Ehito Kimura
Connect with Ehito
About Ehito
Kimura's research is at the nexus of comparative political change and Southeast Asian politics. His research focuses on Indonesia, including the legacy of authoritarianism, human rights, and the politics of memory and apology. He has published extensively on these topics in leading academic journals. Kimura also engages in comparative work on post-authoritarian societies and contributes to public discussions on democracy, human rights, and social justice in Southeast Asia.
Contributions
Populist Politics in Indonesia
In the News
Publications
Explains how memories of World War II and Japan’s past actions shape how Southeast Asian countries view and respond to Japan today. Finds that these historical memories don’t lead to one uniform reaction—instead, different countries use the past in flexible ways to support current political goals, allowing cooperation with Japan even when painful history is still remembered.
Examines how Indonesia’s politics in 2023 were shaped by both democratic processes and the growing role of political families as the country prepared for its 2024 elections. Finds that efforts to hold free elections and address social issues continued, but the rise of dynastic influence—highlighted by President Jokowi’s son becoming a vice-presidential candidate—showed how family ties and elite power can blur democratic ideals.
Looks at why some Indonesians today feel nostalgic for the country’s past under the authoritarian “New Order” regime, especially remembering economic stability from that era. Finds that this kind of nostalgia is common in survey data, is stronger among people who lived through that time, and is often tied to worries about the economy rather than a broad desire for authoritarian rule.
Examines how Indonesia navigated key political and economic shifts in 2022 as COVID-19 eased and the economy bounced back, while also facing debates over democratic norms and possible election delays. Finds that the government scored some legislative wins and managed recovery efforts, but struggled with public concerns over corruption, political tensions around election timing, and broader questions about the strength of democratic institutions.
Examines what helps or gets in the way of justice and reconciliation after conflict or authoritarian rule in Southeast Asia and other places, arguing that both internal politics and society matter more than outside pressure in whether people can move on. Finds there’s no one-size-fits-all solution — successful reconciliation depends on local conditions like the kind of state, the society’s trust, and how the conflict played out, not just adopting standard transitional justice programs.