Introduction

Political parties’ work is commonly assessed primarily on whether they are developing “policy programs giving voters clear choices in elections” and are “sufficiently disciplined and cohesive in the parliamentary assembly to implement these programs” (Dalton et al. 2011). Based on these criteria, Indonesian parties have performed very poorly. Similarly, as party institutionalization is an integral element to “ensure effective governance” through accountability and stability of interests and broadly targeted programmes, again Indonesian parties are failing (Hicken and Kuhonta 2011, p. 573). While there is a level of agreement among scholars that Indonesia's political parties have made significant progress in building stable roots in society and performing certain functions (Ufen 2010; Mietzner 2013), it is also clear that they remain among the most corrupt institutions in the country. Parties’ role in resource distribution and nomination of public positions has often led to graft cases, and party politicians have dominated as corruption suspects. Parties were seen as one of the factors for Indonesia's democratic stagnation (Mietzner 2012). The parties’ representatives in the state and local parliaments are also known to be highly inefficient in their work ethics and prone to serving and preserving their own interests, rather than aggregating and accommodating public interests (Sherlock 2010).

Despite these problems, parties have indeed changed since 1998. Indonesia and its parties have dramatically advanced as a vibrant democracy. This chapter assesses the progress of parties twenty years after the fall of authoritarianism in Indonesia. Drawing from the works of various scholars, it synthesizes the arguments to highlight the shifts, adjustments, and adaptations that the parties have undertaken. Factors such as legal and institutional changes, as well as global and national trends, have all played a part in the evolution of parties post-Soeharto. The following discussion outlines these various elements and attaches them to major themes: parties as organizations, in elections, and in government.

It is argued in the following sections that, although parties have progressed in the institutionalization process, there are certain vacuums and perversions of their roles. In performing their primary function as the linkage between voters and government, in simplifying the choices in elections, recruiting and training candidates, organizing the work of government, and implementing policies and organizing governmental administration (Dalton et al. 2011, pp. 6–7), parties have been neither active nor efficient.