Bob S. Hadiwinata

The Politics of Civil Society in the Post-Suharto Indonesia: NGOs and CSOs Relations

Introduction

The politics of civil society in the post-suharto indonesia: ngos and csos relations. Explore post-Suharto Indonesia's civil society politics, analyzing NGO and CSO relations amidst democratization hopes, elite control, and volatile local political challenges.

Abstract

Hopes for democratization in Indonesia runs high, especially among political observers both at home and abroad. However, the elitist character of Indonesian politics have produced surprises and volatile changes that in the long run may jeopardize democracy itself. When decentralization was introduced, the power falls into the hands of the local bosses whose greed control on local resources have brought local political system into stalemate. When most parts of the society took laws into their own hands, the concept of civil society is inflated and mischievousness enters the local politics.

Review

This paper addresses a highly pertinent and complex topic: the political landscape of civil society in post-Suharto Indonesia, with a stated focus on the relations between NGOs and CSOs. The abstract immediately sets a critical tone, highlighting the significant challenges to democratization despite initial high hopes. It draws attention to the enduring elitist character of national politics, the problematic outcomes of decentralization where power is concentrated in the hands of "local bosses," and a perceived breakdown of order where society "took laws into their own hands." These issues, the abstract suggests, contribute to a situation where the very concept of civil society becomes "inflated" and "mischievousness enters local politics." While the abstract effectively conveys a sense of urgency and the multifaceted obstacles facing Indonesian democracy, it presents several areas that would benefit from clarification and refinement. Most notably, despite the title's explicit mention of "NGOs and CSOs Relations," the abstract itself does not articulate *how* these actors are central to the issues described, nor does it offer a clear research question or argumentative thesis concerning their roles or interactions. The language, at times, leans towards the descriptive and judgmental rather than analytical (e.g., "greed control," "mischievousness"), which can detract from academic rigor. Furthermore, the sweeping claim that "most parts of the society took laws into their own hands" requires substantiation or more nuanced contextualization to be persuasive. To enhance the paper's impact and clarity, the abstract should be revised to more explicitly state the paper's central argument or the specific research question it seeks to answer regarding the dynamics and relations between NGOs and CSOs within the tumultuous political environment described. It would be beneficial to articulate *how* these civil society actors either contribute to, mitigate, or are affected by the elitist politics, decentralization failures, or the perceived societal disorder. By adopting a more analytical framework and clearly linking the broader political challenges to the specific focus on NGOs and CSOs, the paper can make a more precise and valuable contribution to the literature on Indonesian democratization and civil society studies.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.