CITIZENS IN ACTION by Yanuar Nugroho

Citizens in @ction
Collaboration, participatory democracy and freedom of information
Mapping contemporary civic activism and the use of new social media in Indonesia

A joint research project by
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research and
HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia

August – December 2010

A research project report by

Yanuar Nugroho
Principal Investigator
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester

Except where otherwise noted, content on this report
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

University of Manchester’s Institute of Innovation Research &

March 2011

Citizens in @ction

Published in Great Britain in 2011 by
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
Manchester Business School
University of Manchester
Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL
United Kingdom

Published in Indonesia in 2011 by
Jl. Kemang Selatan XII/No. 1
Jakarta Selatan 12560
Indonesia

Cover illustration by Blontank Poer, all rights reserved.
Translation into Bahasa Indonesia by Aresto Yudo Sujono.
Editing in Bahasa Indonesia by Blontank Poer.

This report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Some rights reserved.

How to cite this report:

Nugroho, Yanuar. 2011. Citizens in @ction: Collaboration, participatory democracy and
freedom of information – Mapping contemporary civic activism and the use of
new social media in Indonesia. Report. Research collaboration of Manchester
Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester and HIVOS Regional
Office Southeast Asia. Manchester and Jakarta: MIOIR and HIVOS.

1

Acknowledgement

The research was commissioned by HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia
to the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester, UK

Contract No. QL119I01

Principal Investigator : Dr. Yanuar Nugroho
Co-investigator : Ms. Shita Laksmi
Research Assistant (Manchester) : Ms. Mirta Amalia
Research Assistant (Indonesia) : Ms. Maria Santi Widyartini
Research Administrator/Support : Ms. Deborah Cox
Academic Advisor : Professor Ian Miles

Throughout the research, the team received huge support and assistance from numerous Indonesian
civil society contacts and partners, and who also participated in our study in survey, interview, focus
group discussions and workshops. We particularly owe thanks and gratitude to Ilarius Wibisono and
Tasha Setiawan (Aceh); Aquino Wreddya Hayunta and Victorius Elfino Sadipun (Jakarta); Gustaff
Harriman Iskandar and Tarlen Handayani (Bandung); Akhmad Nasir, Farah Wardani, and Nuraini
Juliastuti (Yogyakarta); Blontank Poer (Solo); Triarani Susy Utami, and Anton Muhajir (Denpasar).

Cover illustration of this report is kindly provided by Blontank Poer, who retains all the copyrights.
Kathryn Morrison read and corrected the language of this report. Aresto Yudo Sujono translated it
into Bahasa Indonesia and Blontank Poer edited it.

2

Executive Summary

The purpose of this research is to empirically examine the ways in which Indonesian civil
society organisations and groups engage in civic activism by means of the use of Internet
and social media; and how this civic engagement impacts upon the shaping of civil society
in Indonesia.

1. The fieldwork data states clearly that civil society in Indonesia is obviously a vibrant
sphere. This vivacious realm is apparently not only a result of the engagement of
Indonesian civil society groups and communities with global civil society, but is also
shaped by the internal dynamics of the civil society over time. This widening of the
civic space, as a result of civic activism, is also attributed to the use of the Internet,
and lately social media, in Indonesian civil society.

2. Our research findings show that the Indonesian social media landscape is very
dynamic. Both as an online sphere and as a market, it is big, growing and highly
active. Social networking media such as Facebook and Twitter have become very
popular for various reasons: the affordability of mobile phones; the strong sense of
community in the Indonesian culture, and trends that spread quickly. Indonesian
civil society groups and communities are also active users of the Internet and social
media. The characteristics of new social media make it convenient for civil society to
use, in order to assist them in achieving their missions and goals. Yet not all civil
society groups and organisations use it strategically. A strategic use of the Internet
cannot therefore be seen as just a direct output of using the technology.

3. Our observations suggest that a strategic use of the Internet and social media in civil
society should be beyond technological, rather it should be about the widening of
the interaction between civil society groups and communities and the beneficiaries
they work with and for. Only when civil society can maintain a dynamic interaction
with the public through their strategic use of popular new social media, can we
expect the impact of the civic activism to be more significant. The diffusion of the
Internet and social media in civil society itself is not, and will never be, a black-box
process. Here, in the core, is a process of sociotechnical alignment underpinning the
diffusion of technology, by putting the agency, not the technology, at the centre.

4. Two trends are noticeable here: the growth of civil society activism, and the use of
the Internet and social media. The difficulty lies not in the way we understand the
growth of the two, but in the link between them. What we expose and present here
are the dynamics of civil society in Indonesia and the impact that the use of the
Internet and social media has had upon them. Our main discussion shows that civic
activism in Indonesia is characterised not only by their use of the technology (one-
direction) but also by the co-evolution between technology use and the
development of civic activism itself. There is a two-way relationship between the
ways in which civic activism is shaped by Internet and social media use, and the role
that the Internet and social media play as a platform for civic activism.

5. Networks of civil society may be both an intended as much as an unintended
consequence of civic engagement. Networking should be strategised as networks

3

provide dynamic ways for civic activisms to be mediated. The implications are
twofold: at the organisational level, the focus of attention should be on to what
degree the strategy of using the Internet and social media to mediate the
networking of civil society is reflected in their organisational strategy at large.
Secondly, at the inter-organisational (social movement) level, there is a need to
facilitate a sphere where civil society groups and communities can meet and
network, not only with other groups, but also with the wider public. Our fieldwork
indicates that a few groups have started this initiative, but much more effort is
needed.

6. Concerning the future, the study features a modified Foresight exercise, in which
the participants envisaged a desirable scenario. It is a plausible future where the
wider society is more cohesive, participatory and at the same time interacts in a
knowledge-based engagement, facilitated by equally accessible technology for all
citizens. It is also a future where the economy is driven by production; the
environment is treated carefully, and people live in a vibrant, democratic society. To
arrive at this scenario, the suggestion is that the Internet and social media, should
be utilised in order to strengthen social cohesiveness and widen participation in
socio-political life, as well as to foster economic activity. The Foresight exercise was
found to be useful, but should not stop here. There is a need to follow up this
exercise, to evaluate how the recent exercise would have directed the future
trajectory of the use of the Internet and social media in civil society, and also to
build the capacity of civil society for future thinking about their involvement in the
information society.

7. In facilitating socio-political activism, the Internet and social media are not
detached from the off-line realm, rather, they can work with it. Within civil society,
the Internet affects the dynamics of social, economic and political activism. It has
the potential to globalise local socio-political dynamics and at the same time to
localise global issues. However, in order to ensure this to happen, groups and
organisations within civil society have to document their works and engagements
by themselves. Our observations uncovered that whilst the groups and communities
under study were willing to do it, they noted that their capacity was still somewhat
limited

With technology and its use continuously shifting and being shaped, the appropriation of
the Internet and social media in Indonesian civil society is more about process than
outcome. The technologies are continuously modified and adapted to bring them into
alignment with the organisations’ routines. ‘Citizens in action’ are therefore never fixed in
format, but rather ‘constituted and reconstituted’ through the everyday practices of the
civil society groups and communities involving citizens and activists alike in ongoing
actions – where technology serves as a convivial means.

4

Content
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................. 3
Content .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Background and rationale .......................................................................................................... 8
1.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3. Questions and research undertaken ....................................................................................... 10
1.4. Structure of the report.............................................................................................................. 12
2. Indonesian civil society in the spotlight: A vibrant sphere .................................................................... 13
2.1. Organisational profile ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Organisational dynamics .......................................................................................................... 17
2.3. Organisational network ............................................................................................................ 20
3. Internet and social media in the contemporary Indonesia .................................................................... 25
3.1. At the backdrop … ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.2. ICT: Bridging or dividing?......................................................................................................... 28
3.3. An ‘always online’ generation: Networking and social media............................................ 30
4. Indonesian civil society online: Profiles and patterns............................................................................. 36
4.1. Internet and social media: adoption, use, and appropriation ............................................ 37
4.2. Drivers and barriers to Internet and social media adoption .............................................. 42
Drivers ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Barriers ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Perceived attributes .................................................................................................................. 45
4.3. Beyond communication tools? ................................................................................................ 46
4.4. In hindsight and summary ....................................................................................................... 49
5. Transformation of the civic realms: Intended or unintended?.............................................................. 51
5.1. What transformation?............................................................................................................... 51
5.2. Role of Internet and social media............................................................................................ 55
5.3. Collaboration and networking revisited ................................................................................ 58
5.4. In hindsight and summary ....................................................................................................... 62
6. Towards the future of Indonesian civil society on the Net: A Foresight exercise............................... 64
6.1. Horizon Scanning: Events and trends .................................................................................... 66
6.2. Drivers for change ..................................................................................................................... 70
6.3. Plausible Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 73
6.4. In hindsight and towards a roadmap...................................................................................... 76
7. Citizens in @ction: Synthesis and reflection............................................................................................. 78
7.1. Internet and social media: A sui generis? ................................................................................ 79
7.2. Does agency matter? Real engagement v. ‘click activism’ .................................................. 80
7.3. Beyond individual, collective, and network: The role of technology................................ 81
7.4. In hindsight................................................................................................................................. 82
8. Conclusions and implications ...................................................................................................................... 84
8.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 84
8.2. Implications ................................................................................................................................ 85
8.3. Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 86
8.4. Closing remark ........................................................................................................................... 86

