http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Marcus Mietzner 서울대학교행정대학원 2011 Asian Journal of Political Science Vol.19 No.3
Theorists of civil-military relations have for long tried to identify the specific factors thatlead to weak civilian control of the armed forces in some countries and very strongoversight regimes in others. While some authors highlight the importance of structuralfactors (such as the level of economic modernization), others point to the crucial role ofpersonal agency (i.e., the quality and characteristics of leadership). Obviously, some formof interplay between structure and agency does occur, but the precise patterns of thisrelationship have rarely been explored. This article analyses the overall strong, yetinstitutionally volatile state of civilian control in post-authoritarian Indonesia, andevaluates the role of structural and agency-related factors in this outcome. It concludesthat Indonesia has broken its supposed path dependence in several historical, economicand political areas, suggesting that post-1998 actions by political leaders and elite groupshave played a more significant role in shaping the new civil-military relationship thancommonly thought.
Marcus Mietzner 동아시아연구원 2010 Journal of East Asian Studies Vol.10 No.3
This article argues that Indonesia's Constitutional Court has played a significant role in that country's transformation from a violence-prone polity into Southeast Asia's most stable democracy. The Court has advanced institutional conflict resolution mechanisms and expanded democratic rights—two achievements identified by Linz and Stepan as major indicators of a consolidating democracy. Building on models developed by Ginsburg and Horowitz, my analysis also illustrates why the Court has been able to defend its autonomy and become an agent of democratization. While sharing Ginsburg's emphasis on high levels of power diffusion as a key reason for the Court's success, this article moves beyond such an approach. Most importantly, it suggests that the judges' “judicial activism”—as expressed in a number of controversial but popular decision—increased Indonesian society's support for the Court to such an extent that is has now become largely invulnerable to attempts of external intervention.