DE LEON, Lourenella 2APL

1. Compare and contrast the political party systems of Laos and Indonesia,
highlighting key differences and similarities.

While non-communist parties in Laos existed in the 1950s, there was no

organizational structure, membership base, or policy platform and they only served as
patronage machines. Meaning, it is a one-party state with the only legitimate and
recognized party in Laos being the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP), which was
modeled after the communist parties of the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Indonesia, on the
other hand, is considered to be well institutionalized compared to other Southeast Asian
countries, and the party system is considered to have an extremely fragmented
multiparty system.

The main features of the LPRP in Laos include: (1) Adhering to democratic
centralism, (2) the LPRP possesses key bodies such as the Politburo and Central
Committee which is the highest decision-making body of the party, as well as the state as
it greatly influences their actions, (3) Party membership is necessary for access to
government positions and is mandatory for officers in the Lao People’s Army, (4)
Collective leadership as a unit and there’s no personalistic tendency for the members in
the group, and (5) The declination of overrepresentation of military forces in the party’s
political decision-making.

In addition to this, there are relative conditions into which officials can access
party leadership, this includes: (1) the reliability of the official to possess the ideological
parallelism to that of LPRP, (2) Must have trained in the Soviet Union or Vietnam, (3) if
not that, the official must have a decade-long party membership, and (4) Good political
connections

The main features of Indonesia’s political party include: (1) High fractionalization
of the party system, (2) Increasing competitiveness of the electoral contest as there’s no
major dominating party in the country, (3) The de facto ban of local and regional parties
incentivized candidates for national campaigning, (4) Candidate-centric, and (5)
Increased electoral localism.
2. Analyze the historical factors that have shaped the political landscapes of Laos and
Indonesia. How have historical events influenced their political institutions and
governance?
Laos possesses a history wherein it started as a monarch, the Kingdom of Lan
Xang, which at present still plays a major role in postcolonial nation-building and
legitimacy. It was also colonized by the French, by being a direct protectorate of the
colony. The creation of Pathet Lao sparked the formation of a provisional government.
However, the tipping point in Laos’ history that contributed to its present political
institution was the 1973 Paris Peace Accords where all foreign troops were withdrawn
from Laos, and ceasefires created a government of national unity. However, The
Communists took power in Laos after anti-communist regimes in South Vietnam and
Cambodia collapsed. Red Prince Souphanouvong became the president of the Lao PDR
and Kaysone Phomvihane became the prime minister of the country, both are the two
highest officials from the LPRP.

This event led to the three-stage transformation of the single-party regime of the
LPRP in Laos. In the first stage, LPRP took complete control of the government and
initiated socialist transformation. They also initiated a socialist transformation of the
country and indoctrinated the Marxist-Leninist ideology. This led to one-tenth of Laotian
people leaving the country and the collectivization of agriculture resulted in food
shortages which also caused the regime to tolerate private property. The second stage
became the benchmark for economic corrections as a market economy and political
institutionalization through a constitution. They came to terms with the realities on the
ground and canceled their centrally planned economy plan. Due to various pullouts of
foreign financial aid and the need to find new sources of external aid, Laos transitioned
from a socialist economy to a market economy. The third stage marks the 1991
Constitution as a passage from revolutionary to consolidated party rule, where the party
prioritized monopoly of power through selective integration and co-optation through
access to private goods, nationalist ideology rather than ideological policies, and
perpetuated performance-based legitimization as well as the creation of new political
institutions like parliament and elections to combine a limited level of elite participation
with political and social control.

In addition, Laos also experienced decentralization issues as it was caused by the

fragmentation of political authority under the constitutional monarchy, pre-LPRP and the
political instability during the civil war perpetuated the weakness of the government
which divided the country into different zones controlled by government forces,
pro-government irregulars, and the Pathet Lao. The regional party leaders' strength and
weak infrastructure linking provinces to the capital allowed provincial governors to make
policy decisions at their discretion. Governors gained political and economic autonomy.
However, due to the lack of centralized control, there were attempts by the party to
consolidate administrative powers through abolishing subdistricts, dissolving
administrative committees and councils, and reasserting policy planning and budgeting
authority–but fiscal decentralization is still extensive.

On the other hand, Indonesia’s tipping point where the need for democratization
was realized is placed into two phases, first in the Guided Democracy of Suharto and the
New Order of Sukarno. After the Dutch accepted Indonesia’s self-proclaimed
independence and a series of short-lived parliamentary governments, Sukarno established
the Guided Democracy and presented himself as a charismatic leader under the
corporatist functional groups and Pancasila. He strengthened communist ties and imposed
erratic economic and foreign policy which led to the collapse of various social, political,
and economic structures in India. After the botched coup attempt that killed military
leaders, Suharto orchestrated a violent attempt against PKI and suspected communists.
This escalated quickly, killing 500,000 people, eliminating PKI as a political force, and
led to Sukarno transferring executive control and presidency to Suharto. Suharto’s New
Order paved the way to the “New Order Pyramid” wherein the military provides regime
security through surveillance and coercion. He then slowly transitioned from military
domination to personalistic authoritarian rule–which is still evident in Indonesia’s present
political landscape as voters lean towards personalistic leaders rather than their parties. In
addition to this, a boom in the production of oil and natural gas enabled the expansion of
administrative reach and capacity. Suharto relied on its revenue to stabilize his regime
and used it for patronage payments. While this patronage system was deemed effective, it
collapsed when the economy also collapsed during the Asian Financial Crisis and severe
drought that led to mass protests which pushed Suharto to step down and transfer
presidential powers to Habibie–entering the era of democratization.

Due to this, four major challenges persist in Indonesia. First, the unintended
consequences of elite settlement into the new democratic system. This means these old
elites have a stake in the democratic process, along with the ancient regime reestablishing
their rule. Second, The anemic quality of law provides opportunities for corruption that
blocks comprehensive reforms and weakens democratic accountability. Third, Indonesia
hasn’t overcome the problems relating to social and economic justice as vertical
inequalities and horizontal regional disparities persist. Fourth, there are shortcomings in
the protection of religious freedoms–contributing to sectarian violence.

Indonesia’s history of fragmentation also contributed to the structure of

decentralization in the federalist state. One major issue is that districts and provinces still
depend on Jakarta for the appropriation of sufficient funds and it is fixed regardless of
which state. Moreover, it has led to legislative problems such as reforms being rarely
swift, encompassing, and thorough due to the consensus process and institutional
obstacles and the fragmented party system often results in diluted initiatives that are
unlikely to solve the country’s many remaining problems.