安保条约与东协安全机制对台湾安全之比较

台灣國際研究季刊第3卷第1期頁99-1212007年/春季號TaiwanInternationalStudiesQuarterly,Vol.3,No.1,pp.99-121,Spring2007DoesaCountry’sPoliticsReflecttheDesignofItsCulture?:TheCaseofIndonesiaMei-HsienLee∗AssociateProfessor,GraduateInstituteofSoutheastAsianStudiesNationalChi-NanUniversity,Puli,TaiwanAbstractItiscommonlybelievedthatacountry’spoliticsshallreflectthedesignofitsculture.However,sufficientsupportforthisstatementhasnotbeenfound.ThisstudyemploysthedevelopmentofpoliticalpartysystemofIndonesiatoexaminehowtruethestatementis.Sincetheindependence,Indonesia’spartysystemhastransformedfromthemultipartysystemtotheone-partysystemandthenagainbacktothemultipartysystem.Byconductingahistorical-comparativestudy,itisfoundthatinIndonesia,thetransformationoftheformofthepartysystemhasnothingtodowithherpoliticalculture.Infact,politicalculturewasmorelikeaconvenientmeanmanipulatedbytherulerstosecuretheirpoliticalpositionortorealizetheirpoliticalambition.Keywords:Indonesia,politicalculture,politicalinstitution,partysystem∗[e-mail]《台灣國際研究季刊》第3卷、第1期（2007/春季號）100IntroductionCliffordGeertz(1972:319)asksaninterestingquestion:Oneofthethingsthateveryoneknowsbutnoonecanquitethinkhowtodemonstrateisthatacountry’spoliticsreflectthedesignofitsculture.Ononelevel,thepropositionisindubitable—whereelsecouldFrenchpoliticsexistbutFrance?Yet,merelytostateitistoraisedoubts.Since1945,Indonesiahasseenrevolution,parliamentarydemocracy,civilwar,presidentialautocracy,massmurder,andmilitaryrule.Whereisthedesignonthat?AttheendofIndonesia’smilitaryrulein1998,amultipartysystemofparliamentarydemocracywasreestablished.HowwereIndonesia’sdifferentformsofgovernment(between1945and1998)areflectionofthe“design”ormakeupofits“politicalculture”?1Haspoliticalculturechangedradicallyatdifferenttimestoaccommodatethosehistoricallydifferentchangesinitsgovernment?Toanswerthatquestion,thisstudywillexplorehow“politicalculture”hasbeenmanipulatedbyIndonesianpoliticalelitestosupport“de-politicizationpolitics”inthepast50years.Thisstudywillfurtherdiscussifthere-adoptionofamultipartysystemattheendofthe1990swasaresultofasuddentransformationinpoliticalcultureornot.1Intherealworld,cultureisthecombinationofvalues,beliefs,andcustoms.AccordingtoF.G.Bailey,valuescorrespondwith“howtheworldshouldbe,”beliefswith“howtheworldis,”customswith“howoneconductsoneselfundertheguidanceofaparticularsetofvaluesandbeliefs”(Liddle,1996:143,173).Politicalcultureinthisstudyreferstothecultureofvalues,customs,andbeliefsthatpeopleholdwhiledealingwiththepoliticalsystem.Thisdefinitionisambiguousperse.However,itisinlinewiththeconceptofpoliticalcultureproposedbypoliticalscientists,forexamples,PyeandVerba(1965:3-7);Rosenbaum(1975:3-5).Inaddition,Rosenbaum(1975:4)proposesthatpoliticalculturecanbedividedintocollectiveandindividualentities.Inthisstudy,politicalculturereferstocollectivepoliticalcultureonly.DoesaCountry’sPoliticsReflecttheDesignofItsCulture?:TheCaseofIndonesia101Atthedawnofitsindependencein1947,Indonesiaadoptedamultipartysystemofparliamentarydemocracy.Duringthisperiod,inter-partycompetitionappearedidealinpromotingthedemocraticprocess.SomeIndonesianscholarshonorthatperiodas“themostdemocraticeraofIndonesia.”However,highturnoverinthecabinetcreatedpoliticalinstability.Arguingthatthisinstabilityleadtochaosinthegovernment,SukarnoattemptedtopersuadeIndonesiansthatamultipartysystemwasa“westernimport”andthereforenotcompatiblewithIndonesia’spoliticalculture.AccordingtoSukarno,Indonesianpoliticalcultureemphasizedconsensus,consultation,andmutualhelp.Amultipartysystem,however,emphasizedcompetitionandconflict.Sukarnoattemptedtomaketheincompatibilitybetweenthosetwosystemsappearobvioustothepublic.SukarnoannouncedthatIndonesia’sliberaldemocraticsystemhad“failed”andthatIndonesiashouldabandonallpoliticalparties.2DuringSuharto’sNewOrderregime,themultipartysystem(asinSukarno’sgovernment)waseliminated.Suhartogroupedtheexisting9politicalpartiesinto3parties,andnonewpartywasallowedtoform,thusseverelycurtailingpartycompetition.However,whenSuhartowasforcedtoresign,Habibie(hisformervice-president)reinstatedamultipartysystemallowingnewpoliticalpartiestoform.Thenumberofnew,highlycompetitivepoliticalpartieshascontinuedtoincreasesincetheelectionof1998.Withinthespanof50years,the“failed”multipartysystemwasabandonedandreadoptedbyIndonesianpoliticalleaders.SukarnoandSuhartoemphasizedIndonesia’s“politicalculture”as2AboutIndonesia’sliberaldemocracyinthe1950s,themostcriticaltextshavebeen:Feith(1962);Benda(1964:449-56);Lev(1966).Usingtheword“failed”todescribethenascentdevelopmentofliberaldemocracymayindicateSukarno’sinadvertentorconsciouscommitmentofoneormoreofthe“unhistoricalsins”mentionedbyBenda(1964).Sukarno’sargumentis“unhistorical”because“failed”perseimpliesthatliberaldemocracywastheonlyalternativethatIndonesiahad,irrespectiveofotherhistoricalchoices.TomatchthetoneofSukarno’smessage,Iuse“failed”inmypaper.ButconsideringBenda’sconcernforaccuracy,Iusequotationmarksaround“failed.”《台灣國際研究季刊》第3卷、第1期（2007/春季號）102culturallyuniqueinordertorationalizetheel