References........................................................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix 1. Notes on impacts ......................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix 2. Respondents, interviewees, and participants of workshops and FGD ................................ 93

5

Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Phases of the study .......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2. Organisational profile...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3. Organisational concerns and issues .............................................................................................. 16
Figure 4. Organisational activities ................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5. Source of funding ............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 6. Feedback effects in measuring performance of voluntary organisations .............................. 19
Figure 7. The expansion of the national network ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 8. The expansion of the international network .............................................................................. 22
Figure 9. The diffusion of warnet (Internet kiosks) in Indonesia .............................................................. 26
Figure 10. Villages with cable (left) and wireless (right) telephone connection ................................... 27
Figure 11. Growth of cable’s and wireless’ network (left) and customer (right) ................................... 28
Figure 12. Existing fibre optic in Indonesia.................................................................................................. 30
Figure 13. Mobile vendors in a street in Yogyakarta .................................................................................. 31
Figure 14. Facebook vs Friendster in Indonesia ............................................................................................ 32
Figure 15. The dedicated Facebook page to support for Bibit-Chandra .................................................... 34
Figure 16. Map of blogger communities in Indonesia ................................................................................ 38
Figure 17. The use of new social media in Indonesian civil society communities and organisations 40
Figure 18. The use of conventional media in Indonesian civil society groups and organisations ...... 41
Figure 19. Website Jalin Merapi ....................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 20. Organisational internal reasons for using Internet and social media................................... 43
Figure 21. Organisational external reasons for using Internet and social media .................................. 44
Figure 22. Negative aspects caused by Internet and social media use..................................................... 44
Figure 23. Difficulties in the use of Internet and social media.................................................................. 45
Figure 24. Map of the followers of @JalinMerapi ........................................................................................ 48
Figure 25. Benefit of Internet and social media use in civil society groups and organisations........... 56
Figure 26. Network map of national links of respondent groups ............................................................. 59
Figure 27. Capacity building trainings organised by Rumah Blogger Indonesia Bengawan, Solo ...... 61
Figure 28. How confident are you about …? ................................................................................................. 64
Figure 29. Five phases of Foresight and activities involved in each phase ............................................. 65
Figure 30. Foresight exercise: Identification of events and trends .......................................................... 69
Figure 31. Foresight exercise: Identification of drivers for change ......................................................... 72
Figure 32. Foresight exercise: Creating plausible scenarios...................................................................... 75

Table 1. Establishment of CSO respondent ................................................................................................... 14
Table 2. Number of staff: Fulltime and part-time........................................................................................ 15
Table 3. Number of organisation/group/community members............................................................... 15
Table 4. Annual turnover................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 5. Top-20 most visited sites by Indonesians when online ............................................................... 32
Table 6. When did your organisation start using the Internet?................................................................ 37
Table 7. The use of Internet technologies..................................................................................................... 38
Table 8. The provision of Internet access in civil society groups and organisations ............................ 46
Table 9. Provision and access of information on the Net........................................................................... 47
Table 10. The use of Internet and social media in civil society groups and organisations................... 47
Table 11. Impact of Internet and social media use and adoption in civil society .................................. 55
Table 12. Benefit of Internet and social media use to wider society ........................................................ 57

6

1.
Introduction

We believe that if we, civil society, want to work in a new fashion, we need new modes of
interaction and communication. Consequently we need a new paradigm to devise new
tactics and strategies. To us, information and communication technologies like the
Internet and social media are innovations that we can use to make our work more
efficient, strategic and have wider impact. We have to build our capacity so that we can
tactically and strategically take advantage of publicly available information and
knowledge.
(Rini Nasution, Satudunia, interview, 7/9/2010)

Only two days after the Tsunami of 2004 devastated Aceh, Northern Sumatra, volunteers of
Airputih (airputih.or.id) managed to restore the communication and provided Internet
connection without which, arguably, humanitarian relief to work to help the casualties
would be impossible (Nugroho, 2009). Similarly, when Mt. Merapi in Yogyakarta recently
erupted in October 2010 claiming the lives of hundreds and forcing tens of thousands of
people to evacuate, Jalin Merapi (merapi.combine.or.id) took advantage of the Internet and
social media to mobilise volunteers and distribute aid. In a different way, but in a similar
vein, this technology has stolen public attention in Indonesia (and probably beyond) in the
case of Prita Mulyasari and Bibit-Chandra – when Facebook was used as the tool to organise
rallies and mobilise support for those who represented the ‘oppressed’ in Indonesian
society. Arguably, in the Indonesian context, such a phenomenon symbolises - or more
precisely- strengthens, the notion of a ‘new’ social movement in which social media use has
characterised both the organisation and the magnitude of the movement.

However, this is not solely about Internet technology and social media innovations. At the
centre are the undertakings of civil society groups and communities who organise
themselves in the wake of crises, or societal challenges. Technology, in this perspective,
comes second – serving civil society communities to help meet their goals and fulfil their
purposes. For example, in disasters like in Aceh or Merapi, the government itself was
paralysed and unable to react, forcing civil society groups to take care of themselves – with
the help of the Internet and social media technologies. Likewise, the technology was central
in mobilising support for social causes like the ones supporting Prita who was unfairly tried
and prosecuted in her effort to complain about the treatment she received from a private
hospital, or to organise massive rallies backing Bibit and Chandra in their efforts to combat
corruption. Certainly, this does not stop here.

Today, more and more civil society communities and groups have been using these
technologies to effectively manage and expand their activism. To borrow Ivan Illich’s term ,
these communication technologies, Internet and social media, have indeed become new
‘convivial’ tools (1973) that civil society can use to foster activism. Civil society is now
facing a new array of challenges, from the ‘traditional’ issues of promoting democracy and
development, to the modern issue of freedom of information. This is no exception in
Indonesian civil society.

7

Despite all this, systematic research into the use of the Internet and social media
innovations in civil society is fairly limited, especially in developing contexts like Indonesia
(among the few, focusing on the Internet more generally, see Lim, 2002, 2004, 2006;
Nugroho, 2008, 2010a, b, 2011; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008). As a result, not only do we
know little about patterns of use and adoption of these technologies; we do not know the
extent of the processes involved in such use and how these impact upon civil society
organisational functions. It seems natural that such research would be not only
academically important in itself, but also beneficial both for policy and practical purposes,
especially when taking into account the roles that Indonesia plays in the societal
development and technological uptake of the Southeast Asia region, which is one of the
fastest-growing regions in the world.

This is what motivates this HIVOS-Manchester research collaboration.

1.1. Background and rationale
The emergence of information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the
Internet, has given new impetus for the birth, or more precisely, the reinvention, of civil
society (Hajnal, 2002). That is, a networked amalgam of organisations, groups and
movements within civil society aiming to achieve civic agendas such as democratisation
and freedom of information (Anheier et al., 2001; Bartelson, 2006; Kaldor, 2003) – at local,
national, regional and global levels. This coalescence is important not only because such
civil society movement operates beyond the confines of the traditional boundaries of
societies, polities, and economies (and actually offers transnational opportunity for
debates), but because it also influences the framework of governance, even at the global
level (Anheier et al., 2001:11; Kaldor et al., 2004:2). This argument is worth examining in a
context where democracy is still in its infancy, such as in Indonesia.

