dissidents. But Russia can’t have the kind of economic muscle that the regime needs to get out of this pipeline. That will only be China.”

While uncertainties about the future remain both within Iran and in regards to the consequences of its geopolitical influence, Milani is certain the tide is turning:

“These events and this election are as clear an indication as I've ever seen that the great majority of the people of Iran don't want this regime. They might not be clear on how they want to get rid of it and who they want to bring in, but clearly this has been a historic defeat.”