The return of Aliran to the lexicon of Indonesian politics

• Main Author: Sebastian, Leonard C.
• Other Authors: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: 2024
• Subjects: Social Sciences; Aliran; Indonesian politics
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/179069
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: To best appreciate Diego Fossati’s book "Unity through Division: Political Islam, Representation and Democracy in Indonesia" from the angle of political developments in Indonesia, I would recommend that it be read in tandem with his article “The Resurgence of Ideology in Indonesia: Political Islam, Aliran, and Political Behaviour.” Fossati does not use the word aliran (streams of political thought) in the book. Instead, he uses terms like “ideological division” and “partisan polarization” (p. 4) to refer to the same phenomenon of division between “pluralist” (both nationalist and traditionalist/Nahdlatul Ulama–affiliated Muslims) and “Islamist” (modernist and newer movements like Salafi, Partai Keadilan Sejahtera, and so forth). My view is that Unity through Division was written with a different audience in mind than this article, namely, general political science researchers who are less familiar with developments in Indonesia or who are focused on political developments more broadly. It is really the skillful application of quantitative methods to the study of identity politics and polarization that the author seems to want to emphasize in this book. Additionally, he is writing primarily to demonstrate political polarization as a mechanism or factor leading to democratic regression. The book seems targeted to an audience of North American–trained political scientists specializing in the study of democratization and democratic regression, largely through the use of quantitative methods. This is understandable. In the aftermath of the Trump presidential election and Brexit referendum in 2016, there has been a fascination within American-trained social science academia to address the big political science questions like the rise of populist leaders or sources of identity politics with quantitative methods—a research tool much in vogue. I appreciated and learned from Fossati’s skilled employment of quantitative methods and provision of comprehensive surveys that delve into the complexities of societal polarization, particularly as they concern political Islam. Surveys, together with graphs and charts, were used effectively to illustrate divisions within Indonesian society. However, this quantitative approach does have inherent shortcomings. For example, what are the historical origins of polarization in Indonesia? The more eclectic audience that reads the Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, for example, may find that Unity through Division does not provide an answer to this question. For researchers who subscribe to the classical school for the study of Indonesia, some degree of caveat emptor applies.