GOVERNANCE, ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND THE NON-
PROFIT SECTOR
Indonesia County Report
Rustam
Ibrahim, Abdi Suryaningati, Tom Malik
The collapse of President
Soeharto’s authoritarian New Order regime in May 1998, and the ensuing
transition towards democracy, has brought about many changes in Indonesia,
including a tremendous growth in civil society organizations (CSOs). During the past five years the number of CSOs
throughout Indonesia has increased substantially. It is no exaggeration to
describe the recent developments as the rising era of civil society in
Indonesia.
Several developments illustrate
this phenomenon:
·
The number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)[1]--the
most visible and vocal subset of CSOs-- was in the thousands during New Order
era, and has increased to the tens of thousands[2].
·
Prior to 1998, there was only one labor organization
which was acknowledged and controlled by the government; now there are no less
than 40 national labor organizations, not less than 300 local labor unions and
more than 10,000 labor associations at the corporate level.
·
Social-religious groups, research institutions, study
groups and think tanks have also developed significantly.
Although the change in political
climate from an authoritarian government to a more democratic one is a dominant
factor in the growth of civil society in Indonesia, the effect of the prolonged
economic crisis and foreign donor policies are also important factors. There
are at least five factors that have contributed to the rapid growth of NGOs in
particular:
·
Restoration of people’s basic freedoms--such as
freedom to organize, assemble and express opinion--without fears of oppression
from the government.
·
Changes in government policies--especially as a result
of pressure from donor institutions to involve NGOs in governmental
programs--particularly in relation to poverty alleviation.
·
Increased funding from Overseas Donor Agencies (ODAs)
in areas related to the acceleration of the democratization process (e.g.,
legal reform, anti-corruption, good governance, civic education, etc.)
·
Increased opportunities for funding from the private
sector for community development programs, due to increased attention to
corporate social responsibility (CSR).
·
Increased unemployment among the educated young in
urban areas has led more to see NGO work as a viable alternative for
employment.[3]
THE HISTORY OF NGOS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS
As mentioned above, there are
various kinds of civil society organizations in Indonesia: religious
organizations, mass-based organizations, unions, ethnic-based organizations,
community-based organizations, NGOs, professional associations, and politically
affiliated organizations. It is almost
impossible to capture the diversity of the nonprofit sector or civil society
organizations in Indonesia within this paper.
Therefore, this paper will focus specifically on NGOs and their role in
the nonprofit sector in Indonesia.
NGOs[4]
began to be recognized in Indonesia in the 1970s in line with the development
activities carried out by the New Order Government. Although the government, with substantial
foreign help, was able to maintain high economic growth of 7~8% per year, the
widespread poverty and lack of community participation in development
activities created room for NGOs to play a role in community-based social and
economic activities. These NGOs (known
as “Development NGOs”) were involved in
a wide variety of fields, either as a complementary provider or as an agent of
government programs that could not reach the lowest strata of society. Their programs covered health services,
nutrition, clean water and sanitation, family planning, non-formal education,
applied technology, micro credit, small enterprises, informal sector joint
ventures, cooperatives, etc.
In the 1980s, NGOs active in
environmental protection and preservation began to emerge as a response to Law
No. 4/1982 on Environmental Management.
During this decade, organizations known as “Advocacy NGOs” began to take
shape. These NGOs carried out advocacy
activities in the areas of environmental degradation, such as the pollution of
air, sea and land; and destruction of the forests and other natural resources
due to development and industrialization, rapid population growth, and poorly
planned transmigration programs.
In the 1990s, in line with the
growing global attention to human rights protection and democratization,
Indonesia also saw the emergence of NGOs advocating human rights and
democratization. These NGOs focused on restoration of the people’s civil and
political rights, protests against gross human rights violations by the state
and demand for political liberalization and democratization. They also began to advocate against abuses of
social and economic rights, such as rights to land and natural resources,
indigenous peoples (adat) rights,
women’s rights, and gender equality
The fall of the New Order regime
and the ensuing democratization process in Indonesia led to the emergence of
discourse on good governance, accountability and transparency of public institutions.
