Wilson / Continuity and Change CONTINUITY AND CHANGE The Changing Contours of Organized Violence in Post–New Order Indonesia Ian Douglas Wilson ABSTRACT : This article examines the changing nature of organized violence in post– New Order Indonesia. The New Order regime, which ended with the overthrow of Suharto in 1998, employed violence as a central strategy for maintaining political control, both through the state apparatus and via state proxies: criminal and para- military groups acting in the state’s behalf. In effect, violence and criminality were normalized as state practice. The collapse of the New Order and the resulting frag- mentation of its patronage networks have prompted a decline in state-sponsored vi- olence, but at the same time the number of non-state groups employing violence and intimidation as a political, social, and economic strategy has increased. This arti- cle looks at this phenomenon of the “democratization” and privatization of orga- nized violence in post–New Order Indonesia via detailed case studies of a number of paramilitary and vigilante groups. While operating in a manner similar to organized crime gangs, each group articulates an ideology that legitimizes the use of force via appeals to ethnicity, class, and religious affiliation. Violence is also justified as an act of necessary rectification rather than direct opposition, in a situation where the state is considered to have failed in providing fundamentals such as security, justice, and employment. Paramilitary, vigilante, and militia groups have a long and colorful history in In- donesia. Prevalent throughout the colonial period, the Indonesian national army itself was originally formed from such groups, pointing to the long-stand- ing historical ambiguity between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” uses of vio- lence. 1 During the New Order era (1965–98), as has been well documented, the state fostered and utilized a number of quasi-official organizations such as ISSN 1467-2715 print/1472-6033 online / 02 / 000265-33 ©2006 BCAS, Inc. DOI: 10.1080/14672710600671244 Critical Asian Studies 38:2 (2006), 265-297