| This research concerns the massive and protracted series of protest events that took place in Indonesia in 1997 and 1998. Triggered by a deep economic crisis, these protest events transformed Indonesia into the third largest democratic country in the world. The purposes of the research are as follows. First, to correct elite theories in the literature of transition by underlining the role of non-elite actors (the masses, protest events). Second, to elaborate the strengths and weaknesses of three standard theories of mass protest/social movements (deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, and political opportunity theory) by analyzing the case of protest events in Indonesia. And third, to highlight the positive and negative political consequences of protest events on democracy in divided societies, examining both the supporters advocating the issues of political reform, and the opponents involved in the religious and ethnic conflict and hatred.;The research examines three kinds of data dealing with protest events. First are the national data (twenty seven provinces), which provide general information about the evolution, the issues, the actors, and the forms of action. The second type of data details protest events as the center of the movement in five of the provincial cities with the highest number of protest events (Jakarta, Bandung, Jogjakarta, Semarang and Surabaya). Finally, the comparison and contrast data gathered from the eight provinces outside of Java which had the largest and fewest number of protest events, will be used to test the theories. The sources of data are mainly from national and local newspapers (Kompas, Media Indonesia, Pikiran Rakyat, Jawa Pos, Kedaulatan Rakyat and Suara Merdeka).;The major findings that against O'Donnell and Schmitter's (1986) theory, the transition from authoritarian rule in Indonesia is not initiated by the division within the elite (hardliners versus soft liners). In Indonesia, the elite did not initiate the reform; they only the responded later. The masses, the non-elite actors, initiated the reform. Statistical tables describe the rise and the evolution of those protest events. Economic crisis (deprivation theory) is "necessary but not sufficient" to explain them. The availability of resources and the role of political entrepreneurs (resource mobilization theory) also played a critical role in mobilizing the protest events. The support of influential elites and the negative policies of the incumbent government at the time of the crisis (political opportunity structure theory) contributed to the magnitude and the power of those protest events. However, protest events not only accelerated political reform, they also spread hatred and bloody societal conflict based on religion, race and ethnicity. |
