INDONESIA DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ISSUES NATIONAL SURVEY – 2008

INDONESIA DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ISSUES

NATIONAL SURVEY – 2008

The authors’ views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government

Alan WallDemocracy International

March 2009

INDONESIA PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS

Methodology

• Last in series of 3 annual surveys • 2000 person random sample • Nationally representative • Margin of Error for national data +/- 2.2%• Additional 500 oversample for provincial data

analysis only • Face to face interviews• Field work implemented 30 May to 12 June 2008


Focus

• In the 2006 - 2008 period survey focus has narrowed a little • Many common questions in all three years• For 2008, the following subject areas were covered

Support for democracy Justice system

Parliament Rule of law

Institutions of governance Law enforcement agencies

Pluralism/religious tolerance Gender equity

Local government/decentralization Overseas workers

Corruption

• Breadth rather than depth: not ask why or how come to opinions

• A huge amount of data from the three annual surveys


A Few Key Issues - 1

• Some regression from 2007, but in general more positive than 2006

• Continued but less broad commitment to democracy – more motivated by tangible benefits. Indifference becoming more widespread

• No significant changes in attitudes on pluralism. Cultural tolerance, but religion a more divisive issue

• In all three years more awareness of/ more satisfaction with executives than legislatures. Improvements in satisfaction with most institutions since 2006, but decline from 2007

• Positive views on local government services and accountability. Main local government issue is transparency, as in ‘06 and ‘07


A Few Key Issues - 2

• Increase in % who believe police subject to influence: little change for courts, prosecutors (majority for police and local courts) .

• Continuing widespread trust in media - and police, despite belief that they are subject to influence.

• Increasing incidence of payment for free government services

• Widespread concern about impact of corruption – more so on national than local issues. Unusually strongly expressed feelings on its impact.

• Papua - not as positive as ‘07, but better than ‘06• Aceh – some continued consolidation of ‘06 gains • North Sumatra - relatively negative.


Support for Democracy • No significant change ’07-’08

• Since ‘06 increase in those indifferent

• Relationship of education and SES level to indifference

• Similar decrease in those preferring democracy

• Decrease greatest amongst urban, secondary educated, low SES

• Aceh : 28% prefer democracy (majority in ‘06 & ‘07)

• Papua: 32% prefer democracy

59%

5%

22%

14%

5%

30%

14%

7%

51%48%

31%

13%

Democracy ispreferable

Non-democratic

govt preferablein certainsituations

Form of govt.does not

matter to me

DK/NR

2006 2007 2008


Meanings Attached to Democracy • Tangible benefits more

likely to be chosen

• Low choice of some key principles

• Decrease in choice of some principles

• Human rights, equal gender rights exceptions to this

• Democracy supporters more likely to choose principles, indifferent choose tangibles

• Importance of economic success in building support for democracy

0% 5% 10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

Freedom of media

Equal rights for men and women

Freedom to vote

Respect for human rights

Government listens to citizens

Good education is affordable for all

Freedom of speech

Freedom of choice

No official corruption

Everyone has work

Freedom of religion

People feel secure2006

2007

2008


INSERT GRAPHIC TO ADD MAP

MAP IS 6.17” TALL

Pluralism in Indonesia • No significant

changes in 2006-2008 period

• Strong support for cultural pluralism

• Lesser support for religious pluralism – though still majority on public religious issues

• Support for

political diversity tempered by respect for majority view.

94% 94%

81%85% 85%

56%

28%

13%

93%

81%84%

81%

55%

29%

16%

95%

85% 87%

15%

72%

94%96%

87%

56%

32%

All

peop

le s

houl

dha

ve e

qual

rig

hts

Pan

casi

la is

the

best

bas

is fo

rso

ciet

y

Hap

py li

ving

nea

ret

hnic

ally

/cul

tura

llydi

ffere

nt n

eigh

bors

All

have

rig

ht to

free

ly e

xpre

ssth

eir

polit

ical

opin

ions

Sho

uld

resp

ect

cultu

ral p

ract

ices

of a

ll di

ffere

ntet

hnic

ities

Opp

ose

plac

e of

wor

ship

for

diffe

rent

rel

igio

nbe

ing

built

nea

r m

e

Peo

ple

shou

ld a

ctac

cord

ing

tow

ishe

s of

maj

ority

Sup

port

fam

ilym

embe

r m

arry

ing

som

eone

of

anot

her

relig

ion

Hap

py li

ving

inre

ligio

usly

div

erse

neig

hbor

hood

% Expressing Pluralistic Opinions 2006% Expressing Pluralistic Opinions 2007% Expressing Pluralistic Opinions 2008


Awareness of Institutions (in %) • Except for Const. Court, a majority is aware

• Few decreases since ‘06

• Lesser awareness of national legal/ anti- corruption institutions – but has increased on ‘07

