-
10 Conclusion: Findings and Significance
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
CONCLUSION: FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE 409 409 10 Conclusion Findings and Significance In the previous chapters, we analysed the relationship between several key variables and the 1999 electoral outcomes. In this chapter, we summarize our findings and their relevance to the 2004 election. 10.1 Religious and Ethnic Loyalties Religious and ethnic loyalties influenced the 1999 electoral outcomes, but they do not emerge as the most important variables in explaining the distribution of votes. The exceptions were for Golkar in Java, and for the PPP and PBB in the Outer Islands, where the “number of Muslims” is the most important explanatory variable. Religious affiliation appears to have played a more important role in determining the votes for the PDI-P, PKB, and PK in the Outer Islands than in Java. There were also varying degrees of ethnic loyalty along regional cleavages. For some parties, ethnicity was a more important factor in Java than in the Outer Islands. In the case of the PPP, PBB and PK, for instance, the number of non-Javanese was strategically more important in Java than in the Outer Islands. In the same vein, for the PDI-P, the number of Javanese was strategically more beneficial in the Outer Islands than in Java. For the PKB, the number of Javanese was more important in Java. Ethnic issues were more important than religious issues for PDI-P and PKB in the Outer Islands; and religion was more appealing than ethnicity for the voters of the PPP and PBB, both in Java and the 410 INDONESIAN ELECTORAL BEHAVIOUR Outer Islands. For Golkar, religion was more important than ethnicity in Java, but ethnicity was more important in the Outer Islands. In the case of PAN, ethnicity did not matter, but religion did. 10.2 Do the Findings Support the Popular Perceptions of the Parties? At the outset, we presented the characteristics of the seven largest parties in the 1999 election. Do the findings support these perceptions? Generally, the findings have supported most of the observations about the parties except that religious loyalty was not as strong as people have assumed. Ethnic loyalty also played a role but again it appears to have been weaker than expected. In many areas, socio-economic variables such as education and migrant status seem to have played more significant roles. This was particularly the case with the level of education. The results of our study show that generally, PDI-P voters had lower educational levels in comparison to the voters for the other six parties, but in Java, the “non-migrant” variable had the greatest impact on the PDI-P vote. In the Outer Islands, however, PDI-P gained most of its support from those who received “low education”. PAN, however, gathered support from the better-educated population regardless of the region. The PK depended mostly on the better educated segments of the Muslim population. What is the contribution of this statistical study to the existing literature, especially the qualitative studies on the Indonesian elections? Isn’t this study stating the obvious? First of all, there are not many statistical studies on Indonesian elections to begin with. This study is not only one of the very few, but also a detailed study based on the latest statistical data. There is no doubt that this study makes a statistical contribution to the study of Indonesian elections. However, the more difficult question to answer is: is it better or worse than the existing qualitative studies on the Indonesian election? It is true that some of the findings of this statistical study are quite well known in the qualitative literature on Indonesian electoral behaviour. For instance, most qualitative studies show that Indonesian political parties, especially during the 1999 election, were still divided into Javanese and non-Javanese parties and that the Muslim vote was [44.197.114.92] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 13:29 GMT) CONCLUSION: FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE 411 divided, and that there was a dichotomy between Java- and Outer Islands-based parties. In the case of the PDI-P and Golkar, for instance, it has been noted elsewhere that although both are Pancasila and nonIslamic parties, post-Soeharto Golkar has become more Islamic. This study has been able to prove this transformation statistically. In terms of the ethnic and religious factors, the statistics here have also been able to provide nuances which are often absent in qualitative studies. For instance, ethnic and religious loyalties are not always the most important variables for the parties in...