NGOs that were active in monitoring the activities of state institutions and
other political institutions emerged and became known as watchdog
organizations. Starting with the heavy
involvement of NGOs in the 1999 Election Watch, now almost all aspects of state
institutions are being watched by NGOs.
The Indonesian people recognize various organizations such as Corruption
Watch, Parliament/Legislative Watch, Government Watch, Judicial Watch,
Police/Military Watch, and Government Budget Watch. What is still missing
however is an organization that monitors the NGOs themselves. It has been suggested by several NGOs
concerned with the issue of accountability to involve the media, such as the
Independent Journalist Alliance, to act as an NGO Watch.
To engage more effectively in
promoting just public policies, Indonesian NGOs have also grouped themselves in
a number of coalitions to carry out advocacy to change, influence and/or draft
new laws. Examples of such coalitions are the NGO Coalition for Foundation Law,
the NGO Coalition for Public Freedom to Information Law, the NGO Coalition for
New Constitution, and the NGO Coalition for the Participatory Law-Making Bill.
Some Indonesian NGOs are also
taking an active part in global civil society discourse, protesting against
what they call neo-liberalism and economic globalization sponsored by the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.
They believe that the free trade and privatization promoted by these organizations
will inflict losses on the people of the third world. Some NGOs are demanding a waiver of
Indonesia’s debt to the World Bank, claiming that the funds were
misappropriated by the state apparatus; and they are asking that the Indonesian
government stop applying for new loans.
CHANGE IN RELATIONS BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY
Government Perceptions
In line with the ongoing
democratization process, perceptions of the government, private sector and
donors about the existence and role of civil society in general and NGOs in
particular have changed.[5] In general, the government no longer sees
NGOs as anti-government or as the opposition. Except for the very vocal and
front-line NGOs working on human rights violations and environmental issues
(including land-tenure issues), the government does intervene with NGO
activities. Some circles of the
government see the existence of NGOs as a reflection of the basic freedom of
society, and view them as a form of community participation in solving the
issues facing society, as well as in carrying out social control of the
government. The government sees the need
to create a new division of roles among stakeholders (government, private
sector and NGOs) by giving opportunities to independent community initiatives,
as well as encouraging them to actively participate in government
programs. It is expected that a
stronger, more democratic, and more dynamic community will emerge through
improved community capacity in solving their own problems.[6] In other words, some circles within the
government consider NGOs as organizations with a commitment to serving the
interests of the people, and see them as building self-reliance, playing an
important function in government control, as well as providing alternatives to
government policies.
NGOs are also viewed as a partner
to the government in the implementation of programs and as one of the
stakeholders in development. Although
they function as government partners, NGOs do not necessarily have to agree
with government policies or programs and may submit critical opinions, propose
alternative programs and more rational public policies with better
targets. Though this view is still
somewhat rhetorical and has not become a real commitment formulated in any government
policy, it has nevertheless indicated that there is change in government
perception towards NGO existence and roles.
However, the government still has
difficulty developing effective partnerships with NGOs. This is particularly due to the fact that the
rapid growth of NGOs has not been accompanied by the creation of an umbrella
organization to represent NGO interests in dealing with the government. For the government, therefore, it is
difficult to obtain inputs or to develop accords widely supported by NGO
community.
The government believes that in the
present transition to democracy, the NGO community should consolidate
internally to strengthen its own capacity, because both the government and NGOs
have equal potential to be corrupt and lose focus in the absence of a code of
ethics, accountability mechanisms and transparent control. That is why the government appreciates NGO
efforts in promoting good nonprofit governance, and in improving
professionalism, transparency and accountability. The government also sees the need for a forum
of NGOs to create NGO accountability in carrying out their functions. [7]
Private Sector Perceptions
The private sector on the other hand views NGOs as
institutions with a capacity to influence corporate missions and motivate
corporations to develop and improve their performance in corporate social
responsibility (CSR). NGOs can motivate
changes in corporations’ approach towards its social function from a
charity-based to a community-empowerment approach. NGOs are also viewed as being closer to the
grass-roots community, and therefore, have the potential to collaborate with
corporations in developing better community development programs.
