After the fall of Suharto in May 1998, an instantaneous wave of publications endeavoured to come to grips with what was going on under the label of “reformasi”, by taking stock with the achievements and failures of the rapidly waning New Order institutions. The first book in the English language to exclusively address the intricacies of the various processes of decentralization in independent Indonesia up to the present day was the anthology, Riding a Tiger: Dilemmas of Integration and Decentralization in Indonesia (2002), coedited by Coen J.G. Holtzappel, Martin Sanders and Milan Titus. It comprised the proceedings of an international workshop at the University of Leiden, The Netherlands, convened by Holtzappel in 2000.

In an effort to define the points of departure for the reform and to fathom out what might happen if Basic Law No. 22/1999 on regional governance and Basic Law No. 25/1999 on regional fiscal balance were to be implemented, the workshop had focused on the political and social dilemmas of the relation between government and regions and vice versa during the New Order regime. At the time, there was a debate going on about the feasibility of the 1999 legislation, and it was not certain at all that the implementation would start as planned in 2001. People were also commonly afraid that reformasi might fail, and that Suharto's military-backed system of top-down regional governance might be able to re-institute itself. Another issue of concern for many was the fact that the local village communities were excluded from the equity intention inherent in the 1999 legislation. Yet, according to Article 18 of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, it was precisely these village communities which were to enjoy special autonomy status. The majority of Indonesians have after all been living in closely-knit local communities in the rural districts and municipalities. To many, the emphasis on the autonomy of regional municipalities and districts in the 1999 legislation seemed questionable.

Riding a Tiger is a collection of studies which naturally was influenced by these points of debate. Accordingly, it provides some valuable insights into the real-time state of affairs of the regions and local communities in 1999, simultaneously reviewing the post-independence history of regional governance.