The Jakarta Post
Benny YP Siahaan,
Geneva Sun, 05/17/2009 1:37 PM,
In the course of a discussion held in Geneva recently, several questions were raised over the role of NGOs in the national parliament in recent years. According to the inquirers, the behavior and activities of local NGOs are beginning to arouse certain suspicions.
For example, they are the ones who usually offer input to those deliberating the various draft laws that are discussed in almost every commission in parliament. They are also very active in organizing seminars and workshops to mobilize opinion on the issues they wish to promote. They are also widely published in the media.
The inquirers' suspicions and concerns were two-fold.
Firstly, they were curious about the seemingly huge amount of resources and funds at the disposal of the local NGOs, most of which are in fact non-profit organizations.
Secondly, they were puzzled as to the easy access to and influence over the national media that these NGOs appear to enjoy; while members of the House of Representatives (DPR) find it more difficult to have their views publicized in these same media outlets.
They are afraid that if this situation continues it may harm Indonesia in the future. In particular, they are worried that members of parliament are unaware and incapable of assessing the draft laws proposed by the executive branch, or the inputs of NGOs, which are often too alien and too sophisticated for many parliamentarians.
This issue is timely, even if the phenomenon is not entirely new. The Activist beyond borders: Transnational advocacy in international politics (1998) by Katryn Sikkink and Susan Keck, is perhaps one of the best works on the subject.
The authors posit that this phenomenon, which they dubbed "transnational advocacy networks (TANs)", has been taking place throughout world politics over most of the last two decades. Although loosely formed, TANs are based on shared principles, ideas or values, which often include human rights, democracy, the environment, etc.
According to the authors, international and domestic NGOs play a central role in these TANs, which may also include local social movements, the media, intellectuals, parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations as well as elements from the executive and/or parliamentary branches of (usually Western)governments, especially when they seek to put pressure on target countries.
The two authors further explain that such networks increase the access and voice of citizens in the international system and can provide them with resources in both international and domestic political processes. Indeed, by blurring the boundaries between domestic and international politics, TANs challenge the practice of national sovereignty, and in turn, the centrality of state authority in world politics.
What is not clear is whether these countries are in fact deliberately funding the activities of international and domestic NGOs to advance their own particular agendas vis-*-vis certain countries or groups of countries.
Notwithstanding, we may also note that not all the effects of the TANs are necessarily bad. For example, the wave of democratization in many countries over the past decades, including in Indonesia, may in one way or another be in part thanks to the TANs.
Whether or not this is in fact the case, and whatever the realities of individual situations are, it is difficult in the current globalized world to contain the phenomenon of TANs per se without a careful strategy.
The problem resides in the fact that TANs use lawful domestic political processes such as submitting inputs to parliaments, organizing seminars and workshops, lobbying government agencies/ministries concerned and utilizing the media in order to mobilize opinion on the issues they wish to promote.
Hence, the strategy to adopt in tackling this phenomenon should strike a balance between securing the national interest and preserving the freedom of civil society organizations (CSOs) - an important pillar of free democratic societies.
It is true that the legislation and regulations governing CSOs must be adequate and up-to-date. However, they should also take into account good examples or best practices in other democratic countries. It is also important that members of parliament be capable and competent.
Indeed, Law No. 8/1985 on CSOs is outdated, since it was enacted under Soeharto's authoritarian regime and does not reflect the current social conditions after the reform era.
The suggestions and efforts to revise this outdated law should therefore be examined and implemented regardless of the reticence of many NGOs, who fear that this new law is primarily aimed at controlling and repressing them, as was the case during the Soeharto era. This explains why some NGOs see no need to revise the old law.
Indeed, this not only makes the "rules of the game" clear and current, but also increases accountability, transparency and public confidence vis-*-vis the organizations themselves.
The question of nationalism and the independence of NGOs in this situation is also difficult to answer as many NGOs receive funds from abroad. According to one estimate, around 80 percent of Indonesian NGOs receive funds from foreign sources (Kompas, Dec. 23, 2008). Thus it is logical that their independence and even their loyalty to the country be questioned. In my opinion, however, this depends on the activists themselves.