In the past, relations between the
private sector and civil society were full of conflict, but due to the change
in political climate and NGO pressures, the private sector’s perception towards
NGOs has changed. Companies are more
willing to collaborate with civil society based on the community development
concept. A number of multinational
corporations, directly or indirectly through their community relations
department or corporate foundations have begun to provide assistance for
surrounding communities through programs in community health, clean water and
sanitation, agriculture, and the development of small scale enterprises, all in
collaboration with NGOs. These kinds of relationships were almost unheard of in
the past.
Meanwhile, donor agencies consider
that in general NGOs are committed to economic, social and political change. NGOs are viewed as alternative institutions
with the ability to provide public services and at the same time control
government power. There are at least
four important reasons why donor agencies are willing to collaborate with
NGOs. First, donor agencies very much
support effective and efficient services and NGOs are sometimes considered to
be more effective and efficient than the government in terms of funds
utilization. Secondly, in addition to
community development programs, NGOs also help to develop social and political
infrastructure by advocating for people’s benefits. Thirdly, NGOs support civil society
development by striving for democracy and human rights. Finally, NGOs support efforts towards policy
change. [8]
NGO Perceptions
Unfortunately, there has been
little change in the perception of NGOs themselves toward the government and
private sector. Some NGOs still think
that there has been no significant change in the government. NGOs still feel that the government is
corrupt, inefficient, non-transparent and non-participatory. Changes in government policies in legal,
economic and political fields are not supported by concrete evidence.
Nevertheless NGOs admit that there is a change in government attitude towards
NGOs in the form of recognition of their existence and activities.
Also, some NGOs still view the
private sector as being ignorant of society’s needs. They feel that corporate social
responsibility efforts are conducted more in the interests of the company
itself than for the community. NGOs
still consider corporations as not transparent, abusive of human rights, and
damaging to the environment. NGO
collaborations with the corporate sector still produce pro and contra divisions
among NGOs. NGOs initiate actions such
as market boycotts, class action lawsuits against corporations that inflict
losses to communities, and try to act as a check on the power of the stock
market.[9] In terms of donors, NGOs consider ODAs to be
project oriented and uninterested in NGO capacity building, and think that they
often provide assistance only to big and well known NGOs without any clear
criteria.
CRITICISMS OF NGOS
Mercy Corps Assessment
Although there are many positive
aspects of collaboration with NGOs, donors also see a number of weaknesses, especially
in relation to NGO transparency, accountability and legitimacy. Mercy Corps,[10]
a nongovernmental institution based in Edinburgh (UK) and Portland, Oregon
(USA) who has been assisting a number of Indonesian NGOs in microfinance
programs, made an assessment on the principles of participation, transparency
and accountability among its local NGO partners, the results of which are
discussed below. Mercy Corps also discovered that several attributes of their
local NGO partners represent the general conditions of NGOs in Indonesia.
Organizational Structure and Leadership
There is no division between the
board and executives in several NGOs. In
several of the organizations, one person, usually the founder of the NGO,
dominates its leadership. He usually
simultaneously holds the positions of chairman and executive director. If there are any other board members, they
are usually also involved in program implementation. In addition, a majority of NGOs indicate that
the staff are not sufficiently involved in decisionmaking process.
Community Participation
Several NGOs never ask for input
from their intended beneficiaries.
Others do not involve the community in the selection and planning of
activities or only informally consult community leaders when planning a
project. Often NGOs plan their programs
and activities only on the basis of what they feel is best for the
community--an indication of a top-down interventionist approach.
Accountability and Transparency
Most NGOs still do not have the
mechanisms, procedures and capacity in place to be accountable to the public
for their programs and activities, as well as for the funds they receive. Some NGOs do not have clear documentation and
information systems for their programs; some do not have transparent financial
and accounting procedures. Some NGOs
never issue a program or financial report for public information.
Measurement Parameters of Success
A majority of NGOs do not have any
criteria or parameters to track program achievements.