This study examines the patterns and processes of collaboration of civil society groups in
Indonesia in promoting participatory democracy and freedom of information using new
social media and ICTs. It builds on and extends earlier work by the Principal Investigator
(Nugroho, 2007, 2008, 2010b; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008) which looked at the ways in
which civil society organisations (CSOs) in Indonesia innovate by adopting new media
innovations. The research is also informed by two recent studies (Berkhout et al., 2011;
Gaventa and Barrett, 2010) on civic driven change and citizen engagement respectively, in
which HIVOS has much interest. Here we advance the arguments and underline the
rationale for the research. Civil society has become more pivotal in social dynamics;
challenging and shaping the working of the state/public (first sector) and of the market
(second sector) in both familiar and new ways. However, this study does not focus on civil
society groups as self-contained units; it will seek to build understanding about the ways in
which these organisations and groups –both formal and informal—innovate by using new
media and ICTs and thereby shape the dynamics of civic engagement leading to societal
change. As such, an innovation perspective is used in this study to examine various
innovation processes within the groups (here, we expand the argument already posited in
Nugroho, 2011).

This research focuses on formal and informal civil society groups and organisations in
Indonesia for two reasons. First, Indonesia is an interesting latecomer economy in which
civil society has been very active. Second, in their endeavours to address latecomer
8

development issues, various Indonesian civil society groups have actively been networking
and collaborating both nationally and globally and, as a result, this activism has made
Indonesian civil society an important player in the development agenda. Therefore it is
expected that showcasing Indonesian groups could shed light on the workings of the civil
society sector across geographical space, and the ways in which economical, social and
cultural influences shape these processes.

In Indonesia, various civil society organisations and groups have established themselves in
pivotal positions in the social, economic and political landscape. They started networking
with their partners, nationally and internationally, before the 1997 Asian crisis hit
Indonesia and thus were already embedded in a network society during, and in the
aftermath of, the crisis. Surprisingly, a large body of analysis of civil society in Indonesia
has neglected these networking dimensions of engagement, despite the fact that civil
society networking is not a new phenomenon (for a pioneer research into Indonesian civil
society networks, see Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008). This research therefore aims to
better understand the impacts of the collaboration of civic engagements in Indonesia in
promoting participatory democracy and freedom of information by means of the use of new
media and ICTs. It will do so by mapping the civic groups and their activisms and examining
the motives of such engagements and the perceived current and future impacts.

Collaboration is not assumed to be an unalloyed good. It may have helped foster the
democracy that has developed since the 1990s, but it could also be seen as an element in the
divisive radicalisation of religious movements, for example. It may have given civil society
groups more outreach; but is this at the cost of certain changes in relationships with their
previous constituency of citizens? Through exploring the ways and contexts in which
collaboration is built, and the impact of such collaboration on the transformation of
Indonesian civil society, it helps one to understand the role of civic networks, which may
provide a valuable lesson for other countries.

The study will combine sociological and innovation research traditions. Two main
sociological theories are mobilised for this research: (i) the Theory of Structuration
(Giddens, 1984) and its adaptations (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000, 2002);
and (ii) the Theory of Civil Society (among many prominent scholars we refer to Deakin,
2001; Edwards, 2004; Hall, 1995; Kaldor, 2003; Keane, 1998). We examine the processes,
patterns and dynamics of the diffusion of new media and ICTs in various civil society groups
and organisations, and how it affects and is affected by civic activism. We approach the
understanding of the work of Indonesian civil society groups from two sides. Firstly, the
link between civil society and the adoption of new media and ICTs will be grounded in
Science and Technology Studies (i.e. building on Callon and Law, 1997; Callon and
Rabeharisoa, 2003, 2008), Social Shaping and Social Construction of Technology (Bijker et al.,
1993; MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985) as well as Sociotechnical Alignment (Molina, 1997,
1998). Secondly, in order to understand how civil society groups and organisations
construct and structure the civil society sphere, our investigation will be guided by work on
civic movement and collective action (Blumer, 1951; Crossley, 2002; Della-Porta and Diani,
2006). Lastly, as the construction of civil society involves networks and networking, we use
the well-established framework of actor-network theory (Latour, 2005; Law and Hassard,
1999).

9

1.2. Objectives
The purpose is to empirically examine the ways in which Indonesian civil society
organisations and groups engage in civic activism by means of the use of new media and
ICTs; and how this civic engagement impacts in the shaping (i.e. construction and
structuration) of civil society in Indonesia. Internally, we expect to see new ‘organisation
models’ that frame the creation, organisation and sustainability of such activism..
Externally, we anticipate the identification of a taxonomy of groups and organisations in
civil society and to identify patterns or trends in the use of new media and ICTs that shape
the capacity of the groups to perform and to network.

1.3. Questions and research undertaken
This research addresses three main questions:

1. What processes are involved in the creation of and contribute to the organisation,
expansion and sustainability of civil society groups and organisations when they
adopt and use new media and ICTs?

2. To what extent and in what ways has the use of new media and ICT characterised
the ways in which civil society groups and organisations perform and address their
goals as well as engage in collaboration and networking?

3. What are the implications of this for the current and future development and role of
civil society, in Indonesia in particular?

The answers are sought through an exploratory study carried out between August and
December 2010, using a non-conservative approach and involving a combination of
methods and research instruments in a number of phases. We outline here the stages of this
research.

We started with PHASE 1. The study launched a large-scale, online survey, targeting as
many civil society groups (formal and informal) as possible, using a snowballing method
with the ‘seed list’ generated with the assistance of HIVOS Indonesia Office. This survey
collected data on the organisational profiles, patterns of new media and ICT adoption and
use, and the relations between such adoption and organisational performance and
collaborative networks. The survey was made available online and offline between 20
August and 10 November 2010, with the participation of 286 organisations 1 . After cleaning
the data, 258 are included in the analyses. Some simple statistical descriptive analyses are
used to explore the nature of these organisations and groups, their use of new media and
ICTs, and the relations between their technological use and organisational performance. In
particular, network analysis (cf. Batagelj and Mrvar, 2003) is carried out to reveal the
structural features of these organisations’ collaboration networks. As English is not spoken
widely in Indonesia, we translated the survey to Bahasa Indonesia.

PHASE 2 was based on the analysis of Phase 1, which informed us in the construction of
case studies through in-depth, semi-structured interviews. From 19 August to 1 October
1
As reported in the First and Second Interim Report of this project.

10

2010, we carried out telephone interviews with 35 civil society communities/organisations
to obtain in-depth understanding of the use of new media and ICT in those groups. The
interviews were analysed with help of CAQDAS. We also organised a series of direct
observations covering Aceh, Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, Solo, and Denpasar in October
2010 involving 12 organisations/groups/communities 2 .

In PHASE 3 the results of the quantitative and qualitative approaches from Phase One and
Two were combined and reported to our informants by means of organising a reflective
workshop in October, attended by 11 participants, purposively selected 3 . The workshop was
designed for the participants to give us their reflections on the finding from the survey and
interviews.

Finally, in PHASE 4 we synthesised the results from the fieldwork (interviews, observations
and workshops) and communicated the findings to the sponsor (HIVOS) as well as the
participants of the study. This was organised in a foresight exercise aimed at building some
scenarios (Miles, 2002, 2008; Miles et al., 2008) in order to envisage the future of civil society
groups and organisations in Indonesia. The exercise was conducted in December 2010 and
attended by 14 participants selected by both HIVOS and MIOIR.

The phases are summarised in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Phases of the study

Given the exploratory nature of this study, we acknowledge that the civil society groups
and communities covered here are predominantly Java (and Bali)-based — and biased
towards ‘modern’ and ‘Internet-literate’ organisations. In part this is because we believe an
exploratory approach has helped us to describe in detail the ways in which civil society
engage with the Internet and social media technologies. Such level of detail has enabled us
to come up with some basic characteristics (or ‘models’) with regard to technology use and
uptake in civil society. However, we realise that civil society groups operating in a
developing economy and infant democracy like Indonesia face very different opportunities
and challenges –compared to those in developed, democratic countries— with regards to
their technology adoption and use. We have therefore integrated our insights in these

2
See the First Interim Report and Appendix 2.
3
For complete list of attendees, please consult Appendix 2.

11

areas 4 , but we do recognise the need for further research to address more fully and
thoroughly the wider issues related to the use of technology in and its implications in
various sectors of Indonesian society 5 .

Clearly there is a world of civil society communities, and beyond that a broader civil society
sphere, that is not fully represented in this report. Nonetheless, albeit small, our survey,
interviews and workshops do represent a significant community of civil society
communities and other leaders. It is on this basis that our conclusions are drawn.

1.4. Structure of the report
This report presents a cross-disciplinary study, engaging with research into the diffusion of
the Internet and social media and civil society. The early chapters focus on the dynamics of
Indonesian civil society and review how Internet technology diffuses in the archipelago.
Empirical results from the study are presented to assert some relevant notes in these
chapters. Then the report continues with the examination of the use of the Internet and
social media in Indonesian civil society in order to explore how the use came to be
constituted in such a way that it affects the organisation of civil society and the dynamics of
social movement. Having established the discursive context in which the adoption and use
of the Internet and social media in Indonesian CSOs emerged, the report returns to the
landscape of Indonesian CSOs to explain its constantly changing realm. The remaining
chapters synthesise the empirical explorations of the adoption, implementation and
impacts of Internet use in Indonesian CSOs, including how possible future scenarios might
unfold. Finally, some conclusions and implications are drawn.

