In Indonesia, the government works under the Constitution, and its power is divided between several organs and three branches. The legislature includes the representatives of the People’s Consultative Assembly, and the executive is headed by the President and vice president. This cooperation is expected to be coherent and consistent due to the intention to promote democratic ideals. However, communication between the executive and the legislature in the country is mostly characterized by conflict and organizational problems since the government ruling process removed hierarchical relationships. The examples are late responses or unequal powers when the Parliament is responsible for laws adaptation, but the President has to approve them first. There is no harmony in these relationships, and coordination turns out to be impossible because of party fragmentation.
At the end of the 1990s, the authoritarian regime fell, and the democratic form of government allowed pluralism in politics. On the one hand, democracy improves local public services and underlines the worth of civic participation in politics. On the other hand, intolerance and a low accountability level prevent the country from achieving success and effective empowerment. Thus, my opinion about modern democracy in Indonesia is that this country is not properly prepared to use the offered resources and opportunities.
Elections in Indonesia have been practiced since 1955 and take place every five years. The voting age is 17, but married people who are younger could also vote. However, the citizens do not actually choose the President. Vote buying is commonplace in Indonesia elections, and there are many situations when citizens are suspicious about the results and initiate protests. The largest political parties can offer their candidate, limiting the number of independent leaders. Indonesia is known for its multi-party system, but many parties are banned or restricted.