Other Areas for Improvement
Other donors[11]
see that there are at least four important areas for improvement among
Indonesian NGOs. First and foremost is
internal governance. This includes decisionmaking processes, division of roles
between the board and executives, establishment of accountability mechanisms to
constituents, as well as issues related to clear vision, mission and
objectives. The second area to be
addressed is accountability, both to the government and the public. So far NGOs only attempt to be accountable to
donor agencies in the form of narrative and financial report on projects. Third, NGOs need to improve external
relations with other NGOs and with the public or its beneficiaries. If an NGO is working directly with the
underprivileged then it needs to understand how it can really empower them so
that they are stronger and more critical.
For advocacy NGOs, networking and alliance development with other NGOs
is very important so that activities at village levels can be promoted to the
national level. The fourth area needing
improvement among NGOs is management, including strategic planning, program
development, financial and human resources management. Donors will eventually evaluate NGOs based on
the four factors above, i.e., technical capability, legitimacy, accountability
and transparency.
NGOs are also not free from
criticism from the government and private sector circles. The government feels that the rapid growth
NGOs are still lacking in good organization and management. Many NGOs do not have an office or a clear
address, and their programmatic foci change and develop based on the
possibility of receiving government projects.
The private sector considers that many NGOs are unprofessional in
carrying out their functions and that their focus changes based on the
availability of funding. Many proposals
submitted to companies are not based on the NGO’s competency. Several NGOs shift their activities from
income generating activities to environmental issues, reproductive health,
women’s rights, and conflict resolution depending on the possibility of
funding. [12]
RESPONSES FROM GOVERNMENT – STATE
REGULATIONS FOR NGOs
In Indonesia, two kinds of legal
entities are recognized as non-profit entities: foundations (yayasan) and associations (perkumpulan).
Yayasan
Yayasan began to be
recognized as legal entities during the Dutch colonial era (1870) as
non-membership organizations. Most follow the European legal system, while some
adhere to other legal systems such as wakaf
(donations or grants under Islamic law).
Prior to the ratification of Law No. 16/2001 on Foundations, all forms
of yayasan in Indonesia were based
solely on societal norms and Supreme Court jurisprudence. The legal status of a yayasan is actually based only on the agreements and aspirations of
the founders and then developed into legal practice. The purpose and agreement for establishing a yayasan is then authenticated by a
public notary act, registered in the district court and announced in the State
Gazette. Normally the objective of a yayasan is social, religious,
educational or humanitarian in nature.
Unfortunately however, there was no limitation to the activities that a yayasan could implement, so many yayasans were used as profit making
entities for the founders.
The Yayasan Law
In line with the demand for good
governance in Indonesia after the fall of President Soeharto, and in response
to pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)[13],
the government of Indonesia submitted a draft Yayasan Law to the parliament in 2000. The basic aim of the law is to promote
transparency and accountability in yayasan
governance.
The notes on the draft law stated that:
“Facts
indicate the tendency of some members of society to establish yayasan to take shelter behind the legal
status of yayasan which are used not
only to develop social, religious, humanitarian activities but also to
accumulate wealth for the founders, board members and supervisors. Along with this tendency, a number of
problems have emerged in relation to yayasan
activities that are not in line with the purpose and objectives stipulated in
its Articles of Association and the suspicion that yayasans have been used to accommodate illegally gotten wealth of
founders or other parties.”
Yayasans founded by
former President Soeharto to obtain donations from conglomerates; yayasans established by the military to
shelter their businesses for the benefit of the military; and hospitals and
universities that raise public funds for the benefit of their founders are some
examples of the misuse of the yayasan legal
entity.
During the drafting of the new law,
several NGOs formed a coalition to provide input on the Bill on Yayasan that was being prepared by the
government. The coalition carried out
advocacy activities through a number of press releases, newspaper articles and
public hearings with the parliament.
This coalition also formulated a position paper on the yayasan bill
based on four fundamental arguments that the bill: a) could be used to restrict
the public’s freedom to organize; b) maintained the spirit of government as the
source of rights as opposed to facilitator and protector of civil rights; c)
still strongly accommodated the yayasan’s
business interests; and d) assumed that all yayasans
were similar in nature. The coalition
then advocated for basic principles that should be adhered to within the bill,
including freedom to organize, independence, transparency, accountability, and
non-profit orientation. From those basic principles, the coalition put forth
the eight demands below. They asked that the bill:
·
Adhere all articles that regulate accountability and
transparency mechanisms for yayasan.
