2012

Indonesian Values & Ideology

SATYA RASYID TRIABADI 115020207121010 MUHAMMAD ARDIANSYAH 1150202071210 TRI ARYANI 1150202071210

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

Civil Society
Indonesian Values and Ideology

1. Definition of Civil Society

ivil society is the arena outside of the family, the state, and the market where people associate to advance common interests. It is sometimes considered to include the family and the private sphere and then referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business. Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon defines civil society as: 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government. Sometimes the term is used in the more general sense of "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary). The term entered public discourse in the United States in the 1990s. However its tradition is much richer and longstanding. Volunteering is often considered a defining characteristic of the organizations that constitute civil society, which in turn are often called NGOs, or NPOs. How to Measure Civil Society Civil society has become an important concept in the social sciences, and has emerged as a central topic among policymakers and practitioners alike. With such prominence comes a need for clearer understanding, better information and ways to position civil society and its various dimensions in the context of economy, polity and society at large. In this feature, Helmut K. Anheier, director of the Centre for Civil Society based at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Lisa Carlson, research assistant at the Centre, discuss the various definitions and the complexities of civil society. A phenomenon as complex and multifaceted as civil society invites a variety of definitions and attempts to capture its "conceptual essence". Even though the concept of civil society has become prominent in the social sciences, it remains somewhat unclear and even contested in terms of its actual meanings and uses. Ultimately, it may not be possible to develop a standard definition of civil society that would apply equally well to different settings. By contrast, an approach that views any conceptual definition as part, and indeed the outcome, of ongoing INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 2

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

empirical efforts to understand civil society appears as the more fruitful strategy. In this sense, any definition of civil society will evolve over time, and it neither can be regarded as given nor seen as something that can be imposed. Nonetheless, a working definition is needed for methodological development and empirical measurement. We would suggest the following formulation as the initial working or operational definition: "Civil society is the sphere of institutions, organisations and individuals located among the family, the state and the market, in which people associate voluntarily to advance common interests." This operational definition does not attempt to define all aspects of civil society, nor does it necessarily fit different perspectives and approaches equally well. What the definition does, however, is to list elements and components that most attempts to define civil society would identify as essential. Conceptual Development Many different definitions of civil society exist, and there is little agreement on its precise meaning, though much overlap exists among core conceptual components. While civil society is a somewhat contested concept, definitions typically vary in the emphasis they put on some characteristics of civil society over others; some definitions primarily focus on aspects of state power, politics and individual freedom, and others more on economic functions and notions of social capital and cohesion. Nonetheless, most analysts would probably agree with the statement that civil society is the sum of institutions, organisations, and individuals located among the family, the state and the market, in which people associate voluntarily to advance common interests. Civil society is primarily about the role of both the state and the market relative to that of citizens and the society they constitute. The intellectual history of the term is closely intertwined with the notion of citizenship, the limits of state power, and the foundation as well as the regulation of market economies. The prevailing modern view sees civil society as a sphere located between state and market--a buffer zone strong enough to keep both state and market in check, thereby preventing each from becoming too powerful and dominating. In the words of Ernest Gellner, civil society is the set of "institutions, which is strong enough to counterbalance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of peace and arbitrator between major interests, can, nevertheless, prevent the state from dominating and atomising the rest of society." Civil society is not a singular, monolithic, separate entity, but a sphere constituted in relation to both state and market, and indeed permeating both. Civil society is self-organisation of society outside the stricter realms of state power and market interests. For Jurgen Habermas, "civil society is made up of more or less spontaneously created associations, organisations and movements, which find, take up, condense and amplify the resonance of social problems in private life, and pass INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 3

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

it on to the political realm or public sphere". Dahrendorf sees the concept of civil society as part of a classical liberal tradition, and characterised by the existence of autonomous organisations that are neither state-run nor otherwise directed from the centre of political power. As a concept, civil society is essentially an intellectual product of eighteenthcentury Europe, in which citizens sought to define their place in society independent of the aristocratic state at a time when the certainty of a status-based social order began to suffer irreversible decline. The early theorists of civil society welcomed these changes. For Adam Smith, trade and commerce among private citizens created not only wealth but also invisible connections among people--the bonds of trust and social capital in today's terminology. Others like John Locke and Alexis de Tocqueville saw civil society less in relation to the market but more in political terms and emphasised the importance of democratic association in everyday life as a base of a functioning polity. Friedrich Hegel sounded a more cautionary note about the self-organising and self-regulatory capacity of civil society, and emphasised the need of the state to regulate society. For Hegel, state and civil society depend on each other, yet their relation is full of tensions and requires a complicated balancing act. The role of the state relative to civil society was also emphasised in the writings of Montesquieu, von Stein, and other thinkers, who saw the rule of law as the essence of state-society and society-market relations. In the twentieth century, civil society became associated with notions of civility, popular participation and civic mindedness (Verba), the public sphere (Jurgen Habermas), social capital (George Putnam), culture (Antonio Gramsci) and community (Amitai Etzioni). The various concepts and approaches emphasise different aspects or elements of civil society: values and norms like tolerance in the case of civility; the role of the media and the intellectual; the connections among people and the trust they have in each other; the moral dimensions communities create and need; and the extent to which people constitute a common public space through participation and civic engagement. The complexity of civil society and the many relations and intersections it has with the economy, the state and institutions like the family, the media or culture, make it not only possible but almost necessary to examine the concepts from different perspectives and orientations. Some analysts adopt an abstract, systemic view and see civil society as a macro-sociological attribute of societies, particular in the way state and society relate to each other. Others take on a more individualistic orientation and emphasise the notions of individual agency, citizenship, values and participation, using econometric and social network approaches in analysing civil society. There is also an institutional approach to study civil society by looking at the size, scope and structure of organisations and associations, and the functions they perform. Note that the different perspectives of civil society are not necessarily contradictory, nor are the various approaches to understanding it necessarily rival; INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 4