The author is an Indonesian diplomat. This is his personal opinion.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/05/17/postreform-ngos-a-query.html
Benny YP Siahaan,
Geneva Sun, 05/17/2009 1:37 PM,
In the course of a discussion held in Geneva recently, several questions were raised over the role of NGOs in the national parliament in recent years. According to the inquirers, the behavior and activities of local NGOs are beginning to arouse certain suspicions.
For example, they are the ones who usually offer input to those deliberating the various draft laws that are discussed in almost every commission in parliament. They are also very active in organizing seminars and workshops to mobilize opinion on the issues they wish to promote. They are also widely published in the media.
The inquirers' suspicions and concerns were two-fold.
Firstly, they were curious about the seemingly huge amount of resources and funds at the disposal of the local NGOs, most of which are in fact non-profit organizations.
Secondly, they were puzzled as to the easy access to and influence over the national media that these NGOs appear to enjoy; while members of the House of Representatives (DPR) find it more difficult to have their views publicized in these same media outlets.
They are afraid that if this situation continues it may harm Indonesia in the future. In particular, they are worried that members of parliament are unaware and incapable of assessing the draft laws proposed by the executive branch, or the inputs of NGOs, which are often too alien and too sophisticated for many parliamentarians.
This issue is timely, even if the phenomenon is not entirely new. The Activist beyond borders: Transnational advocacy in international politics (1998) by Katryn Sikkink and Susan Keck, is perhaps one of the best works on the subject.
The authors posit that this phenomenon, which they dubbed "transnational advocacy networks (TANs)", has been taking place throughout world politics over most of the last two decades. Although loosely formed, TANs are based on shared principles, ideas or values, which often include human rights, democracy, the environment, etc.
According to the authors, international and domestic NGOs play a central role in these TANs, which may also include local social movements, the media, intellectuals, parts of regional and international intergovernmental organizations as well as elements from the executive and/or parliamentary branches of (usually Western)governments, especially when they seek to put pressure on target countries.
The two authors further explain that such networks increase the access and voice of citizens in the international system and can provide them with resources in both international and domestic political processes. Indeed, by blurring the boundaries between domestic and international politics, TANs challenge the practice of national sovereignty, and in turn, the centrality of state authority in world politics.
What is not clear is whether these countries are in fact deliberately funding the activities of international and domestic NGOs to advance their own particular agendas vis-*-vis certain countries or groups of countries.
Notwithstanding, we may also note that not all the effects of the TANs are necessarily bad. For example, the wave of democratization in many countries over the past decades, including in Indonesia, may in one way or another be in part thanks to the TANs.
Whether or not this is in fact the case, and whatever the realities of individual situations are, it is difficult in the current globalized world to contain the phenomenon of TANs per se without a careful strategy.
The problem resides in the fact that TANs use lawful domestic political processes such as submitting inputs to parliaments, organizing seminars and workshops, lobbying government agencies/ministries concerned and utilizing the media in order to mobilize opinion on the issues they wish to promote.
Hence, the strategy to adopt in tackling this phenomenon should strike a balance between securing the national interest and preserving the freedom of civil society organizations (CSOs) - an important pillar of free democratic societies.
It is true that the legislation and regulations governing CSOs must be adequate and up-to-date. However, they should also take into account good examples or best practices in other democratic countries. It is also important that members of parliament be capable and competent.
Indeed, Law No. 8/1985 on CSOs is outdated, since it was enacted under Soeharto's authoritarian regime and does not reflect the current social conditions after the reform era.
The suggestions and efforts to revise this outdated law should therefore be examined and implemented regardless of the reticence of many NGOs, who fear that this new law is primarily aimed at controlling and repressing them, as was the case during the Soeharto era. This explains why some NGOs see no need to revise the old law.
Indeed, this not only makes the "rules of the game" clear and current, but also increases accountability, transparency and public confidence vis-*-vis the organizations themselves.
The question of nationalism and the independence of NGOs in this situation is also difficult to answer as many NGOs receive funds from abroad. According to one estimate, around 80 percent of Indonesian NGOs receive funds from foreign sources (Kompas, Dec. 23, 2008). Thus it is logical that their independence and even their loyalty to the country be questioned. In my opinion, however, this depends on the activists themselves.
The author is an Indonesian diplomat. This is his personal opinion.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/05/17/postreform-ngos-a-query.html
No comments:
Post a Comment