Big states and little independence movements

The violence military-backed militias perpetrated on the East Timorese in 1 999 illustrates the fundamental character of the Indonesian state: it is no t merely non-democratic but also highly centralized. Both these characteris tics were imprinted on the state by its late nineteenth century colonial or igins. Efforts to both democratize and decentralize the state during the po st-independence 1950s were undone by key state elites led by the military u nder Suharto. However, the separation of East Timer from Indonesia indicate s a victory for the local that may well become a trend around Indonesia. Wh ile East Timer never legally belonged to the Indonesian state, its independ ence movement was driven by grievances that are shared by many other commun ities throughout Indonesia's periphery. Central state elites view these loc al movements in terms of "breakdown," but at the local level they are seen as hopeful alternatives. It is not necessary to romanticize all local movem ents-elements of them are xenophobic, violent, and corrupt. But these eleme nts are usually balanced by responsible and non-violent groups inspired by the search for a state that serves more human ends.