In detail, following this introductory chapter, Chapter Two highlights the features of
Indonesian contemporary civil society by presenting results from the study, which aims to
provide a background to explain the current dynamics. Chapter Three then presents some
facts and figures, and also analyses, of the penetration of the Internet and social media
across the country. Then, putting these two big pictures together, the report showcases the
profiles and patterns of Internet and social media adoption and use in Indonesian civil
society in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five the report highlights some important
consequences of this technological adoption and use, focusing on the transformation of
civic realms in Indonesia, including the networks of civil society. Chapter Six synthesises
the study, emphasising the empirical findings and important priorities to take those
forward. Chapter Seven discusses the possible future trajectory concerning Indonesian
civil society and Internet and social media use, reflecting the outcomes from the foresight
exercise. Finally Chapter Eight concludes and highlights some implications of this study.

4
Both HIVOS and MIOIR have long experience in working in this area.
5
For example a study into new media and its socio‐political implications on citizen’s and human rights
would provide an obvious further research agenda.

12

2.
Indonesian civil society in the spotlight:
A vibrant sphere

Ideally social change should aim at providing and widening space for each and every
societal group. It should be snowballing: getting bigger, wider, and involving more
people over time. Civil society groups should create mechanisms in which they can build
socio-political agreements for the sake of achieving common good. … This requires civil
society groups and communities to have spirit, to be highly enthusiastic and committed
to a better social order. Social change necessitates intelligent civil society.
(Haris Azhar, KontraS, interview, 6/9/10)

Scholars often perceive civil society, theoretically, as one of the cornerstones of a vibrant
societal sphere, providing voices for the disenfranchised and creating centres of influence
outside the state and the economy (Anheier et al., 2002; Anheier et al., 2001; Deakin, 2001;
Keane, 1998). A loose, yet operational and descriptive definition of civil society is offered by
the Centre of Civil Society at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), i.e.
that civil society constitutes a sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organisations, networks,
and individuals located between the family, the state, and the market (CCS, 2006). This
concept traces itself back to the entity of the sphere of social life which organises itself
autonomously, as opposed to the sphere that is established and/or directly controlled by
the state (Deakin, 2001:4-8). As Gramsci (1971) understands, civil society is not only the
sphere where existing social order is grounded, but also where new social order can be
founded. This notion is important because this helps us to understand the strength of the
status quo so that a strategy for its transformation can be devised – a raison d’etre for civil
society entities. We therefore propose a working definition of what we refer to as civil
society groups, organisations or communities, i.e. the autonomous, democratic entities, as
expressed in organisations independent of the state and of corporate structure, whose aim is to
transform existing social order towards a better one.

Studies on Indonesian civil society have existed for some time (some earliest, relevant
academic works found in this area are Billah, 1995; Sinaga, 1994), and have been relatively
well documented from different perspectives (among many, e.g. Bunnell, 1996; Eldridge,
1995; Fakih, 1996; Ganie-Rochman, 2000; Hadiwinata, 2003; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008;
Pradjasto and Saptaningrum, 2006; Warren, 2005). It is worth-noting, however, that in
Indonesia, the terms civil society organisation (CSO) and non-governmental organisation
(NGO) have a rather complicated interpretation and understanding compared to what the
literature states. This has a long history, which can be traced back to the New Order’s era
when even using a term might provoke government repression. It seems that Indonesian
social activists have never reached a consensus on what term they will use. We noted, that
only after the political reform in 1998, they started using and popularising the term
Organisasi Masyarakat Sipil (civil society organisation/CSO) to distinctively distinguish civil-
and community-initiated organisations from those run or initiated by military, government
or business. This study uses the term CSOs and civil society communities interchangeably to
include all kind of organisations within the scope of the definition we set earlier.

13

In our earlier work (Nugroho, 2007; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008) we proposed a
periodisation to understand different characteristics of civil society across different time
periods. Four main periods were covered: Pre 1995 (authoritarian) when civil society was
weak, depoliticised and fragmented; 1995–1998 (transformation) when civil society started
expressing its discontent more openly leading to the reform that toppled Soeharto’s
presidency; 1999–2002 (euphoria) when civil society was blooming partly as result of the
chaotic political change due to the euphoric reaction after the displacement of the
authoritarian leader; and 2003 and after (stability) when civil society played a very
important role in the Indonesian transition towards democracy. We built on this
periodisation and slightly modify it in our study to reflect the latest change. We use this
periodisation to explain the dynamics of groups and communities within civil society that
will become the focus of our study.

In sum, this research aims to enrich those all abovementioned studies by presenting and
highlighting some features found in the empirical work that may contribute to an
understanding of the character of contemporary civil society in Indonesia.

2.1. Organisational profile
In total 289 groups, communities and organisations within Indonesian civil society
participated in the exploratory survey, of which, after the data cleaning, 258 are included in
the analysis. To achieve deeper insights, 35 senior activists were interviewed.

Most of our respondent groups (74%) were established after the 1998 reform. In other
words, they are part of the new wave of social movement groups as a result of the political
openness of the post-New Order regime.

# When was your organisation Response %
established
1 Before 1995 49 19%
2 1996-1998 17 7%
3 1999-2001 48 19%
4 2002-2004 33 13%
5 2005-2007 55 21%
6 2008-2010 56 22%
Total 258 100%
Table 1. Establishment of CSO respondent
N=258

Being established in a relatively more open socio-political sphere might affect the ways
these groups manage themselves. Most are small and effective in that they have a small
number of full-time staff (68% have ten or less) and more part-time workers or volunteers
(50% have six or above), but have a large number of members. (56% have 50 or more). See
Tables 2 and 3.

14

# How many fulltime staff does n % # How many part-time staff n %
your organisation have does your organisation have
1 None 18 7% 1 None 37 14%
2 1-5 persons 83 32% 2 1-5 persons 65 25%
3 6-10 persons 74 29% 3 6-10 persons 50 19%
4 11-15 persons 33 13% 4 11-15 persons 35 14%
5 16-20 persons 11 4% 5 16-20 persons 19 7%
6 More than 20 39 15% 6 More than 20 52 20%
Total 258 100% Total 258 100%
Table 2. Number of staff: Fulltime and part-time
N=258

# How many member does your n %
organisation have
1 Less than 10 18 7%
2 11-20 persons 28 11%
3 21-30 persons 26 10%
4 31-40 persons 22 9%
5 41-50 persons 19 7%
6 More than 50 145 56%
Total 258 100%
Table 3. Number of organisation/group/community members
N=258

Concerning annual turnover, the biggest proportion of our respondent group manage a
relatively small fund, i.e. IDR100million (USD10k) or less (29%). Altogether, those
administering IDR1billion (USD100k) or below per year make up the biggest part of our
respondents (61%). See Table 4.

# Annual turnover in IDR n %
1 Less than 100 million 74 29%
2 100-500 million 54 21%
3 500 million - 1 billion 28 11%
4 1 – 2 billion 20 8%
5 More than 2 billion 18 7%
6 Prefer not to disclose 64 25%
Total 258 100%
Table 4. Annual turnover
N=258

Using existing parameters in the categorisation of civil society groups (Eldridge, 1995;
Ganie-Rochman, 2000; Hadiwinata, 2003; Kendall and Knapp, 2000), we asked our
respondents what best describes their organisation, in order to understand their profile as
they perceive it. We found the following features: Firstly, these groups are characterised as
formal, open in membership, founded based on interests, and networked. This is typical of the
character of organisations within civil society in an open, democratic society.

15

Figure 2. Organisational profile
N=258, multiple answers allowed

Secondly, our respondents are quite diverse in their organisational issues and concerns, yet
retain shared interests typical of civil societies across the globe. Among the most salient
issues covered are the environment, education and civil society empowerment. Also of
great concern are human rights, development, democratisation, women/gender equality,
children and youth, rural issues and poverty. Some of the latter issues might be common in
a developing economy context.

Figure 3. Organisational concerns and issues
N=258; multiple answers allowed

Third, to address these issues and concerns groups and communities within civil society
engage in a number of main activities. In our study we find that these activities tend to be
skewed towards capacity building, followed by activities that focus on communicating ideas to
public like publication and dissemination. Research and advocacy come next, and, rather
surprisingly, not many engage in mobilisation.

