Meaning of civil society evolves through time

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): The presence of government-backed civil security "volunteer" groups during the just concluded Special Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) has attracted much public attention.

They poured in from outside Jakarta, traveling together and arming themselves with sharpened bamboo poles (bambu runcing) and sickles. They claimed that they came to the capital on their own initiative, and their sole purpose was to help the government guard and protect the MPR to ensure that all planned sessions were free from interference, physical or otherwise.

One question hanging in the air is whether the volunteer security guard goes in tandem with the rising civil society movement and whether it can be looked upon as an extension of the neighborhood security system (Siskamling).

Let us explore a number of "civil society" definitions.

Nancy Bermeo defines it as "the collection of intermediary groups and voluntary organizations that occupy the space between the family and the state". If we use this definition, I think that the civil security guards cannot be considered a civil society organization.

The reason is that the volunteer civil guard groups do not position themselves between the family and the state. They are entirely detached from family affairs and attach themselves to the state, that is the state security institutions. They are thus not intermediary groups.

The neighborhood security system, on the other hand, is and has always been a civil society organization. It is the oldest form of civil society organization in the country. They protect their respective neighborhoods from every type of security threat that cannot be handled by state security institutions. These organizations do thus position themselves between the family and the state.

Philippe Schmitter describes civil society as the "reservoirs of resistance to arbitrary and tyrannical action". If we use this description as a criterion, then volunteer civil guard cannot be looked upon as a part of civil society. These groups do not have records of resisting arbitrary and tyrannical actions in their short history of existence.

But this definition also rejects the neighborhood security system as part of civil society. The reason is that in most cases these neighborhood security systems do not have the record of guarding their respective neighborhoods against "tyrannical actions or groups".

What most of these organizations have done is to guard their respective neighborhoods against criminal groups. It is only within communities that are constantly terrorized by tyrannical groups that neighborhood security systems can be called true elements of civil society.

What is then the precise meaning of civil society?

The concept of civil society is a dynamic one. In the 1960s and 1970s the word "civil society" was not yet fashionable, and scholars wrote about "interest groups" or "class associations", such as "the working class", "trade unions", and "the church" to denote groups associated with specific social interests.

During these years such movements were most likely groups which were playing the role of "spoiler in conditions of scarcity." By mobilizing citizenry and articulating popular demands they built up very real "political threats", forcing governments to adopt whatever policies best satisfied the sector that was most threatening at a given time.

Elected politicians during these years were put in a situation of "unmanageable political demands." This is because, according to political scientists, politicized people confronted with scarcity "don't just get mad, they go mad."

Civic organizations during these years were thus not associated with "good governments", but with "bad policies".

According to Juan J. Linz, a scholar in problems of democracy building, such civic organizations at the time were unlikely to make "unwavering commitment" to the building of democracy per se.

Gradually the civil society movement has adopted a more positive character. Beginning the late 1980s civil society has become associated with "just and effective government".

Relying on the growing body of empirical evidence that "long term economic growth entails the development of the rule of law and the protection of civil and political freedoms", civil society movements have reformed themselves to become institutions capable of providing state elites with "clear counsel on authentic needs." Civil society is now thought of as being able to play "a central role in resolving problems of successful governance." Strong civil societies are now perceived as a necessity to "support progress towards greater social and economic equality."

How are we progressing in this regard? Have we achieved a stage of development in our civil society movement where groups of ordinary citizens can be instrumental in generating accountable governments that are capable of making economic reforms compatible with democratic governance?

We still have a long way to go. And we will never be there as long as we still resort to the practices of the 1960s and 1970s in our efforts to see our political preferences fulfilled.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.