•  
  •  
 

Abstract

After the reformation (reformasi) in 1998, some civil society organizations (CSOs) have en- dorsed policy changes from outside the government and have involved in many ministries’ assistance team to implement government’s development programs. These CSOs’ political action changes from outside to become inside the government are caused by the openness of political opportunity from political regime after Reformasi. Even though CSOs have used these political opportunities, these organizations faced seriously challenges in politi- cal field such as the fragmented of CSOs to endorse many policy reform and changes. In addition, there is lack of supporting changes in political culture structures which are still continuing patronage relations legacies among political actors. This study strengthens Aspinall (2013a) and Mietzner (2013) arguments about how the CSOs take political op- portunity after Reformasi and their challenges and response in order to adapt in Soeharto’s political legacy in two political arenas: the policy making process and electoral politics. Moreover, Indonesian CSOs are fragmented and weakened for endorsing some progressive issues in law making process in the House and their weakness to gain electoral support for winning the CSOs candidates in election. To gather relevant data about CSOs political activities in these arenas, this study applies process tracing method. The study’s findings confirm that even though there is more openness on political opportunity to participate in political arena, however, it seems that there are no supporting changes in political structures which are patronage relations among political actors. Therefore, Indonesian CSOs are fragmented and weakened for endorsing some progressive issues in law making process in the House and their weakness to gain electoral support for winning the CSOs candidates in election.

Bahasa Abstract

Setelah Reformasi tahun 1998, sebagian organisasi organisasi masyarakat sipil (OMS) mendorong agenda perubahan kebijakan dari luar pemerintahan dan terlibat dalam berbagai tim asistensi implementasi program pembangunan dari berbagai kementrian. Perubahan tindakan politik kelompok OMS dari luar pemerintahan dan menjadi bagian pemerintahan disebabkan oleh adanya kesempatan politik yang lebih terbuka dan ako- modatif dari rejim politik paska Reformasi. Meskipun OMS memanfaatkan kesempatan politik tersebut, OMS menghadapi tantangan serius dalam arena politik yaitu fragmentasi kelompok masyarakat sipil dalam mendorong berbagai perubahan dan reformasi kebijakan dan tidak adanya dukungan perubahan struktur budaya politik yang masih mewarisi hubungan patronase diantara para aktor. Studi ini memperkuat argumen dari Aspinall (2013a) dan Mietzner (2013) dalam hal memanfaatkan kesempatan politik paska Refor- masi dan tantangan serta respon OMS dalam struktur warisan politik rejim Soeharto di dua arena politik: pembuatan kebijakan dan politik elektoral. OMS di Indonesia mengal- ami ketidaksolidan dan lemah dalam mendorong isu-isu perubahan dalam pembentukan kebijakan di DPR dan lemahnya dukungan politik elektoral bagi pemenangan kandidat dari kelompok OMS di semua pemilihan umum.Untuk mendapatkan data yang terkait aktivitas politik OMS dalam ranah pembuatan undang-undang serta partisipasi politik aktor OMS dalam pemilu, studi ini menggunakan metode pelacakan proses.

