This study is not only intended to make a contribution to research on the Indonesian democratization process, but also to stimulate the comparative research on parliaments in transition processes in general. The results of the case study on Indonesia clearly show that — despite all country- and culture-specific peculiarities — the Indonesian parliament was not completely exceptional and unique, but rather typical for a parliament in a transition process. For the course of democratic transitions, the regional differences have largely diminished (Ágh 2003, p. 44), meaning that cultural differences between the countries where democratization processes take place are less relevant than structural variables.

The role the DPR played was determined by a constellation not unlike those in other transition countries. At the beginning — like in other authoritarian regimes — parliament was mostly only a footnote in Indonesian politics. While less active in the initial phase of democratization, it developed into a powerful state institution which pushed the democratization process forward, especially during the presidencies of Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri. The consolidation of democracy, however, is a difficult task considering the challenges of economic stagnation and emerging divisions within society. In addition to these factors, parliament itself bears some responsibility for the slow pace of democratic consolidation. Parliament' failure to fulfil some of its constitutional functions in a proper manner — particularly the budget and the legislative function — and the ailing public support for the DPR, contribute to the prevailing hindrances to a fully-fledged democracy.

These results do not stand in sharp contrast to existing transition research, but some findings deserve particular attention and could lead to modifications of certain transition research positions. The results of this study show that the Indonesian parliament played a quite different role in the different periods of the transition process. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, it was not only the social movements which brought the regime change, but some members or groups within parliament also contributed to the downfall of the authoritarian regime. In scholarly literature on transition, the impact of parliaments on toppling an authoritarian ruler is usually neglected if not ignored. In the Indonesian case, however, the national parliament was one of the most decisive actors for the resignation of President Suharto. It was therefore more important in the first phase of the democratic transition than is usually acknowledged.