A relationship between Civil Society and Democracy: The Case of Philippines and Indonesia
According to Alaggapa, in fact, there is no relationship between the civil society and democracy because civil society has the effect of the anti-democracy, and democracy is practiced through the ideas, objectives, the distribution of power between strategy, organization and leaders on the civil society in the context of politics, the country and internationally.
According to Tocqueville, civil society plays a role as a key player in the decentralization of governance and democratic governance. This activity not only to society but the country also is based on the institutions of democracy and the process on the country. Civil society is seen as supporting structure in terms of democratizing the country. According to Robert Putnam, that the role of civil society is closely related to social capital, that is through norms and networks to enhance the quality of life, which both can build trust and reciprocity in achieving goals with actions collective.
Furthermore, according to Cox, the civil society is seen as an arena to fight for and construct an alternative mode of democracy, in accordance with the needs of particular social classes in exclusion. The relationship between civil society and democracy the more complex when civil society functioning as a giver of influence on institutions and governance at the country level, where decentralized power, resources, and local authorities or institutions non-state deliberated to dominate politics. Civil society does have a role in making a change in the country, especially in a democracy.
The movement was undertaken by the civil society generally to establish a democracy by way of making the transition to democracy, the consolidation of democracy. This looks at the characteristics of civil society can contribute to the political situation in a country, for example, monitor the Government, negotiate in shaping the new Constitution and so on. Democracy gives its own strengths to the development of civil society in a country, and provide the consequences, i.e., an arena of power, inequality, camps, conflict, and cooperation among competing identities and interests.
Civil society can maintain or establish a democracy in a country that is based on its function, namely:
[1] Democracy will run well if there are groups of people who control the Government, civil society always monitor how public officials in power, using its strength in making policy, demanding the freedom of access to information laws or regulations such as the eradication of corruption.
[2] Civil society can expose events that exist within the Government, lobbying to reform the existing policy. Democracies make their role more effectively.
[3] Civil society may encourage the life of Westernization in everyday life, such as tolerance, moderation, compromise, and respect for differences of opinion. Without such attitudes, then democracy will not run stable.
[4] Civil society can promote democratic political participation with the fight for their rights as citizens, aspires at the voice, solving together and argue about public issues.
[5] Civil society can provide the education of democracy, with the cultivation of the values, concepts, along with training that relates to democracy.
[6] Civil society acts as an arena to express, lobbying, which can then be strengthened democracy because of the formation of new interests and form solidarity so that democracy can be stable.
[7] Civil society can provide information and monitor the elections as well as the resolution of a conflict. Some of these functions can make democracies can be effective and legitimate, because of the positive relationship between civil society and democracy.
Same as Alaggapa, Pietrzyk (2003) mention that although civil society has strong links with democracy, it is far from comprehensive, particularly related to indications of the countries of the community and intersocietal relationship (see Gellner, 1994; Chandhoke, 1995, p. 25). The concept of a civil society which, should prevail, embraces a dynamic range of assumptions, values, and institutions, which are indispensable as the pre-conditions of democracy, such as political, social and civil rights, the rule of law, a public sphere and above all a plurality of associations.
Overview Civil Society and Democracy in Philippines and Indonesia
Philippines
The basis for civil society in the Philippines comes from the Filipino concepts of pakikipagkapwa (holistic interaction with others) and kapwa (shared inner self). Voluntary assistance or charity connotes for Filipinos an equal status between the provider of assistance and the recipient, which is embodied in the terms damayan (assistance of peers in periods of crisis) and pagtutulungan (mutual self-help).
The Western notion of kawanggawa (charity) may have been introduced to the Philippines by Catholic missionaries. The Philippines has the largest number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) per capita in Asia. Given the manner in which Aquino came to power and the growing number of NGOs during her term, NGOs had a remarkably small impact on policy and politics in the Aquino administration. It was a time for restoring traditional electoral politics based on patron-client networks and reviving the power of politicians so chosen. It was sometimes called “elite democracy,” or even “incomplete democracy.”
