Meaning of civil society evolves through time

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.