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

to the contrary, they are often complementary and differ in emphasis, explanatory focus and policy implication rather than in principle.

2. Country/Nation and Civil Society

irst, the concept of the nation-state (nation-state), and the challenge with the emergence of regional federalism. Second, the load on kemajemukkan problem and threat to the integration of a nation.

Third, which is actually a suppressor in the text relating to pendefenisian of civil society, which in turn affects the functioning of civil society. In this portion authors construct arguments how should the function of civil society, especially when it is associated with the current national problems. In relation to the function of civil society, Donny Sofyan said that in the context of Indonesia's irrelevant no dichotomy of state and civil society. Argument, relying on the notion Shimson Zelniker, a political scientist who was also a Special Advisor to Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and as Chairman of the Israel Program Center for Foreign Policy. Then at the end he concluded that portion to the present context "... civil society is built is a capable and alert overcome various crises we are facing." How to respond to these differences in perspective? What emerges from these two ways basically classic debate when talking about civil society. The debate can not be separated from the history of the emergence of the concept of civil society and the circumstances of the concept is applicable to other communities. Each group has a definition and how to operate the different civil society. However, the diversity in the definition above at least meet in one general idea. The general idea is then by CIVI CUS an international nonprofit contained in the basic principles of civil society. The basic principles are inclusive, in accordance with reality, actionoriented, functional and of relationships. So the meaning of civil society could become more widespread. Variety Understanding Civil Society Theoretically building of civil socirty undeniable very thick with the West face. The term civil society is derived from the Latin, Societas civilis. For the first time used the term civil society in Europe in the 17th century. Discourse often associated with the concept of civil society itself. A number of experts from many leaders will try to show. The first thought of the two figures that are often referred to as a carrier thinking about civil society, Johk Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both experts identically civil society to political society or state. Besides the two figures proficiency level, a number of classical sociology as Durkheim, Comte, Karl Marx and Spencer also be classified as an expert who participated gave discourse on civil society. INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 5

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

Fourth thinkers this post over the concept of civil society as a civilization society. In termuktahir discourse is often referred to is the conception of civil society proposed by Alexis de Tocqeiville and Gramsci. Civil society in both conception is seen as the power of the people that are beyond the power of the state. Tocqeiville see civil society as a counterweight to the power of state power. As a counterweight to the power of civil society has the characteristics of volunteerism, self-reliance, and independence. While Gramcsci, see civil society as a hegemony that is outside the country. Hegemony outside the country serves as a counter hegemony. Although not necessarily of affairs between state and society is always in a pattern of mutually contradictory relationships face to face. However, the opposite pattern of relationships will lead to a process that would contribute to the regularity of the public. Civil Society and the State Differences devenisi the civil society, then the impact on the two views, which saw civil society vertically, the more pressure on the political dimension and a horizontal view of civil society, with an emphasis on cultural dimensions. The difference is then theoretically be accommodated by Michael W.Foley and Bob Edwards with the notion of civil society groupings of two forms. First, civil society in terms of capability development values politeness (civility) for groups as well as in the lives of citizens or the general public (CS I). In CS I discourse emphasizes horizontal and cultural aspects related to the civility or civilization, fraternity and equality. Secondly, civil society in terms of a space for the action of the state independent able to fight against the tyrannical regime (CS II). Focus on vertical aspect with emphasis on the autonomy of the people of the country and close to politics. This means balancing the vertical analysis of civil society against the power of the dominant or even hegemonic. Continuation of the diversity of civil society in terms of the shape or pattern is to do with the state. In this case there are three patterns of relationship with the civil society, which is complementary of the country, substitute of the country and the third as a force equal to the state. Its application is always three forms exist in society. Even the civil society organizations can sometimes be applied in turn. Therefore the relationship of civil society to the state is better suited as a strategy called movement. Because it deals with the strategy of choice watermelon is highly dependent on the social and political conditions civil society grow. Why in the relationship is using the term country is not the government? It is more based on the context of power relations, the state, market and civil society. The government in this case is in the country. State here not in the sense of unity in the INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 6