For most casual observers of the Philippine scene, the impressive “people power” demonstrations in 1986 and 2001 that led to the overthrow of two presidents are the best evidence of the impact of civil society on politics. But since in both instances military intervention was essential for a change in leadership, the true weight of civil society influence is hard to measure. In any case, such influence was unstructured and temporary, without much carryover into the subsequent administrations.
Neither Aquino nor Macapagal-Arroyo saw fit to try to institutionalize an NGO role. What may be more significant, therefore, is a careful look at how NGOs have impacted two policy areas. Because of the importance of these fields to Philippine economic, social and political development, and because of the level of NGO work in them, we will focus on the role of NGOs in agrarian reform and environmental protection, noting the changes from the Aquino administration to the present.
Indonesia
Since the end of Suharto’s rule in 1998, Indonesia has been in a critical state of transition toward democracy. For the first time in Indonesia’s history, Indonesian has both have a freely elected Parliament and a democratically chosen President. Civil society in Indonesia defines its main function as trying to prevent this reversal. It is the number one priority. Civil society has role as participants in the democratization process. The rise of civil society in Indonesia involves a new dynamism as it involves the challenge of promoting democratic values and instituting cultural, civil ideology, political liberties and you will hear about those initiatives to achieve those goals.
Civil society, in fact, is put into a dilemma, and therefore it has not been saying anything about this struggle for power. Indonesia is an important example of a newly democratizing country, whose progress has implications for its own citizens, for other nations moving toward democracy as well as international organizations. The political space and freedom that civil society enjoyed in the immediate posttransition years are increasingly challenged by competing for political interests, whereas remarkable progress in the area of civic participation was made during the Reformation period.
Differences of Civil Society between Philippines and Indonesia
Philippines
Civil society in the Philippines can not put his position on democratization, though the movement is more courageous and strong. However, the fragmented civil society because of the differences of different interests. Civil society formed by two streams democracy, namely the power elite and the political power, has more free space. The fundamental strength of democracy of civil society in the Philippines discovered by basic Alliance of workers and peasants.
The community banded together to build their strength. Civil society in the Philippines can make a transformation of democracy from formal democracy into substantive democracy, in order to increase transparency in Government. In fact, the activities of civil society in the Philippines are infected by the pervasive patron-client system, which they are ostensibly dedicated to subverting.
Even when a new institutional process that would benefit NGOs (such as the party-list elections) “appears on the horizon, it is distorted by a Congress dominated by traditional politicians. Democratization, still incomplete, is no such process. Issues addressed by civil society in the Philippines island reform. There are so many forms of civil society in the Philippines, i.e. free independent media; community-based social activism; politically sensitized parts of Catholic Church; alternative politics to Marcos Party; armed underground. For example, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) was created in 1985 by more than 1,000 mass organizations. It fights for national and social liberation against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism.
Bayan fights for the nationalistic and democratic needs of the people through legal and militant forms of struggle, and, though it does not participate in the armed struggle. National Secretariat of Social Action-Justice and Peace (NASSA), was created by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in 1966. It focuses on poverty alleviation, democratic governance, ecology and integrity of creation, peace, and development.
Indonesia
In contrast to the Philippines, civil society in Indonesia are still confused by the conception of democracy itself. The polarization of the civil society in Indonesia is based on social class, which is associated with large numbers and focus on the value of local democratic development. Civil society in Indonesia stressed on the issue of human rights and the well-being of the community. Then, the characteristics of the civil society in Indonesia’s movement is still restricted by the State.
Civil society in Indonesia was formed by three political streams namely corporatist, semi- corporatist and proto-proportional with different countries. Indonesian civil society has managed to stall the ormas bill so far, and only due to the ability of opposition groups to foster enough bridging capital to overcome differences and reject what they see as excessive controls on civil and political freedoms. For example, Yappika, an Indonesian civil society alliance for democracy that was founded in 1991 to strengthen civil society organizations, created a so-called civil society index.
In a report issued in 2006, Yappika said that despite significant environmental and structural obstacles, such as legal barriers, poor law enforcement and a lack of financial resources, Indonesian CSOs scored high for values and participation. Another example of civil society, members of the Yogya Pedicab Driver Community took to Yogyakarta’s streets to campaign against thuggish behavior after 11 Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) commandos were named suspects in the murder of four detainees inside Cebongan prison.