·
Include additional articles regarding sanctions
towards yayasans that fail to comply
to the proposed law.
·
Impose the law on exisiting yayasans as opposed to only yayasans
established after the law is passed.
This way, the new law will achieve its purpose of preventing abuse of
the yayasan entity for business
purposes.
·
Reduce government involvement in the setting up of yayasans by promoting the Notary Public
as the independent body responsible for the yayasan
registration process; or by creating another mechanism for registration through
local government bodies as opposed to direct registration through the Ministry
of Justice and Human Rights.
·
Reduce rigidity regarding a yayasan’s internal governance and limit it to division of functions
between the board and the executive, as well as, the existence of a body within
a yayasan that can enter into
agreement with third parties.
·
Include articles regarding incentives that can be
given to yayasan activists and/or
peoples and companies that give donations to yayasan, for example through tax deduction mechanisms.
·
Eliminate the “rubber-article” that gives the
government authority to dissolve a yayasan
when it is considered “violating public order or decency.” In the past, the unclear and subjective terms
were used by the New Order regime to eliminate/dissolve vocal pro-democratic
organizations.
·
Restrict the yayasans’
scope of work purely to serve social and humanitarian purposes
The coalition was not successful in
pushing through all of its eight demands, but it did succeed in including the
first four demands.
The Yayasan Bill was then ratified as Law No. 16/2001. This law could be considered as an important
breakthrough for good governance of the nonprofit sector in Indonesia, as it
provided assurance and legal certainty, as well as restored the yayasan’s function as a non-profit
institution with social, religious and humanitarian goals. Although Law No. 16/2001 has not been fully
implemented, this law will have a wide impact on the nonprofit sector in
Indonesia, including NGOs, as 95% of them use yayasan (foundation) as their legal entities.
The law provides that a yayasan is defined as a legal entity
with separated assets aimed at achieving certain goals in social, religious and
humanitarian fields and does not have members (Article 1). The law also stipulates that a yayasan must have three organs (Article
2), much like that of a limited liability company. The organs are pembina (Board of Developers or Patrons), pengawas (Board of Supervisors) and pengurus (Board of Management).
It appears that the role of the Board of Developers is equivalent to
that of shareholders in a limited liability company, the Board of Supervisors
is equivalent to the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Management is
equivalent to the Board of Directors.
Patrons are not allowed to hold double positions in the Board of Management
and/or Supervisors (Article 29) and the authority of the patrons is specified
in Article 28 as follows: (a) decision on revision of the organization’s
Articles of Association; (b) appointment and dismissal of members of the Board
of Management and Board of Supervisors; (c) general policy based on the
Articles of Association; (d) approval of annual plan and budget; (e) merger or
dissolution of the organization.
The second organ of a yayasan is the Board of Management (pengurus). According to law, the Board of Management is
responsible for the governing and management of the yayasan, is fully responsible for the management of the yayasan’s objectives and interests and
has the authority to represent the yayasan
in or out of court (Article 35 Clause 1).
The Board of Management must at least consist of a chairperson, a
secretary and a treasurer.
The third organ is the Board of
Supervisors (pengawas), which has the
function of supervising and providing advice to the Board of Management in
undertaking activities of the organization.
A yayasan should have at least
one supervisor.
Both Board of Management and Board
of Supervisor members are appointed by the Board of Developers for a period of
five years and may be re-appointed for one additional term. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to
dismiss management based on solid justifications; however, the Board of
Developers may accept or overrule the decision within seven days.
A fundamental difference--probably
to differentiate it from the Corporate Law--is in Article 5,which stipulates
that the assets of a yayasan (cash,
goods, or other assets) are not allowed to be transferred or distributed
directly or indirectly to the various boards, employees or parties related to
the yayasan. In addition, members of the various boards
are not allowed to receive salary or honorarium. This has created strong arguments and
protests from the yayasan community,
especially from Board of Management members who are responsible for the
day-to-day operations of a yayasan.