16

Figure 4. Organisational activities
N=258; multiple answers allowed

It is not difficult to see that capacity building is the most prevalent activity of Indonesian
CSOs, consistent with the earlier finding that civil society empowerment is the highest
concern of these organisations. Moreover, research, publication, dissemination and
advocacy look to have characterised the biggest part of the respondents.

We realise that more analytical, rather than the currently descriptive, statistic analysis of
our respondent’s profile could have been conducted had the time permitted. Yet as the
terms of reference dictates, the timeframe was limited.

2.2. Organisational dynamics
The fieldwork data says very clearly: civil society in Indonesia is obviously a vibrant sphere.
This vivacious realm is apparently not only a result of the engagement of Indonesian civil
society groups and communities with global civil society (which becomes more evident
when elaborated upon later), but is also shaped by the internal dynamics of the civil society
in Indonesia from time to time. Of course, there are two sides –civil society cannot be seen
as a homogeneous sphere. Whilst realising the dark side of civil society (e.g. uncivil groups
claiming to be part of civil society), we focus on its bright side (e.g. civil groups working on
empowerment, advocacy, development and other programmes aimed at the betterment of
livelihoods). We highlight some findings on the organisational dynamics, following the
pointers we proposed in one of our earlier studies (Nugroho, 2007):

The first aspect is that of financial sources. Since early research into civil society began,
scholars have noted that one of the biggest challenges for civil society groups is
accountability –more precisely financial accountability (among many, see Edwards and
Hulme, 1995, 1997). Financial matters affect not only organisational accountability, but also
agenda, independence and self-reliance, management, and even organisational change. We
look more closely at the financial sources of our respondent organisations and find that
most of the groups in the survey have, on average, two or more sources of income, with
international donor and income-generating activities as the most common sources. Quite a
number of respondent groups benefit from charging a membership fee. The least accessed
source is the domestic private sector.

17

Figure 5. Source of funding
N=258, multiple answers allowed

These circumstances are likely to impact upon organisational management. Managing
multiple sources of income sometimes puts a higher burden on the organisation (which is
the case with the majority of civil society groups and communities). On top of this, relying
on funding from donors, particularly from international ones, might be problematic. A
typical issue with regard to international donors, as stated by a senior human-rights
activist, is that:
They [the donors] often do not stand at the same side as us. They do not show their clear standing
in the [sensitive] issues and [are] not always willing to see the process. Instead they focus more on
the result, … whether we [the civil society groups] follow the so-called log-frame and other [result-
based] indicators. They paid much less attention to the capacity building of the staff, unfortunately.
(HA, Jakarta-based human-rights CSO, interview, 6/9/10)

The second aspect to consider is spectrum of activities. The above descriptive statistical
analysis shows that capacity building is the most prevalent activity, followed by idea
dissemination endeavours like public communication and publication. In other words, it is
around and about empowerment, be it for their own group or others, that most civil society
groups focus their activities on. It is not surprising, as there is mounting pressure for civil
societies to be more competent in their area. A story of a senior activist in an arts-based
civil society group in Yogyakarta sheds some light on this issue:
[A]t that time, there was no competent organisation working in the field of art to create vibrant art
communities. To do so we need more than just infrastructure; we need people capable dealing with
the complex development of arts. Consequently we need repositioning, sharpening of our focus,
showing to the world we know what we do, we know what we are talking about, and so on and so
forth. And there is only one way to do that: capacity building. When I was recruited, it was just
natural to me to go for it … because I do what I am interested in. That’s it. But entering the arena I
gradually realised that here there was, and is, a vast vacuum: we have no, or very limited at best,
experts in this area. For example, just to recognise and communicate the concern on how valuable
arts database is need a huge effort. We need transformation and revitalisation of activism. (FW,
Yogyakarta-based arts CSO, interview, 31/8/10)

Clearly the need for expertise in civil society is now imperative. It is not just that the world
has become much more complex, but that inherent in civil society organisations is the drive
to deliver a ‘result’ – a societal transformation. We borrow the framework developed by
Kendall and Knapp (2000) to measure performance in voluntary organisations (including
civil society entities). It is obvious that unless civil society is equipped with skilful workers
it is impossible to create a dynamic sphere within which civil society organisations, groups

18

and communities can transform society. This is because there are no linear links between
inputs and outputs in civil society activisms. Rather it is a feed-back effect mechanism,
linking not only resources and outcomes (at the organisational level), but also in constant
interaction with the organisational networks (at the meso level) and the societal context (at
the macro level). See Figure 6.

Figure 6. Feedback effects in measuring performance of voluntary organisations
Source: Kendall and Knapp (2000:120)

Another story from a community organiser working with young people in the capital
Jakarta helps substantiate these non-linear relations between resources and outcomes of
the organisation, as conceptualised above, when it comes to the real agenda of transforming
society through their activism:
Our organisation [CH] was initiated when JP started its campaign against the Pornography Law.
The initiative attracted many young people. They came to our office, joined our discussions. We
realised that there was actually a need for a civil society group for young people which had
programmatic support. What we had were just volunteer groups, or internship schemes in big
organisations. Then our colleagues in JP started to facilitate the group [CH] and include the
activities in one of their programmes. They also shared their office with us. What we wanted was to
routinely publish a magazine, targeted to the young people at the high-school age. We wanted the
magazine to be free and reach as many young people as possible. So we started establishing the
editorial board, pool of writers, and distributors too. They all consisted, and still do, of young people.
They developed their own concepts in each edition. JP only helped make sure that gender and
human rights issues are incorporated there. Now, two years later, the magazine has been
publishing routinely. We have 20 issues. In many high-schools students have become familiar with
gender as well as human rights issues. They now understand that against pornography law is not
the same as pro pornography; instead, they realise the deeper issue about victimisation of women
and gender inequality inherent in the law. Now those students also want us to organise discussions,
workshops, gatherings, and trainings around the issue. (AWH, Jakarta-based youth group,
interview, 6/9/10)

This account shows the duality of the relationship between civil society groups and
organisations and the society in which they exist. Civil society groups engage with the
wider society, in a number of activities and achieve some certain outcomes (Gaventa and
Barrett, 2010) with the aim of facilitating bottom-up societal changes (Berkhout et al., 2011).
But what is the nature of the processes involved in this engagement? Borrowing Giddens’
notion of structuration (Giddens, 1984), the process might qualify to be labelled as
structuration of engagement i.e. that the societal influence of civil society groups in the wider
society is structured and has become routinised through recursive civic engagement
practices (like protests, rallies, discussions, and even public gatherings) across time and
space. A senior activist working with a blogger in Central Java asserts,

19

Since the establishment we have been organising meetings periodically, not only involving our
members but also other similar groups’ members. This contributes significantly to the cohesion of
our organisation. In addition to meeting other CSOs from other sectors, we also periodically
schedule meetings with the authorities [local governments] including the Mayor and local parliament
members. We, too, have good links with business communities. We now enjoy a multiplication of
benefit: not only have we now been recognised as one of the civil society clearing houses in our
region, we also provide consultancy for the local government. We now have office, thanks to our
partner organisation [YT] and we enjoy free high-speed point-to-point internet access [provided by
XLC]. Of course these all did not fall from the sky. We earned it through capacity building with other
organisations [like YT, ICTW], through non-stop dialogue with the government, and negotiation with
business [such as DDD, J, AX]. In return we provide free trainings and workshops for many groups
who need it: disabled groups, SMEs, etc. What we aim for is a more interdependent society. We
realise fully we are transforming our society now. (BP, Solo-based blogger group, interview,
25/8/10)

BP’s assertion underlines what constitutes the most important aspects of civil society
activism: continuation and network. While continuation guarantees a ‘routinisation’ of
involvement and hence ensures the transformation of the societal structure, network is
essential in that civil society groups or communities, inherently, never work in isolation.
We examine this issue in the next section.

2.3. Organisational network
Engaging in a network society, we can see similar dynamics apparent in the networking
between civil society groups and communities and their counterparts, both in Indonesia
and internationally.

Using simple network mapping (Batagelj and Mrvar, 2003), the data collected from the
fieldwork across five time periods (Pre-1995, 1996-1999, 2000-2003, 2004-2007, 20008-now) is
plotted. This periodisation reflects the political stages of the time. Here we continue and
expand on our previous research (Nugroho, 2011; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008).

Firstly, we have looked at the growth of the national network of our respondent groups.
From the survey data, we mined 936 civil society groups, organisations and communities
networking with each other across the periods of pre-1995 to 2010. See Figure 7.