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

region such as the theories of the formation of the state, but rather the force that has the power to operate the state. Watermelon there is no government as the executive, the judiciary and the judiciary as a legislative parlement. Civil society outside it, as well as outside the market. But even though he was out of the state and the market does not mean there is no interaction. In this regard see the CIVICUS civil society is an "arena" that open public space where social interests mutually integrated. A brief description above gives us an insight on the debate conception of civil society is not a debate of Western and non-Western. Because the debate is actually also occurs in the background thinkers alike. If it is then considered a very typical Western one more due in its use tend to be used as a reference. Application of Civil Society Regardless of where the idea came from civil society, the concept of civil society more and more discussed, along with globalize idea of democracy. He became one of the prerequisites consolidated democracy. The issue is whether the concept of civil society that in fact he was born of Western society, applies equally in all communities. The logic of social thought would answer no, the diversity of the community will be affected by the history of the community itself. A number of studies also show similar things. One example of research conducted by Charles E. Ziegler, he saw different colors of the civil society in the former Soviet countries. Civil society movements away from the confrontational stance and closer to the cooperative attitude. Long live the Communist authoritarian system, the emergence of an apolitical middle class, and "ingenuity" ruling class to attract the educated circles of power into a variable that makes civil society into different colors. What about Indonesians? Conceptually discourse of civil society represented by at least two thinkers, namely AS Hikam and Nurcholis Madjid. AS Hikam more focus on aspects of community self-reliance and free from the hegemony of the state. While Nurcholis Madjid focus more on the sense of civilized society and nature complement of the country. In this case, refer to the community Nurcholis Madjid Medina during the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, this group prefers to call it by the term civil society or civil society is not civil society. While in terms of movement, civil society in Indonesia is more diverse. At least two forms of civil society relations with countries such as those described in the beginning present in civil society movements in Indonesia. There are times when one strategy, but it is not uncommon to be done simultaneously. This can be traced very clearly since the movement of people to make Indonesia - which is marked by INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 7

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

the emergence of civil society organizations likes States Dangang, Boedi Oetomo until recently when people want to make Indonesia democracy. In many cases, the civil society movement combines vertical and horizontal have shown its effectiveness. One of them, for the local level to take a sample of movements by Care Forum of West Sumatra (FPSB). In my opinion, in the future - at least until it can be believed to be truly democratic consolidation has formed - the position of civil society movements in Indonesia emphasizes vertical manner by encouraging policy more inclusive and equitable. While matters relating to the creation of a civilized society underpinned by universal values (horizontal), our society still has a strong social capital.

3. Religion and Civil Society

heologically, in addition to religious beliefs, also plays himself as the source of absolute and universal values. As a value, religion becomes an ethical framework in developing the morality of power and civil society. Religion is believed to be the minutes from the God who is theo-centric, while the morality of power and civil society is part of the anthropological-centric focus on human problems and legitemasinya was obtained from each other. The issue of religion, morality, power and civil society is a humanitarian and human issue. Only, the difference is that religion is the human response to God, while the power and response of civil society and manners are social human beings in the context of struggle with each other. The relationship between religious values with human values must be integrated seamlessly, and eventually gave birth to the ethical-religious values. Perhaps this is an ideal concept that can be expected to be a cornerstone in building a moral authority and civil society. Because they no ethical-religious support efforts to uphold the morality of power and civil society is an empty delusion (nihilism) alone. So it should still be based on the religious-ethical framework. Islam in looking at value, not directly provide justification either reject or accept. But the attitude of Islam in this respect is more appreciative using the following criteria: First, to maintain the elements of values or norms that have been established and positive. Second, eliminating the elements of values and norms that have been established but negative. Third, cultivate the elements of values and norms that does not exist and is considered positive. Fourth, is received (receptive), select (selective), digest (digestive), merge-merge in a single system (assimilative), and convey to others (transmissive) to the value in general. Fifth, is purgatory reconstructive value, so that appropriate and consistent with their own religious values. Those things, will manifest the ideal relationship between religious values and community values. INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 8

GROUP ASSIGNMENT November 3, 2012

The integration of public and government become a potent force build trust people. This is the core of the intended reform in the new century. The level of competition will be able to win "trust" - trust. Love is a spirit binder attitude to the Nation which was fused by historical experience. One of translating the information for decisionmaking influence. Attitude haste will result in much for the safety of the people. Plural society can be fostered with the power reliji ethics.

INDONESIAN VALUES AND IDEOLOGY