インドネシアに対する国際的民主化支援

日本・米国・EU の比較

抄録

International democracy assistance is one approach by which international actors play a role in promoting democracy. Two essential entry points for such assistance are governments and civil society. This paper seeks to explore how international democracy assistance has supported Indonesia’s democratization process. After the fall of Suharto in 1998, the process of democratization began and Indonesia started receiving foreign assistance to support political reform. This study confines its objects of research to Japan, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). Japan has given enormous assistance to Indonesia, making it the largest donor, while the US and the EU are acknowledged as essential actors in democracy aid.
In 1999, Japan supported for the first time a general election in Indonesia, and did so again in 2004. Previously, Japan’s foreign aid had been concentrated in the area of economic development. However, after the political reform, it started to include aid aimed at political development and support for civil society. Therefore, this paper analyzes the changes in Japan’s democracy aid policy in the post-1998 Indonesia, and compares it with the aid policies of the US and EU.
As an analytical framework, this paper utilizes the classification of democracy assistance approaches of Carothers, called the developmental and political approaches, and the types of democracy assistance classified by Golub, namely “Big D” and “small d”. This study finds that Japanese democracy aid was mainly targeted at government (Big D) and focused on economic development (the developmental approach). The Japanese government did not consider political aid an option because they believed that prioritizing economic development was necessary to achieving democratic development. Moreover, much of the aid was channeled through recipient governments to maintain good relations with them.
In contrast, the US tended to emphasize “small d” aid, which was affected by the political approach. They targeted their programs directly on the political area—such as elections, strengthening of political parties, election monitoring—and this aid was characterized as a collaboration with civil society. Meanwhile, like Japan, the EU focused its aid on economic development. However, comparing the aims of both these aid programs, this study finds that the EU regarded civil society as one of the most important targets, as its program worked with this sector, and connected democracy work with political, social, and economic rights. Therefore, the democracy aid supplied by the EU can be identified as “small d” development.