Many socio-political developments from pre-1995 to the aftermath of 1998 reformasi, up to
and including the present day, have significantly affected civil society networks. What we
argue here is that those developments could only happen when civil society groups were
involved, as this is a two-way process. We borrow Giddens’s logic of structuration theory
(Giddens, 1984) and its application in diffusion research, i.e. adaptive structuration theory
or AST (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992, 2000, 2002). Just as socio-political
changes in the country emerge as societal structure, they are both outcomes and fabrics of
Indonesian civil society’s socio-political engagement. As outcomes, these changes reflect
how Indonesian civil societies have advanced their movement and partaking in social
change. As fabrics of civic engagement, such socio-political changes provide a context and
opportunity for Indonesian civil societies to link to each other’s work. Here lies the central
explanation of how a national network grows. The network is not only instrumental to the
social change in the country: it is the arena for change in its own right (as we also argued in
Nugroho, 2007, 2011).

20

Pajek
Pajek

Pre 1995: d=0.0001119; 2-core 1996-1999: d= 0.0002100; 2-core

Pajek Pajek

2000-2003: d= 0.0004771; 3-core 2004-2007: d= 0.0009873; 3-core

Pajek

2008-2010: d= 0.0017224; 3-core
Figure 7. The expansion of the national network
N=936; processed with Pajek®; plot based on Kamada-Kawaii algorithm with separate components; all nodes
depicted across period; links represent “join action”; data collected Sep-Nov 2010

Similarly, we have mapped the international network in which our respondent
organisations are involved. We identified 380 nodes involving the respondent groups and
their international partners (in the 2-mode network). When we remove the national
organisations, we find 263 organisations mapped as international partners of our
respondents (1-mode network).

21

Pajek
Pajek

Pre 1995: d [2-Mode] = 0.0004550; 1-core 1996-1999: d [2-Mode] = 0.0008774; 1-core

Pajek
Pajek

2000-2003: d [2-Mode] = 0.0021774; 1-core 2004-2007: d [2-Mode] = 0.0052647; 2-core

Pajek

2008-2010: d [2-Mode] = 0.0079945; 2-core
Figure 8. The expansion of the international network
N=380 (2-mode); processed with Pajek®; plot based on Kamada-Kawaii algorithm with separate components; all
nodes depicted across period; links represent “join action”; data collected Sep-Nov 2010

What we can see here is the rapid growth of networks after the New Order regime fell and
political chaos ended (i.e. after 1999). Seemingly, the end of the authoritarian New Order
regime may have given new impetus for more involvement of civil society groups and
communities, and their networks, in national politics. This represents a significant
widening of the civic space in the country. Global civil societies paid close attention to the
Indonesian situation and were willing to establish networks with Indonesian civil society.
From 2003 up to the present time, the international networks appear to be more stable.

22

The depiction shows that both international and national networks of the respondent
groups have become more cohesive over time (indicated by the increasing k-core and
density). The link between nodes represents a unique notion, commonly understood as
direct engagement, rather than merely networking (which can be anything from just
knowing each other, being part of the same mailing list, to collaboration). Such engagement
includes all activities implying real action including campaigning, coordination,
collaboration, fund raising, other exchange activities and capacity building, etc. (we firstly
asserted this in our earlier work, see Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008).

Some scholars (Anheier et al., 2001; Bartelson, 2006; Kaldor, 2003) argue that such network
dynamics reflect an evolution of amalgam of communities, groups, organisations, and
movements within civil society. When aimed at achieving civic agendas like
democratisation and freedom of information (which is the case in Indonesia) this
coalescence is important because of two reasons. One, the civil society groups and
communities often operate beyond the traditional boundaries of societies, polities, and
economies (Kaldor et al., 2004; Keane, 1998). Our findings on the Indonesian case, as exposed
in this chapter, confirm this claim. Two, as such, civil society groups and communities can
influence the framework of governance, even at the global level (Anheier et al., 2001:11;
Kaldor et al., 2004:2) 6 .

Some commentators argue that this widening of the civic space should be attributed to the
use of the Internet in Indonesia (Hill, 2003; Hill and Sen, 2000, 2002; Lim, 2002, 2003a, b,
2004, 2006; Marcus, 1998; Tedjabayu, 1999), including in our own earlier works (Nugroho,
2008, 2010a, b, 2011). Indeed, the emergence of ICTs, particularly the Internet, has given
new impetus for the birth, or, more precisely, the reinvention, of civil society (Hajnal, 2002).
While these arguments are valid and in fact we extend them in our report here, we need to
firstly present a clear picture of the Internet in Indonesia. Only after that can we discuss
how civil society engages with the technology and uses it for social transformation.

2.4. In hindsight: Reflecting civic engagement and societal changes
Having presented the richness (or lack of it) of the Indonesian civil society sphere, we might
want to reflect on whether or not, and to what extent, civil society can play a role in the
betterment of society. This reflection is timely for we are witnessing how the nation is
being torn apart due to the unsustainable exploitation of the environment and natural
resources and the rising social tensions, caused not only by socioeconomic inequality but
also massive growing intolerance over religious diversity.

Through this fieldwork (and also using evidence from many previous studies), we are
convinced that the Indonesian civil society holds the key to preventing a national
breakdown, where states (and markets) are apparently failing. Civil society is indeed a key
agent of change, but in order for the change to take place, we need a more careful
examination of the links between those existing in the sphere of ‘civil society’, i.e. citizens,

6
Here we realise the need for future research to see how Indonesian civil society takes part, actively, in
the global civil society dynamics. At the moment, what is available for academic discourse is only some
accounts of our earlier research (Nugroho, 2007, 2008, 2010a, b, forthcoming; Nugroho and
Tampubolon, 2008)

23

grassroots groups and communities, NGOs, and others. Moreover, we also need to know
how the change takes place.

However, due to its limitation, this research is not designed to arrive at a solid theory of
change on civil society or citizen action. Instead, it endeavours to empirically map some
civic engagements of groups and communities within the Indonesian civil society that lead
to societal changes.

A recent collaborative work of HIVOS, Context, Institute of Social Studies and Broederlijk Delen
(Berkhout et al., 2011) reminds us that the success of societal changes driven by civic
activism (or as they call, “CDC, civic driven change”) depends much on whether or not the
knowledge gaps on how citizen action leads to social change, which are substantive, are
properly addressed. What we have here indicates that the Indonesian civil society has been
a vibrant sphere where, arguably, knowledge exchanges among groups and communities
within civil society take place and are facilitated. Civic engagement as such, borrowing from
Gaventa and Barrett (2010), is essential for “the construction of citizenship, the strengthening of
practices of participation, the strengthening of responsive and accountable states, and the
development of inclusive and cohesive societies”.

We do not deliberately endeavour to substantiate Gaventa and Barrett’s work (2010) using
the Indonesian context. Instead it helps us to become more sensitive in examining the
outcomes of civic engagement during our fieldwork, which has provided us with an
overview of the Indonesian civil society sphere. It focuses more on groups and communities
which are generic and almost spontaneously formed based on interest and concern, and not
always formal in nature. To some extent, this is an update of our previous study (Nugroho,
2007, 2008, 2010a, b, 2011; Nugroho and Tampubolon, 2008) which dealt more with civil
society organisations (CSOs) and non governmental organisations (NGOs). We have become
increasingly convinced that not only is the civil society sphere vivacious; the groups,
communities and organisations within it have indeed played a pivotal role in socioeconomic
and political development in the country.

24

3.
Internet and social media in the contemporary Indonesia

I remember the first time we established our blogger group [AM]. It was very difficult. [In
Makassar] there was rarely telecentres and they were so expensive. Luckily we received
assistantship from the government through the Education Directorate who provided
Internet access in schools that we could also use. … The last two years witnessed the
advancement of wireless Internet. Now you can easily spot coffee shops offering free wi-fi
for their customers. Facebook has become a new phenomenon, affecting life of many people,
including those in the very remote areas.
(Intan Baidoeri, Blogger Anging Mamiri, interview, 24/8/2010)

In Aceh, Tangerang, Batam, and Indramayu kiosks/outlets selling mobile phone’s pay-as-
you-go credit now have a new business activity. Not only can anyone buy mobile credit, they
can also request a specific service for creating Facebook accounts, with a fee of IDR50k
(USD5) per account. And once they do it, they usually remain as loyal customers, returning
again and again when they forget their Facebook password. And that costs them IDR5k
(USD50cent) per recovery. Absurd? Perhaps. But this is today an online Indonesia.

