|| The study compares the use of authoritarian corporatism in Taiwan and Indonesia. The comparison is made for the purpose of obtaining a more balanced relation between the state and the society in these two countries.|
The adopted definitions of corporatism in the study are by Wiarda and Stepan. Wiarda defined corporatism as a system of social and political organization in which the major social and interest groups are all integrated into the government system. The integration is on a monopoly base so that the state can reach a balanced development by means of directions, protections, and control over these groups. Stepan divided corporatism into two kinds: exclusionary and inclusionary corporatism. Specifically, the study adopts the theory of exclusionary and focuses the comparison on the establishment and operation of trade union system.
The research results of the study are as follows. First, both in Taiwan and Indonesia, the use of authoritarian corporatism has social and political backgrounds. The social background refers to the prevailing traditional values of Confucialism in Taiwan and Pancasila Industrial Relation in Indonesia. Both values systems place a premium on a harmonious and cooperative interaction between the employers and the labors. Therefore, the idea is denied that labors have the right to fight for their own benefits against the employers.
Second, both Taiwan and Indonesia governments choose authoritarian corporatism as the tool to control the society. The choice is made not out of the need to moderate benefits of various social classes or to cope with economic crisis. Instead, it is for setting up functional, not competitive social organization systems. These organizations are the paths connecting different interest groups. At the same time, some organizations which are not favored by the state are kept from being formed. The participation in politics is limited to a certain scale. Such measure is considered preventive authoritarian corporatism. The application of the authoritarian corporatism makes the trade union systems both in Taiwan and Indonesia become the marginal parts of the political framework. It’s hard then to have the labors own more rights. So the corporarism is also exclusionary authoritarian corporatism. The labor organization is naturally an expansion of the political control of the state over the labors.
Third, it is found that under the framework of authoritarian corporatism, the operation of labor organizations varies according to the changing goals of state’s development. However, there is a difference in the manner and extent of Taiwan’s control over the operation from that of the Indonesia government. Taiwan government controls the operation in an active manner while the Indonesia government controls the operation in a passive manner.
Fourth, at the end of authoritarian politics in Taiwan and in Indonesia, the demands for changes are appearing in both countries. It’s inferred that there may appear inclusionary corporatism which will lead to a more balanced relation among the labors, the employers and the states both in Taiwan and Indonesia.