Role of Civil Society in Promoting Political Change and Democratic Direction
The role of civil society organizations depends on the domestic and international conditions, the success of the transition and consolidation of democracy, the power of the political society of mutually supporting each other, and dependent on the actors involved in the political society, markets and the State on the international arena.
According to Alagappa, there are four roles of civil society in support of the political changes in determining the direction of democracy, namely: First, The existence of specific roles and functions on a legitimate civil society organization in the State and the political system. Most civil society organizations emphasize reform, accountability, representation, and subsidiarity. The role of civil society can be expected to change as well. For example, In the subsequent transition phase, civil society groups may become involved in drafting a new constitution, in strengthening and monitoring political society and the state, in institutionalizing civil society and fostering public participation in politics and policy-making. In the consolidation phase, civil society groups may seek to expand the space for civil society and correct the deficiencies of the new democracy (including greater transparency and accountability).
Second, The role of civil society in the political changes can be explained through the arena of political discourse and the Government, including the civil society itself, the political society and the State. Development of the role looks at the public arena, which is the domain of the self-governance — as well as in terms of institutions, actors, and agendas that enable collective action to influence political society and the state — constitute a political change in the realm of civil society.
Third, concentrations of civil society lie in its structure and rules for aggregation of interests and representation, the competition in the power of the State, the power and the responsibility of the legislature depends on civil society and politics.
Civil society can assist (or hinder) the development of political parties and a party system, the institution of an electoral system, public participation in elections, monitoring of elections and legitimating outcomes, and the constitution and functioning of the legislature. Finally, the role of civil society in political change can be seen of how political change towards an open, political accountability and participatory, as well as the importance of conceptualizing civil society both in the arena of governance and the power to bring changes in civil society and the State.
According to Füle, civil society organizations are moving to look for policies related to democracy, stability, and prosperity. The movement was able to drive on the transition to democracy, which is supported by the existence of a credible policy on a country. It can also be supported by the existence of historical, cultural factors and aspires at the change, which in the end wanted a legitimacy.
Civil society can play a role in accordance with regime change a Government that is running, it is not directly said to be easy. For example, the movement of civil society in Europe, where they played a role by conducting a protest to demand democracy and the existence of alternative structures. The civil society is not always able to protect and defend common values that apply in the community. For example, in the civil society movement in the gay pride parade. However, it is true that civil society can change the prevailing political system, such as in the Mediterranean, which changed from the Government’s undemocratic became a plural democracy. The success of the role of civil society is supported by the existence of the tool and its preparation in performing actions.
The Role of Civil Society in Political Change and Democracy Direction in Indonesia
According to Lowry, In new order era, citizens’ organizations have an important role to play, which includes counterbalancing the authority of the state and the government in directing policy. This is an area where, until now, the state has been dominant. Until the collapse of the New Order, the government succeeded in crippling Indonesian civil society at every level by breaking up the networks within it, for example amongst interest groups, youth organizations, and women’s groups.
Even informal institutions, like the traditional mechanisms of decision-making at the local level, lost most of their influence and function through being co-opted by the state. The effect of this systematic emasculation of civil society was to weaken its ability to influence the government and hold it accountable. As a result, those civil and political organizations that did arise came not from the grassroots but from amongst students, academics, intellectuals, and others committed to social and political activism. These individuals focused on advocacy as a means to represent the desires and interests of other segments of the populace. This is a crucial point because it has implications for the current role of NGOs, students and other groups of “intellectuals”.
The fall of the Suharto regime and the ensuing democratization process in Indonesia led to the emergence of a discourse on good governance, accountability, and transparency of public institutions. NGOs that were active in monitoring the activities of state and other political institutions emerged and became known as “watchdog” organizations.
Starting with the heavy involvement of NGOs in the 1999 election, nowadays almost all aspects of state institutions are being watched by NGOs. The Indonesian public recognizes various organizations such as Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), Parliament/legislative watch (DRP-Watch), Government Watch (GOWA), Police Watch (PolWatch), and budget watch (FITRA). He concluded that Indonesian civil society since the fall of Suharto has been truly possible for citizens to express their voices in public and speak out about what they feel important in life. In spite of continued state-sponsored corruption and power abuse, civil society grows and is strong.
There remains today a flowering of new ideas and social actors, as people who had been denied participation for a long time sought to get involved. There is a momentum for negotiating and reformulating the balance of power between the state and its citizens. NGOs have an important role to play in this. This has been made possible by the continued freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press. Newspapers are free to write what they want and are often very brave in doing so. There are dozens of television talk shows, discussing in very open and inclusive manners the problems of government and society.
In Indonesia, a decentralization package, including the direct election system, was optimistically supported by a coalition of international donor organizations. It was expected to strengthen democracy and civil society. Civil society demanded to maintain direct elections to protect governance from the political elite. Civil society, with conspicuous public support, can reject decisions of the ruling elite. However, as this case shows, this can be realized only if public pressure provides resources that help those elites gain and maintain power. The increased elite competition provided space for civil society to change policy outcomes, but civil society itself is still weak and fragmented in Indonesia.
The growth of Indonesian NGOs for at least two decades took place in a context of a civil society that was deliberately dysfunctional in its political features. It made NGOs almost synonym for “civil society”, in the eyes of donors as well as in terms of self-perception, and it cloaked NGOs with the aspiration of a political opposition. Donors’ support for NGOs was similarly portrayed as support for civil society and democratization. In fact, the one-sided support of development NGOs rather than other associations within civil society did not contribute to a broad-based civil society growth and is one of the causes for the present weaknesses of NGO elitism and a lack of effective grassroots participation.
Within this limited space, NGOs active in human rights and in environmental protection and preservation began to emerge, in line with global trends. These NGOs started to carry out advocacy activities in support of those whose rights were violated by the regime, such as indigenous communities, women or workers. During the 1990s, more NGOs started advocacy divisions, moving beyond the framework of community development. The impetus for these changes was the increasingly tense relations between the community development NGOs and the more politically oriented activists.
Over the past ten years (2004–2014), the number of civil society groups throughout Indonesia has grown dramatically. Democratization has created space for Indonesian civil society activists to participate in establishing rights and mechanisms of accountability in a society where citizen involvement was previously discouraged. Regional autonomy and decentralization have created new opportunities for organized citizens to engage in public affairs.
A government of Indonesia has made significant progress in expanding the space for citizen participation, especially at sub-national levels, but many public officials are still ambivalent about the political role of CSOs and activist citizens in general.
Understanding civil society organizations in Indonesia, as a separate place from the state and the economy and as the logical home of democratic values. civil society as anti-statist, and an opportunity for democratic politics to flower. The movement of the organization still separate and only voiced aspirates such activists, however, have not been terimplikasi on socio-economic aspects . In fact, civil society can progress with the democratization, which makes the existence of socio-economic changes and polycentrism. The growth of civil society in Indonesia is not directly legitimated its position in the country, because it is still limited by the State before the era of Suharto’s fall. After a period of democracy, the democratic government continues to be weak. Indonesian civil society continues to be fragmented.
Ethnic and religious conflict continues to pose a dangerous threat to national integration. There is no strong and efficient civil society to pull the people and social groups together. In fact, the problems facing democratic consolidation in Indonesia are too complicated to be dealt with by any civil society organization. Democratic consolidation in Indonesia depends perhaps primarily on political leadership, the political party system, and the military. Indonesia needs are capable of political leaders who can reconcile conflicts among various ethnic and religious groups.