• Most widespread awareness of local admin., executive & DPR

0102030405060708090

100

Vill

age

offic

e

Sub

-dis

trict

offic

e

Reg

ent/M

ayor

Gov

erno

r

DP

R

Loca

l Cou

rts

Reg

ency

/City

DP

RD

Pro

vinc

ial

DP

RD KP

U

KP

K

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

DP

D

Sup

rem

eC

ourt BP

K

Con

stitu

tiona

lC

ourt

2006 2007 2008


Net Satisfaction Ratings of Select Institutions% Of Those Aware Of Institution • Generally down

on ‘07, up on ‘06

• More positive for local level institutions – KPU best of national institutions

• More positive attitudes to ‘integrity’ bodies

• DPR negative – worse than 2006

• North Sumatra all rated negative

• Jakarta also relatively negative

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Villa

ge o

ffice

*

Sub

dis

tric

tof

fice*

Reg

ent/M

ayor

Gov

erno

r

Loca

l Cou

rts

KP

U

KP

K

Reg

ency

/City

DP

RD

Sup

rem

eC

ourt

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

Pro

vinc

ial

DP

RD

Con

stitu

tiona

lC

ourt

DP

D

BP

K

DP

R

Net satisfaction 2006 Net satisfaction 2007 Net satisfaction 2008


Who Knows Their Elected Representatives?• Increase in those who

know regent/ mayor

• Few know name of a legislative representative

• Regional differences: • Governor: South

Sumatra (99%), Jakarta (87%), Papua (80%), WIJ (78%), NTT(0%).

• Regent/mayor: South, North Sumatra, WIJ, over 90%, Papua 88%

• DPRD-2 representative: Papua (37%), WIJ (20%), Aceh (17%)

1% 2%

48% 47%

2% 2% 3%10%

45%

1% 2%5%

49%

63%

97%

3%

52%

97%

6%

97%

DPD Provincial DPRD DPR Regency/CityDPRD

Governor Regent/Mayor President

Aware, 2006 Aware, 2007 Aware 2008


Trust in Local Leaders and Officials • For all, more have high

than low trust

• % which ‘trust’ higher than in ‘06, mixed compared to ’07

• More likely to trust traditional leaders than local government officials – in all provinces (very large gap in Aceh)

• In most cases rural more likely to trust than urban

• Many are not aware of local NGO/community group leaders, or local judicial officials

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Local religiousleaders - ow n

religion

Localtraditionalleaders

Localgovernment

off icials

Local policeoff icers

NGO/Localcommunity

leaders

Local religiousleaders - other

religion

Judicialoff icials

High trust Neither high nor low Low trust Not aware


Who Is Most Trusted to Solve Local Disputes

• Change in preferences since ’06

• From police to local government officials, and increasingly, to traditional leaders

• Differences between urban/rural in ‘06 &’07 in using police, local government officials not present in ’08.

• Rural still more likely to use traditional leaders

• Majority in Aceh, West Sumatra, WIJ most trust traditional leaders

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Local religious leader -other religion

Local judicial officials

Local communitygroup/NGO leader

Local religious leader -own religion

Local police officers

Local traditional leader

Local governmentofficials

2008 2007 2006


Trust in Other Institutions • High trust in media – esp.

TV (59%)

• 44% trust in police – return to similar level to ’06 (52% in ‘07)

• Split attitudes to political parties – no improvement since 2006

• Many still not aware of NGOs – lack of depth in civil society?

• Almost 50% not aware of internet news

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%

High trust Neither high nor low Low trust Not aware


Tax Value: % of Those Paying Taxes

• Decline in taxpayer base since 2006

• 49% pay land tax (62% 2006)

• Only 2% say pay income tax (6% in 2006)

• 41% say pay no tax (30% 2006)

• OF THOSE PAYING TAXES: 65% in 2008 say services received at least equal to taxes paid. Decrease from 73% in 2006, but up from 37% in IFES 2003 survey

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2003 2005 2006 2007 2008

Services valued more than taxes paid

Services and taxes paid equivalent

Services valued less than taxes paid


Net Ratings on Local Government Issues (in %)

• Improving net ratings on accountability, service provision and accountability

• Large improvement on services

• Some improvement on responsiveness (to neutral)

• Negative and declining net ratings on transparency (+ high DKs - >20%)

36

2229

18

-7-11

47

35 32

11

-8-13

4841

3126

0

-18 -16

Loca

l gov

tex

ecut

ives

are

acco

unta

ble

Loca

l gov

tse

rvic

esha

ve g

ood

qual

ity

Mor

eco

nfid

ence

in lo

cal g

ovt

than

nat

iona

lgo

vt

Can

cha

nnel

aspi

ratio

nsto

loca

l gov

t

Loca

l gov

tre

spon

sive

to m

y ne

eds

Info

rmed

abou

t loc

algo

vtac

tivitie

s

Loca

l gov

tin

form

s ho

wit

spen

dsm

oney

*

2006 2007 2008


Net Ratings on Local Government Capabilities (in %)

• Less positive than ‘07, more positive than ‘06 – except for finance

• High DKs for finance (>30%)

• Finance negativity reflects opinion on financial transparency.