References

Antlov, H., Ibrahim, R., and van Tuijl, P. 2006. “NGO Governance and Accountability in Indonesia: Challenges in a Newly Democratizing Country.” in NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innova- tion, edited by L. Jordan and P. van Tuijl. Sterling and London: Earthscan. Aspinall, E. 2004. “Indonesia: Transformation of Civil Society and Democratic Breakthrough.” in Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space, edited by M. Alagappa. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ------.2005. Opposing Suharto: compromise, resistence, and regime change in Indonesia. Stanford: Standford University Press. ------. 2010. “The Irony of Success”. Journal of Democracy 21(2):20-34. ------. 2013a. “A Nation in Fragments”. Critical Asian Studies, 45(1):27- 54. ------. 2013b. “The triumph of capital? Class politics and Indonesian Democratisation”. Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(2):226-242. Beittinger-Lee, V. 2010. (Un)civil society and political change in Indonesia: a contested arena. New York: Routledge. Blair, H. 2004. “Assessing Civil Society Impact for Democracy Pro- grammes: Using an Advocacy Scale in Indonesia and the Phillipines”. Democratization 11(1):77-103. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. 2012. Designing case studies: explanatory approaches in small-N reaserch. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Büente, M., and Ufen, A. 2009. “The New Order and Its legacy Reflec- tions on democratization in Indonesia”. in M. Büente, dan A. Ufen (eds.). Democratization in Post-Suharto Indonesia. London dan New York: Routledge. Eko, S., Hiqmah, N., and Yuniver, F. 2009. Masyarakat Sipil Mende- mokrasikan Daerah. Jakarta: YAPPIKA. Ford, M. T. 2003. NGO as outside intellectual: A history of non-gov- ernmental organisations’ role in the Indonesian labor movement. PhD dissertation. Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Fioramonti, L. and Fiori, A. 2010. “Civil Society after Democracy: The Evolution of Civic Activism in South Africa and Korea.” Journal of Civil Society 6(1):23-38. Gerring, J. 2007. Case study research: principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hadiz, V. R. 2013. “The Rise of Capital and the Necessity of Political Economy.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(2):208-225 Hamid, S. 2012. “Indonesian politics in 2012: Coalitions, Accountabil- ity, and the Future of Democracy.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economics Studies 48(3):325-345. Husbani, F. 2009. Partisipasi LSM dalam Proses Penyusunan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Jakarta: FISIP UI. Ibrahim, R. 2007. Indeks Masyarakat Sipil Indonesia 2006: Jalan (Masih) Panjang Menuju Masyarakat Sipil. Jakarta: YAPPIKA. Ichwanuddin, W. (Ed.).2010. Transformasi politik aktivis CSO: Refleksi pengalaman caleg aktivis dalam Pemilu 2009. Jakarta: LIPI Press. Kitschelt, H. 1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Pro- trest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Countries.” British Journal of Political Science 16(1):57-85. McAdam, Doug. 1996. “Conceptual origins, current problems, and future directions.” in Comparative politics in social movements: politi- cal opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framing, edited by McAdam, Doug., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M.N. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merkel, W. 2004. “Embedded and Defective Democracies.” Democra- tization 11(5):33-58. Mietzner, M. 2012. “Indonesia’s Democratic Stagnation: Anti-Reformist Elites and Resilient Civil Society.” Democratization 19(2):209-229. ------. 2013. “Fighting the Hellhounds: Pro-Democracy Activists and Party Politics in Post-Suharto Indonesia”. Journal of Contemporary Asia 43(1):28-50. ------. 2014. “How Jokowi Won and Democracy Survived.” Journal of Democracy 25(4):111-125. Perdana, A. 2014. “Wajah Aktivis Perempuan Dalam Parlemen: Prestasi & Rekomendasi Politik.” Jurnal Perempuan, 19(2):73-93 Sherlock, S. 2008. “Indonesia’s Anti Pornography Bill: A Case Study of Decision Making in the Indonesian Parliament.” Hintergrundpapier. No.10. Subianto, B. 2009. “Ethnic politics and the rise of the Dayak-Bureau- crats in local elections: Pilkada in Six Kabupaten in West Kaliman- tan” in Deepening democracy in Indonesia? Direct elections for local leaders (Pilkada), edited by Erb, Maribeth, and Sulistiyanto, Priyam- budi. Singapore: ISEAS Suharko. 2005. Merajut demokrasi: hubungan NGO, Pemerintah, dan pengembangan tata pemerintahan demokratis (1966-2001). Yogya- karta: Tiara Wacana. Thompson, M. R. 2012. “Civil Society and Democracy: Toward a Taxonomy in Asia and Beyond.” Southeast Asia Research Center (SEARC ), City University of Hong Kong Uhlin, A. 2009. “Which Characteristics of Civil Society Organizations Support What Aspects of Democracy? Evidence from Post-Com- munist Latvia.” International Political Science Review 30(3):271-295 White, G. 2004. “Civil Society, Democratization and Development: Clearing the Analytical Ground.” in Civil Society in Democratization, edited by P. Burnell and P. Calvert. London: Frank Cass. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publication.

Download

Share

COinS