It is believed that the government
plans to revise Law No. 16 so as to allow members of the Board of Management to
receive a salary or honorarium when they are directly and fully employed by the
yayasan in accordance with the yayasan’s procedures. In the case where the Board of Management
does not have direct control but instead appoints an Executing Board, the rules
applicable to the Board of Developers and Supervisors will also apply to the
Board of Management.
The government also regulates the
business activities of yayasan. Yayasan are allowed to establish a
business entity or invest in a business entity that is in line with the
objectives of the yayasan. However, there are additional stipulations
within the law: a) the total business investment must not exceed 25% of the yayasan’s assets (Article 7 Clause 2);
b) the proceeds from the business must not be distributed to members of the
various boards (Article 3 Clause 2); and c) members of the three boards are
prohibited from holding positions of management in the business entity (Article
7 Clause 3).
On accountability mechanisms and
transparency of a yayasan, the
regulations are as follows:
·
The yayasan
is obligated to issue annual program and financial reports, by at least placing
an announcement in the notice board of the yayasan’s
office (Article 52 Clause 1).
·
A yayasan
receiving funding from the state, overseas donors or other parties in the
amount of Rp.500 million (approximately US$55,000) or more or having an assets
outside wakaf of Rp.20 billion
(approximately US$2.2 million) is obligated to publish its financial report in
an Indonesian language newspaper (Article 52 Clause 2).
·
A yayasan
receiving funding equal to or more than Rp. 500 million or having assets
amounting to Rp. 20 billion must be audited by a public accountant (Article 52
Clause 3).
·
Annual financial reports of a yayasan must be prepared based on the Indonesian Standard of
Accountancy (Article 52 Clause 5).
The Yayasan Law will unquestionably have a wide impact on the NGO
existence in Indonesia. In the past, it
was relatively easy to establish a yayasan.
Two or three people could easily establish a yayasan through a public notary act and become a legal entity. For NGOs, the yayasan legal entity has allowed NGOs to avoid dealing with
governmental institutions in order to become a legal entity, whereas
establishing a legal entity as an association required a recommendation from
the government. However, with the
promulgation of the Yayasan Law, many
NGOs appear to have not yet adhered to the provisions of the law. Nevertheless, the new law has brought the
issues of NGO transparency and accountability to the forefront. [14]
Perkumpulan
(Association)
As mentioned above, the other form
of legal entity is the perkumpulan
(association), which is established by a number of people to serve the
interests of its members or the public. Different from yayasan, which is a non-membership organization, perkumpulan is established on the basis
of memberships or a group of people with a common social service objective and
not for profit making purposes. The legal entity of association is obtained
through approval from the Minister of Justice and is published in the appendix
of the State Gazette.
With the promulgation of Law No.
16/2001, a number of NGOs--particularly organizations active in social
movements and dependent on a broad member base--have begun to reconsider their
legal status, i.e., to remain a yayasan
or become a perkumpulan. This has been the case with NGOs involved in
the women’s movement, consumer protection, the environment, and human rights.
RESPONSES FROM CIVIL SOCIETY
The rapid growth of CSOs and the
increasing discourse on good governance have actually caused anxiety among the
NGO community in Indonesia. Although it
has had positive impacts on the democratization process, the explosive growth
of new NGOs during the last five years has also created problems of quantity
versus quality. Some even question the growth as too far, too fast[15]. Many organizations that call themselves NGOs
and were established after the fall of Soeharto have questionable objectives,
and some of them have been involved in malpractice, and have thus affected NGOs
in general[16]. The reputation of Indonesian NGOs has
suffered because of a number of NGOs who misappropriated funds entrusted to them
by donor agencies and the government. These include NGOs that sold subsidized
rice destined for the poor; NGOs established by government officials,
corporations and individuals for the purpose of gaining access to development
projects; NGOs established by political activists to mobilize funds and support
to gain political power; as well as NGOs acting as debt collectors or
specializing in mobilizing mobs for hire.
