| This study is a discursive, contemporary historical, and structural/post-structural analysis of the rise and development of the New Order regime in Indonesia. The research focuses on its formation and crises. This study traces the Indonesia's legacy of colonial and post-colonial dilemmas.;The emergence of the New Order was both a response to the crises of the mid-sixties, and part of a discursive formation; a product of global capitalistic hegemony in Third World countries. The New Order of Suharto is an anti-communist, pro-Western capitalist regime. Through its economic development plans and policies, the New Order promotes economic growth and transnational capital accumulation. The state's role supports and advocates the interests of the local (national) and metropolitan bourgeoisie. The incorporation of the Indonesian economy into the global capitalist system is channeled by the IMF, World Bank, Transnational Corporations, and other international institutions. Consequently, the success of the New Order is also the success of the global capitalist projects.;The New Order regime attempts to "free" the Indonesian people from political and ideological factionalism. Under Pancasila state ideology, the concept of the "floating-mass," and other democratic symbolism, the people are lured into becoming depoliticized. While the aim is acceptance and passivity, the reality is that resistance is real, if largely covert. However, the dominant power of the ruling class is never fully established but is contested from below.;Thus far, the success of the New Order in maintaining a relatively stable power and in preventing overt class conflicts and struggles is apparent. This success is due to its institutional arrangements, namely, organic state corporatism through which the interests of the state and the bourgeois middle class group are channeled down to the local (village) level. A complex vertical affiliations, including patron-client relations, and exclusive loyalty to the state ideology (Pancasila) are used as avenues for individual loyalty and group self-interests. The rationalized intent of this regime is to control "pluralism" in the interests of national development, but the effective use of the system is directed more to these personal and ultimately fragmenting self-interests. |