• Much more negative in North Sumatra

-6 -10

3

-4

27

5

35

1320

-14

30

6 5

Mak

ing

and

impl

emen

ting

law

s

Bud

getin

g/Fi

nanc

ial

Man

agem

ent

Pro

vidi

ngco

mm

unity

serv

ices

Act

ing

fairl

y an

dho

nest

ly

Pla

nnin

g/im

plem

entin

gin

frast

ruct

ure*

Net Rating, 2006 Net Rating, 2007 Net Rating, 2008


Religion’s Role in Political Affairs• Back to 2004 support for

religion playing no role

• In ‘08, majority believe that religion should play no/ minor role

• 38% think it should play main or important role (down from 50% in 2007)

• Split attitudes of Muslim respondents in ‘08: 42% say at least an important role; 39% say no role

• Regional differences: majorities pro important role in East Java, South Sulawesi; majorities pro no/little role in North & South Sumatra, West & Central Java, Aceh

14% 13% 10%

23%26%26%23%

15%24%19%24%

10%

8%13%8%

42%29%28%

42%

3%

2004 (n=1250) 2006 (n=2000) 2007 (n=2000) 2008 (n=2000)

Most important role Important part, but not most important

Some part, but politics should dominate Should not play any part

DK/NR


Government Regulation of Public Behaviour• Majorities support

regulation of women’s mobility, oppose regulation of religions people may practise

• Fairly even split on women’s clothing

• Near 50% oppose regulation of criticism of public figures

• No significant differences in opinions of men and women, or urban/rural

• Secondary+ educated less likely to agree with regulation

50%

42%

57%

49%

39%

4% 5% 5%

57%

39%

46%

9%

Regulate clothingwomen can wear

Regulate religion thatpeople can practice

Regulate criticism ofpublic figures

Regulate women'smobility at night

Agree/Strongly Agree Disagree/Strongly Disagree DK/NR


Equal or better Opportunity for Women in Various Areas of Life (Trend) (in %)

• Improvement since ’06 in opinions on opportunities for women in most areas – especially credit, family finance, policy influence.

• Leadership opportunities an exception

• Large majorities all 3 years in social (health, education) and some economic areas believe women have at least equal opportunity

• Both genders have similar views

75 74

5951 52

35

83 838886

81

6961 58

36

87 89

76

89 92

31

88 8981

93

48

6258

Con

trollin

gfa

mily

fina

nces

Obt

aini

ngem

ploy

men

t

Obt

aini

ngC

redi

t

Appo

inte

dm

anag

er o

fbu

sine

ss/g

ovt.

agen

cy

Influ

enci

nggo

vt. p

olic

y

Beco

me

elec

tion

cand

idat

e*

Beco

me

com

mun

ityle

ader

Fini

shin

g hi

ghsc

hool

educ

atio

n

Atte

ndin

gun

iver

sity

Acce

ss to

heal

th c

are

2006 2007 2008


Effectiveness of Government Anti-Corruption Efforts

• Return to 2006 opinions after negative move in ‘07

• As in ‘07, relationship with awareness of/satisfaction with BPK, KPK

• Majority negative views in Jakarta, East Java

• In Aceh, 15% agree are effective; in Papua 22%, both with very high unaware/DK

2%

10%7%

42%

34%

42%42% 41%38%

11%

16%18%

2006 2007 2008

Not aware govt. has anti-corruption efforts Very/ Somewhat effective

Not very/Not at all effective DK/NR


• Few significant changes in opinions since 2006 – slight decrease for higher courts

• Government officials (75%), most likely to be mentioned, then politicians (62%). 34% say NGOs

• All groups more widely mentioned in Jakarta. High in South Sulawesi, East Java for government officials and politicians.

