Network Dynamics in the Transition to Democracy: Mapping Global Networks of Contemporary Indonesian Civil Society
by Yanuar Nugroho and Gindo Tampubolon
University of Manchester
Sociological Research Online, Volume 13, Issue 5,
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/5/3.html>.
To cite articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary.
Abstract
This paper seeks to make transparent the mutually reinforcing relationships between global civil society, democracy and network society, which are often implicit in extant theories. The concept of a 'global civil society' cannot be separated from the promotion of democracy. Global civil society itself is one of the most explicit instances of the emergence of network society in the modern age and democracy lies at the very heart of what constitutes a network society. However, very little has been said about how these apparent mutually reinforcing relationships arise. Focusing on the case of Indonesia during the fraught regime change from authoritarianism to democracy, we investigate the role of transnational and national civil society organisation during the periods of pre-reform, reform and post-reform. Using multi-methods, including social network analysis and interviews with civil society activists and networkers, we discover a less encouraging picture of these relationships and conclude that the forging of this virtuous circle has some obvious gaps. We attempt to account for these apparent gaps in this mutually reinforcing relationship in terms of different modes of political participation. We suggest that some forms of 'chequebook activism' characterised the global civil society role during an abrupt and bloody regime change.
Keywords: Global Civil Society, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), Network Society, Social Networks, Democracy, Reform, Social Movement, Chequebook Activism, Indonesia
Introduction
1.1 Civil society is often perceived as one of the cornerstones of a vibrant society providing voices for the disenfranchised and creating centres of influence outside the state and the economy (Anheier et al. 2002; Anheier et al. 2001b; Deakin 2001; Keane 1998). The advancement of information technology, particularly the Internet, has given new impetus for the birth, or more precisely the reinvention, of global civil society (Hajnal 2002). Global civil society is a global network of organisations, groups, and movement within civil society aiming at achieving civic agendas like democratisation (Anheier et al. 2001b; Bartelson 2006; Kaldor 2003). It is important not only because global civil society operates beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies; and offers transnational opportunity for debates, but it also influences framework of global governance (Anheier et al. 2001a. 11; Kaldor et al. 2004: 2). It can be argued, therefore, that there is a virtuous relationship between global civil society, democracy, and network society.1.2 Yet scholars have noted some potential problems that might be embedded within such relationships. First, Edwards and Hulme (1995), for example, argue that accountability is the most notable problem regarding the performance of civil society organisations in relation to their donors and beneficiaries. This problem emerges as a result of a dilemma between the nature of the work civil society organisations (CSOs) undertake and the context in which they operate. Most CSOs operate in a world where standard criteria for qualitative achievement and organisational achievement are lacking. Both need to be obtained through negotiation with legitimate stakeholders (Edwards & Hulme 1995; Edwards and Hulme 1997). Second, substantive democracy as a way of organising the state has been narrowly identified with aspects of procedural democracy such as elections for legislative and executive offices (Fung & Wright 2001). This causes ineffectiveness in accomplishing the central ideals of democratic politics, that is facilitating political involvement of the citizen, forging political consensus through dialogue, devising and implementing public policies that '… ground a productive economy and healthy society, and … ensuring that all citizen benefit from the nation's wealth' (p.5). Lastly, the emergence of the network society is associated with various acute tensions (Silverstone 1996). The realisation of network society has significantly increased our social mobility in everyday life, yet it is not without its problems. The network society has contributed to undermining a sense of home and place; creating a new kind of rootlessness because of its capacity to unlock and disconnect individuals from their dependence on place, increasing social isolation and cultural fragmentation. However, it will continue to liberate our domesticity from its dependence on physical location and enhance social and cultural freedoms by enabling us to create our own distinct and meaningful identities (Silverstone 1996: 223). This debate goes to the heart of the essential tensions that lie at the centre of the network society: tension between security and insecurity, participation and isolation, freedom and control.
1.3 Despite these concerns, one can see that there is a virtuous relationship between global civil society, democracy and network society. Global civil societies can be conducive to democracy (e.g. Anheier et al. 2005). Studies also illustrate that global civil society also go hand in hand with global network society. This compatibility is achieved not only through facilitation of communication and participation via the Internet but the very ideas at the core of civil society (a society that is open and participatory) is very much in tune with network society (a society that is less hierarchical, less bureaucratic, open and inclusive) (e.g. Warkentin 2001). Likewise, democracy and network society are supportive of each other or perhaps even reinforcing of one another. Democratic participation can be facilitated through multiple connections which ensure informed and interactive politics (Sey & Castells 2004: 363). Wainwright, moreover, suggests that a new relationship between civil society and democracy is being forged at the international level, where there is a new impetus to build organisations of civil society as a force for achieving and deepening democracy or rebuilding it in a radically new context (Wainwright 2005).
1.4 In summary, an understanding of the mutually reinforcing links between global civil society, network society and democracy can be presented in Scheme 1 below.
|
