Theories of regime transition have highlighted the importance of moderate resistance movement leaders in negotiating the end of authoritarianism and multiparty democracies. Meanwhile, the specific context in which such moderate opposition leaders who believe in the virtues of peaceful conflict resolution emerge and gain sufficient influence to sideline more radical elements has received far less attention in the transitions to democracy literature. This article presents a classification of oppositional arenas during Indonesia’s New Order and analyzes the social sites from which moderate individuals emerge. It then traces their interactions with constituencies and the regime to specify the processes that put moderate Muslim leaders at center stage during the democratic transition. The article argues that integrating social movement analysis and regime-type approaches is necessary when examining dissent in authoritarian environments. While social movement analysis provides valuable tools for understanding the functioning of oppositional groups, it undertheorizes institutionally available space for opposition and dissent. Political opportunity structure theses typically only analyze ex-post whether such opportunities existed but are silent on which regime types tend to offer spaces for contention and when. Thus, the importance of regime-type analysis.
AlbrechtH. (2010). Contentious politics in the Middle East: Political opposition under authoritarianism. University Press of Florida.
2.
AspinallE. T. (2005). Opposing Suharto: Compromise, resistance, and regime change in Indonesia. Stanford University Press.
3.
BasukiT. (1999, March14). Indonesia: The web as a weapon [Paper presented] Conference Next Five Minutes 3: Tactical Media Forum, Amsterdam.
4.
BudimanA. (1974). A conversation with Pak Harto. In SmithR. M. (Ed.), Southeast Asia: Documents of political development and change (pp. 225–228). Cornell University Press.
5.
DiamondL. (1994). Rethinking civil society. Towards democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4–17.
6.
DingX. L. (1994). Institutional amphibiousness and the transition from communism: The case of China. British Journal of Political Science, 24(3), 293–318.
7.
FehrH. (2004). Eliten und Zivilgesellschaft in Ostmitteleuropa (1968–2003). Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B(5–6), 48–54.
8.
GeddesB. (2005). Why parties and elections in authoritarian regimes? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (pp. 456–471).
9.
HeryantoA. (2006). State terrorism and political identity in Indonesia: Fatally belonging. Routledge.
10.
HuntingtonS. P. (1991). Third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.
11.
JenkinsD. (1984). Suharto and his generals. Indonesian military politics, 1975–1983. Cornell Modern Indonesia Project.
12.
KriesiH.-P. (1995). The political opportunity structure of new social movements: Its impact on their mobilization. In Craig JenkinsC.KlandermansB. (Eds.), The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements (pp. 176–198). UCL Press.
13.
KünklerM. (2012). Electoral victory, political defeat: The elimination of zones of autonomy in Khatami’s Iran. In ChalmersD.MainwaringS. (Eds.), Problems confronting contemporary democracies (pp. 166–202). Notre Dame University Press.
14.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2002). Elections without democracy. The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.
15.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. Cambridge University Press.
16.
LinzJ. (1973). Opposition in and under an authoritarian regime: The case of Spain. In DahlR. A. (Ed.), Regimes and oppositions (pp. 171–259). Yale University Press.
17.
LinzJ.StepanA. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. John Hopkins University Press.
18.
McAdamD.McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM.N. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge University Press.
19.
McRaeD. (2001). The 1998 Indonesian student movement. Centre for Southeast Asian Studies. Working Paper 110. Monash University.
20.
OkruhlikG. (2004). Making conversation permissable: Islamism and reform in Saudi Arabia. In WiktorowiczQ. (Ed.), Islamic activism: A social movement theory approach (pp. 250–269). Indiana University Press.
21.
PurdeyJ. (2006). Anti-Chinese violence in Indonesia, 1996–1999. University of Hawaii Press.
22.
RothR.RuchtD. (Eds.) (1987). Neue soziale Bewegungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
23.
RudbeckJ.SigurdsonJ. (1999). Contentious politics and regime change: New perspectives on democratization. CIAO Working Papers. www.cianot.org/wps/ruj02
24.
SchumannO. (2006). Öffentliche Verantwortung der Religionsgemeinschaften in Indonesien, dem Land der Pancasila. In Lienemann-PerrinC.LienemannW. (Eds.), Kirche und Öffentlichkeit in Transformationsgesellschaften (pp. 359–402). Kohlhammer.
25.
SchwedlerJ. (2004). The Islah Party in Yemen. Political opportunities and coalition building in a transitional polity. In WiktorowiczQ. (Ed.), Islamic activism: A social movement theory approach (pp. 205–229). Indiana University Press.
26.
SmithB. (2004). Collective action with and without Islam. Mobilizing the bazaar in Iran. In WiktorowiczQ. (Ed.), Islamic activism: A social movement theory approach (pp. 185–204). Indiana University Press.
27.
StepanA.KünklerM. (2007). An interview with Amien Rais. Journal of International Affairs, 61, 1.
28.
TillyC. (1975). Revolutions and collective violence. In vol. 3 of GreensteinF. I.PolsbyN. (Eds.), Handbook of political science (pp. 483–555). Addison-Wesley.
29.
TillyC. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley.
30.
TillyC. (2000). Processes and mechanisms of democratization. Sociological Theory, 18, 1.
31.
TillyC. (2001). When do (and don’t) social movements promote democratization?. In IbarraP. (Ed.), Social movements and democracy (pp. 21–26). Palgrave.
32.
PollackD.WiehlgosJ. (Eds.). (2004). Dissent and opposition in communist Eastern Europe. Origins of civil society and democratic transition. Ashgate Publishers.
33.
van BruinessenM. (1990). Indonesia’s ulama and politics. Caught between legitimizing the status Quo and searching for alternatives. Prisma, 49, 52–69.