• Government officials seen as most likely to successfully use influence

Institutions & Groups Inappropriately Attempting to Influence Court Decisions

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%

Gov

ernm

ent

offic

ials

Pol

itici

ans

Hig

her

cour

ts

Bus

ines

speo

ple

Org

aniz

edcr

ime

NG

O

Ord

inar

y pe

ople

2006 2007 2008


• Police most likely to be seen as influenced (71% - increase on ‘07 and ‘06)

• Most at similar levels to ‘06 • Local courts increase on ‘07 • Police seen as most likely

to be subject to influence: 39% say always/usually, (36% in ‘06), Const. Court least likely (12% vs 15% in ’06 - but 59% DK)

• Urban residents more likely to believe institutions are influenced, rural not to have an opinion

Outside Influences on Justice System

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%

Pol

ice

Loca

l cou

rts

Pro

secu

tors

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

Sup

rem

eco

urt

Con

stitu

tiona

lco

urt

At least sometimes influenced Rarely or never influenced DK/NR


• These are services that should be free

• Steady increase since 2006 in those paying for KTP, registering birth, irregular payments to police

• % of applicants paying for KTP ranges from 90% in WIJ (compared to 65% in Papua), 82% in East Java to a low of 24% in Aceh

• Rural more likely to say have paid for KTP; rural/urban similar for others

Percent Reporting Making Irregular Payments

56%

28%20%

8%1% 1%

32%24%

5% 1% 3%10%

2% 3%

61%

28%36%

66%

Payment toobtain a KTP

(2006 n=1238 2007 n=1539 2008 n=1207)

Payment toregister a birth(2006 n=908

2007 n=1152 2008 n=734)

Payment totraffic police

without ticketbeing issued(2006 n=8432007 n=10152008 n=678)

Payment fortuition for child

at public school (2006 n=1099 2007 n=11392008 n=850)

Payment toschool/teacher

for passinggrade for child (2006 n=812 2007 n=9902008 n=632)

Payment to haveapplication for

govt. jobaccepted (2006

n=744 2007n=876 2008

n=561)200620072008


• Different perceptions of specific local vs national corruption issues

• On all issues but education, housing, a plurality say there is corruption

• Urban more likely to think there is corruption than rural

• Most widespread in North Sumatra for price of sembako (85%) and for critical services (69%), for education in WIJ (53%)

• <35s, high SES more likely to say affects jobs.

Corruption in Provision of Local Services

50%44% 43%

39%

29%

40%

30%

47% 50%

37%34% 36%

25%29% 31%

20%24%

32%

20%19%21%

Maintenanceof clinics,

roads,hospitals

Price ofsembako

Quality ofgovernment

services

Ability ofbusinessesto compete

for govt.contracts

Availability ofjobs

Cost ofeducation

Availability ofaffordablehousing

Yes No DK/NR


• Marked by high proportion of ‘very bad’ rating

• Over 80% of those who believe there is corruption on any issue rate the effect as bad or very bad

• As %’s of national population, those who say bad/very bad effect are :42% for clinics etc41% for sembako36% for government services

Impact of Corruption on Provision of Local Services :% of Those Who Believe There Is Corruption

58% 62%

5%10%3%6%7%7%7%

11%8%8%11%11%4%7%

56%53%

61%51%55%

20%24%35%

23%30% 36%20%

Maintenanceof clinics,

roads,hospitals(n=996)

Price ofsembako(n=942)

Quality ofgovernment

services(n=880)

Ability ofbusinesses tocompete for

govt.contracts(n=861)

Availability ofjobs (n=778)

Cost ofeducation(n=600)

Availability ofaffordablehousing(n=582)

Very Good/Good Neither Good nor Bad Bad Very Bad


• More widespread belief that there is corruption in national level issues than at local level

• The vast majority in all demographic groups believe there is corruption in the national economy.

• Urban more likely than rural to believe corruption affects parliaments (74% to 56%) : 90% in Jakarta.

• Jakarta higher for all• On all issues,

younger, higher educated more likely to believe there is corruption

Corruption in National Economy/ Governance

86%

58%64%

59%

14% 15% 14%4%

22%27%27%

10%

Overall economy ofIndonesia

Ability of Indonesianbusinesses tocompete with

businesses from othercountries

Foreign opinion ofIndonesia

Performance ofparliaments in

Indonesia

Yes No DK/NR


• Very high ‘very bad’ effect ratings

• As % Indonesian population: 79% believe that corruption has bad/very bad effect on the economy55% on parliaments51% on business competition51% on foreigners opinions of Indonesia

Impact of Corruption in National Economy/Governance:% of those Who Believe There is Corruption

54%

6%4%6%5%7%6%6%3%

61%59%48%

32%44%

27% 27%

Overall economy ofIndonesia (n=1724)

Ability of Indonesianbusinesses to competewith businesses from

other countries (n=1180)

Foreign opinion ofIndonesia (n=1155)

Performance ofparliaments in Indonesia

(n=1271)

Very Good/Good Neither Good nor Bad Bad Very Bad

INDONESIA DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ISSUES NATIONAL SURVEY – 2008

Documents

Transcript of INDONESIA DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ISSUES NATIONAL SURVEY – 2008