| Indonesia and Pakistan have had varied experiences in the institutionalization of their political processes. The relative success of political institutionalization in Indonesia is attributable in part to the acceptance of the political role of the military which, though repressive, has established and nurtured corporatist institutions which channel participation. Membership in such organizations is not mandatory but it brings benefits of access to centers of decision-making. In addition the military has established a political party called Golkar which has been vested with state power. Other political parties have been amalgamated into two other legally permitted parties. This wholesale political restructuring has occurred in the context of very skillfully manipulated symbols and ideas called Pancasila which draws from Indonesian history. Pancasila is not very popular but it has come to define the context in which political discourse takes place.;The military in Pakistan, on the other hand, has not been as successful. It has been schooled in the western liberal tradition which emphasizes subordinance of the military to civil authority. It has, therefore, not been as ambitious and repressive as its Indonesian counterpart. But this may be the problem of Pakistan. Lacking a clear mandate the army there has not accorded any priority to the long term need for organizing political participation. Neither the military nor the politicians have operated according to their own professed rules. Because of the ambiguities in the military's own designs liberal democracy remains an option. But the viability of this option is suspect because the forces which militated against democracy are still present and strong. Hence Pakistan gropes for a political format with which it can live. |