What Intan says in the quote above, briefly summarises the development of the Internet in
Indonesia over the past fifteen years or so. From being a relative nobody in the Net-map,
Indonesia has now quickly become one of the much discussed nations online with regards
to the proliferation of Internet and social media use, from fun, to humanitarian causes (e.g.
Doherty, 2010; Reuters, 2010; The Economist, 2011). The so-called Web 2.0 and new social
media like Twitter and Facebook diffuse so rapidly in the country, affecting people’s lives, for
better and worse.

However, the extent to which the diffusion of the Internet and social media has impacted
upon Indonesian societies remains largely unknown. Understandably, this is due to the vast
geographical coverage and large spectrum of societal groups of the country and studying
the use and impacts of the technologies in such circumstance is certainly not easy. Luckily,
some historical notes of the development of the Internet in Indonesia since its early time
have been documented by Onno W. Purbo, often referred to as the ‘father of the Indonesian
Internet’ (see some important trajectories in Purbo, 1996, 2000a, b, 2002a, b). Other
commentators have also tried to picture the development of the Internet, along with other
information and communication technologies, in the country. Most of these records are in
the form of grey-literatures (e.g. Manggalanny, 2010; Pacific Rekanprima, 2002; Purbo,
2002b; SalingSilang, 2011; Telkom, 2002; Wahid, 2003; Widodo, 2002), as opposed to
academic accounts. We use both resources available at hand to help us understand the
complexity surrounding this issue and hopefully illuminate the findings of our empirical
study.

25

3.1. At the backdrop …
In Indonesia the development of the Internet began in the early 1990s (Purbo, 2000a). In
terms of users and subscribers, Indonesia is lagging behind other countries with less than
20% of the population (240 million) connected to the Internet (The Economist, 2011). In
ASEAN, the highest penetration is in Singapore (29.9%), followed by Malaysia (25.15%). Over
the past few years, the number of Internet users in Indonesia increased significantly.
According to APJII (Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers), the number of
users leaped by 770% during 1998-2002, from half a million in 1998 to 4.5 million in 2002;
then nearly doubled from 16 million in 2005 to 31 million in 2010 (APJII, 2010).

However, the latest report of the Indonesian Ministry of Information and Communication
shows that, based on the National Census, 67% of the distribution of personal computer and
70.05% Internet access are concentrated in Java and Bali (in terms of ownership and access
per household respectively) while other regions are largely left behind (Kominfo, 2010:47).
Such disparities are also reflected in the spread of warnet –a most economical access point
for people—which is still concentrated in big cities like Jakarta, Surabaya, Yogyakarta,
Bandung and Semarang. This picture has not changed much since it was first mapped by
Wahid (2003).

Figure 9. The diffusion of warnet (Internet kiosks) in Indonesia
Source: Wahid (2003), http://www.natnit.net – this figure is also depicted in Nugroho (2007)

This can be explained, using the same source, as the provision of information and
communication infrastructure is also unevenly distributed. Both for cable and wireless
telephony connections Java and Sumatra and the western part of Indonesia enjoy better
infrastructure. In 2005, there were 24,257 villages (34.68% of total villages) in Indonesia with
a cable telephone connection. In 2008 this number increased to 24,701 villages, but in terms
of percentage it decreased to only 32.76% as the number of villages also increased. Most of
them are in Java-Bali and Sumatra. A similar picture emerges for cable connection. Villages
in Java have the most wireless connections (Kominfo, 2010:34). See Figure 10.

26

Figure 10. Villages with cable (left) and wireless (right) telephone connection
Bar legends indicate nominal in corresponding years; line legends indicate percentage.
Source: Kominfo (2010:34)

Unable to find recent, reliable data on the profile of Internet users in Indonesia, we turned
to some grey literature to provide rough, but hopefully interesting and insightful pictures.
For example, around two-third of users access the Internet from warnet (internet
kiosk/telecentres) (Purbo, 1996, 2002b); of 512,000 Internet users in 1998, 410,000 (80%)
were individual and the rest were corporate (Basuni, 2001). In 2002 there was a decrease in
the number of home-based subscribers, but this was compensated for by commercial users
(from 10, 539 in 2001 to 39,598 in 2002), which eventually helped Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) survive since most of ISP’s income (70%) came from them. As a result, only 20 ISPs
targeted home-based subscribers since the profit gained from the subscription was very low
(Widodo, 2002) 7 .

Then, a survey in the same year in 10 big cities in Indonesia, covering some 1,500
respondents, found that only 21% of them were home-based subscribers while the rest
connected to the Internet from either warnets or offices. The survey also found that only
23% of the non-home-subscribers said they would subscribe individually (Pacific
Rekanprima, 2002). This confirmed the statement of Indonesian Government that potential
Internet users in Indonesia could reach 61 million when they accessed the technology from
public clusters like universities, offices, schools and warnets, etc. (Telkom, 2002). But,
although APJII (2003) finds that most of the users are educated (in addition to that they are
predominantly young males(aged 23-35 years)) 8 , the number of Internet users from
education institutions in Indonesia is still very low. In 2002, of around 1,300 higher-
education institutions only 200 were connected; of 24,000 secondary schools (10,000 high
schools, 10,000 boarding schools and 4,000 vocational schools), only 1,200 were connected
(Purbo, 2002b) 9 .

7
   This statistics is also featured in our earlier work (Nugroho, 2007)
8
   To promote Internet use, APJII introduced a roadshow program called Sekolah2000 (literally
School2000) for students at the high‐school level. At the same time, the Government also launched a
similar program for vocational secondary education (SMK). In 2001, of 4,000 SMKs, 1000 were
connected to the Internet.
9
   This is the latest data available at the time of writing. It is believed that this number has significantly
increased, although it may not change the bigger picture.

27

The development of the Internet in Indonesia may have changed the way people
communicate, interact, and perhaps, live. But this is only true in areas where access is
available. As a matter of fact, Internet access is still highly unevenly distributed, as
discussed earlier, creating a so-called ‘technological apartheid’ (Castells, 1999). We briefly
address this issue in the next section.

3.2. ICT: Bridging or dividing?
It is outside the remit of this research to analyse ICT policy in Indonesia, but certainly
policy plays a vital role in the dynamics of Indonesian telecommunication. What the data
shows is one level of disparity: Java vs. outside Java. This disparity can also be found in the
urban vs. rural sphere. These disparities are created, or perhaps more precisely caused, by
the centralised development policy that has been in existence in Indonesia since the 1960s.
In the aftermath of the 1998 reform, there was much hope that democratisation would not
only be about political but also governmental systems, and that regional development
would be prioritised. However, at least in the telecommunication sector, what we learn here
shows that development is still very much unequal.

What makes this matter worse is another deeper level of disparity in ICT development, i.e.
cable vs. wireless. Cable infrastructure is much less developed than wireless. The official
government data confirms that during 2004-2009 there has been insignificant growth of
cable penetration (4%) whereas wireless networks have grown tenfold (41%). Cable
customers during 2005-2009 decreased at an average rate of 0.67% per year while wireless
customer expanded at a rapid rate of 34% per annum (Kominfo, 2010:33).

Figure 11. Growth of cable’s and wireless’ network (left) and customer (right)
Legends bar indicate cable (left/blue) and wireless (right/red).
Source: Kominfo (2010:33)

Such development has created an entirely new culture in Indonesia: mobile phone culture.
The mobile phone is no longer perceived as a luxury, rather as a necessity (although in
reality, putting it into the context of poverty in Indonesia, it still is something of a luxury to
some). Even more so than in developed economies such culture has penetrated deep into
society. However, what appears on the surface might be very different from what lies
28

beneath. We learn from our fieldwork that the implication of this mobile trend is much
deeper than anticipated. Recalling our field observation in the southern part of Yogyakarta
in Wonosari, a respected villager tells us:
Mobile phone has changed our lives so much. Over there [he pointed to a direction] there used to
be teakwood forest. But it is now gone. People cut the teak trees and sell it quickly in order to buy
mobile phones and motorcycles! Nobody can live without mobile now. But it is expensive if you
have to regularly top-up the [mobile] credit. So, we you have to find the job that lets you earn that
much. What is it? Tukang ojek [motorcycle-taxi driver]! Because you can earn relatively easily, and
THAT gives you money to top-up your mobile credit. See what I mean? (NN, Wonosari villager,
interview, 12/10/10)

The issue of deforestation, which might appear to be poles apart from this technology, now
seems inextricably linked.. The disappearance of hundreds of teakwood trees in an area
which used to be famous for its teakwood forest, actually has a lot to do with the new
mobile culture and life style that has penetrated the area. Is it only the teakwood forest that
has gone missing? Apparently not. Our informant continued:
Now we have no more becak (rickshaw) in this area. Becak drivers have to go somewhere else to
find customers or to find a new job. This is also because of the mobile phone. Before we had
mobiles we used to ride on becak when we got off from the bus. Now even before we arrived here,
whilst still on the bus, we could call home using our mobile and ask our family members or relatives
to pick us from the point we get off from the bus. Or, we can call tukang ojek who also has mobile
phones. (NN, Wonosari villager, interview, 12/10/10)

Extreme as this seems; more was to come. In an informal gathering at CRI’s (Combine
Resource Institution) office in Bantul, some participants told another poignant story about
the way in which mobile culture has jeopardised a supposedly (although some debate this)
useful government initiative. A scheme called BLT (Bantuan Langsung Tunai, or
Unconditional Cash Transfer) is a local/ regional initiative to provide monthly cash aids for
deprived families. The scheme is designed to help the poor family to survive as the cash aid
can cover the cost of sembako (basic needs). However, mobile culture has seriously damaged
this scheme – at least in this area. Even the poor want to have mobile phones and once they
have one, the costs do not stop there. Maintaining the use through topping-up the credit or
paying regular bill takes a large proportion of what they can earn. Instead of buying basic
needs, poor families are using up the BLT money to purchase top-up credit or pay phone
bills. Cynically, BLT now has a new label: Bantuan Langsung Telas, or ‘quickly used-up cash
transfer’ (Group discussion, CRI workshop, Bantul, 12/10/10).

All these accounts show that mobile technology –in fact, any technology—has two
conflicting sides. A praised and groundbreaking communication technology like the mobile
phone has a real capacity for destroying the fabric of societal life, as clearly exemplified in
this study. The dark sides of the technology (like deforestation, or loss of jobs) are surely
never intended, but it is precisely there that (technology) policy matters: it should make
sure that the unintended consequences of technological advancement are anticipated 10 .
Development policies - technology ones included- are meant to ensure that the socio-
economic divide can be bridged, not made wider.

With regards to broadband usage, cable broadband distribution at the moment covers less
than 9 million users and with zero growth after more than 20 years industry protection.
Cable broadband is only available in major cities like Java, Bali, Sumatera, Kalimantan, and
Sulawesi, and more than 50% of the capacity is installed only in Jakarta and its satellite

10
Here we find a strong rationale that a further research into policy might be needed.

29

cities (Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi). This situation forces people in the most rural
areas to use limited & high cost VSAT services (Manggalanny, 2010).

Figure 12. Existing fibre optic in Indonesia
Source: Manggalanny (2010)

Clearly, more cable is needed and the government is trying to realise this need through USO
(universal service obligation). In the near future, interactive multimedia applications (e.g.
triple play) will soon need bandwidth and this can only be handled by end-to-end reliable
cable networks. Wireless networks, on the other hand, only fit to mobile services. Wireless
networks are not intended to be used as carrier (inter-city) or distribution (inter-BTS) link.
Technically, for fixed data and internet services, wireless networks are just a temporary
solution to accelerate penetration and to boost growth. However for the longer term, it is
only the cable networks that could answer the needs of extending network handling
capacities and provide more reliable backhaul links.

Yet, without underestimating the problem of these multi-layered disparities, the adoption
and use of ICTs have put Indonesians on the global map saliently, as one of the most active
world Netters. We address this topic as part of our background context in this study

3.3. An ‘always online’ generation: Networking and social media
For some, Indonesia is communication heaven. Due to business competition and blatant
price wars, the telecommunication market has been an attractive one. It is so appealing that
“… mobile contracts in the country are dirt-cheap. For Indonesians living in North America, it is often
cheaper to buy an Indonesian SIM card and roam with it than it is to sign up for a local plan,” as
reported by The Economist (2011). From our brief fieldwork in Aceh, Jakarta, Bandung,
Yogyakarta, Solo, and Denpasar (October and December 2010) we note that a complete
desktop computer, ready to surf the Net costs less than IDR5million (USD500); a netbook
plus cellular data service modem can be purchased at IDR3million (USD300); internet-
enabled mobile phones are available at less than IDR1million (USD100) – and this price is

30

getting lower day by day. All of these, with the monthly cellular or non-FO cable broadband
subscription data at a flat rate of IDR200k (USD20), have probably changed the
communication culture, and even life-style, of Indonesians who can afford it and live in an
area where access is available.

These all have created what we call an ‘always online’ generation: those who are at all
times, 24/7, connected to the internet and online communication networks. By March 2010,
there were 3 million personal computers (including 2 million notebooks) sold in Indonesia.
During the day time, 40% of the internet access in Indonesia originates from offices and
schools/universities; and from cybercafés, hotspots and home at night. Sixty percent of the
total connection is from other gadgets, netbooks, laptops, and mobile phones. Blackberry
seems to be one of the most used devices, with around 1 million Indonesians using it – just
like in the US—and the flat dataplan price just dropped from IDR300k (USD30) to IDR90k
(USD9). ID-SIRTII estimate that there are approximately 135 mobile users, of which 85
million use GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) (although 175 GPRS numbers have been
sold in the country, and only 45 million active) and 12 million subscribe to 3G
(Manggalanny, 2010).

We can see here that the combination between the relatively low price of mobile gadgets
and the dataplan, and the telecommunication infrastructure which is wireless-biased, has
played a vital role in the emergence of this ‘always online’ generation. In both urban and
rural areas, especially in Java and Sumatra, it is easy to find streets full of mobile and data
plan outlets. What we saw in Yogyakarta for example, as depicted in Figure 12 below, can
also be easily seen in other cities, especially in Java-Bali and Sumatra.

Figure 13. Mobile vendors in a street in Yogyakarta
Source: Private collection. Used with permission from MS. Widyartini

What do Indonesians do online? The latest data from the government reports that social
networking is the most popular activity, even surpassing information searching (Kominfo,
2010). See Table 5.

31

Rank Site Rank Site
1 Facebook 2 Google.co.id
3 Google 4 Blogger.com
5 Yahoo! 6 Kaskus
7 Youtube 8 WordPress.com
9 Detik com 10 4-shared
11 Twitter 12 KOMPAS.com
13 Wikipedia 14 VIVAnews.com
15 Detiknews 16 Clicksor
17 Angege.com 18 KlikBCA
19 Zudu 20 Kapanlagi.com
Table 5. Top-20 most visited sites by Indonesians when online
Source: Kominfo (2010:47).

Indeed, Indonesia is now the world’s second-largest market for Facebook and the third-
largest for Twitter. Without even an office in Indonesia, Facebook users have reached more
than 35 million(Socialbakers, 2011), taking over the once-famous Friendster (this had been
forecast back in 2009) (see Figure 14). Some 20.8% of Indonesian internet users aged over 15
tweet, making them the most prolific users of Twitter on the planet (compared to Brazil with
20.5% and the US with 11.9%) (Doherty, 2010) which left Plurk.com behind very quickly. In
May 2010 Yahoo! ventured into the emerging social media market in Indonesia by buying
Koprol, a location-based social network (The Economist, 2011). Multiply plans to set up an
office in Jakarta to serve around 3 million loyal users who would like to sell goods and
services using the platform (Jakarta workshop, 21/10/10).

Figure 14. Facebook vs Friendster in Indonesia
Source: indonesiamatters.com (http://www.indonesiamatters.com/5072/time-wasters/)

This phenomenon may show that Indonesian culture seems to be highly receptive to online
socialising. People love publicity, do not care much about privacy and happily follow trends
– perhaps without knowing the exact consequences. A senior blogger from East Java asserts
strongly, “This is all about friends and attention. We love comments; we love to comment and, much
more than that, to be commented [on]” (SA, Malang-based blogger, Solo focus group, 11/10/10).
Online lifestyle in Indonesia currently revolves around news, social networking, blogging,
micro-blogging, chat, and online fun (e.g. games). Being online, for many Indonesians, also
means creating an imagined self through the creation of g virtual identities.

In online gaming, the phenomenon of dual identity is much more common; sometimes to
the extent of absurdity. In our fieldwork we met a group of die-hard gamers in Aceh who
play perfectworld (http://perfectworld.lytogame.com/), one of the most famous online
games in Indonesia, which has a number of local servers to handle huge data traffic. What
makes perfectworld popular, apart from its attractive storyline, is its ability to serve social

32

CITIZENS IN ACTION by Yanuar Nugroho

CITIZENS IN ACTION by Yanuar Nugroho

More Related Content

CITIZENS IN ACTION by Yanuar Nugroho