This wrongdoing has caused some
NGOs to reconsider the basic principles of NGO existence. People are asking questions such as, “What is an NGO? Why does it exist and what are the bases for
its legitimacy? How can NGOs be
accountable to their constituents and stakeholders and how can this accountability mechanism be
established?”
Discussions surrounding these
questions have been attempted through a number of workshops and seminars
conducted in 2002 with support from various donor agencies[17]. In 2002 at least 12 seminars were held to
discuss NGO accountability and transparency:
·
“Improvement of Indonesian NGOs’ Accountability and
Transparency: Creating Synergy” seminar organized by PIRAC (Public Interest
Research and Advocacy Center) in Jakarta from September 4 to 5, 2002 with 30
participant NGOs;
·
Workshop on “Indonesia’s Third Sector: Governance for
Accountability and Performance”, organized by CECT, Trisakti University,
Jakarta, September 12-13 with 25 participants;
·
Workshop on “Improvement of NGOs Quality through
Accreditation and Certification”, organized by Satunama Foundation, November 4
– 6 in Yogyakarta with 50 participants;
·
Eight seminars with the topic “Developing Strong and
Healthy, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable NGOs: Multisided Perspective”,
organized by LP3ES in collaboration with local NGOs in 8 provincial capitals
(Jakarta, Pakanbaru, Palembang, Solo, Surabaya, Banjarmasin, Makassar and
Mataram). These seminars were held between May and August 2002 and each one was
attended by 50 to 75 participants, mostly from NGOs.
·
National workshop on “Advocacy, Community Empowering
and Accountability: Between NGOs’ Rights and Obligations”, organized by LP3ES,
PIRAC and SAWARUNG with financial help from the Ford Foundation and Partnership
for Governance Reform on February 9-11, 2003 with 50 participants.
National Workshop Outcomes
The national workshop, which also
included foreign participants, covered issues of NGO legitimacy and
accountability in the most comprehensive way.
The workshop covered mapping of all sources of NGO legitimacy and existence,
NGO constituents and stakeholders, various accountability mechanisms,
applications of principles of NGO internal governance; and developed an action
plan to improve NGO integrity and credibility. Some of the important
conclusions gathered from the national workshop were as follows: [18]
Indicators
for and Sources of NGO Legitimacy
There are three indicators to
measure whether an NGO has legitimacy.
First is recognition, i.e.,
the NGO is recognized by the government or other parties involved in the policy
making process. The second is justification in that the NGO activities
are accepted and appreciated by society through moral support and
acknowledgement. Third, support whereby the NGO receives
assistance in the form of funds and in-kind donations from society.
There are three bases of NGO
legitimacy, i.e. moral, legal and social.
Moral legitimacy relates to what an NGO does and the moral values it
promotes such as justice, equality, solidarity, and participation. In addition, the basic NGO principles of
altruism and volunteerism are recognized by society as moral strength and
selflessness.
Legal legitimacy or legal-formal
legitimacy is the recognition of the NGO’s existence by the state, as well as
state support in the form of regulations that create a favorable environment
for the NGO to carry out its mission.
The Yayasan Law, for instance,
serves as a guideline for NGOs and provides it with the legal recognition that
it deserves.
Social legitimacy is the
recognition and appreciation of the value of the NGO to society. Social legitimacy
is reflected through the support received by an NGO, either material (cash,
services, goods, etc.) or immaterial (information, statement of support,
etc.). Social legitimacy is considered
as the highest among the three forms of legitimacy. Legal-formal legitimacy, however, remains
important to be able to sign contracts, to solicit projects, open a bank
account, etc.
Accountability and its Instruments
Accountability should not be viewed
only as technical programmatic and finance management responsibilities. Accountability involves the more substantial
issue of active participation and consultation with constituents and
stakeholders in the decisionmaking process.
There are three important dimensions of accountability: access,
participation and control. Access is not
only related to information but should also include adequate room for
constituents to actively participate in NGO activities, such as the development
of the NGO’s vision, mission and strategic programs; as well as some control
over the NGO that claims to defend their rights or to act on their behalf.
There are at least six instruments
that may be used to implement accountability:
regular reporting, public audit, members/board of trustees meetings,
public consultation mechanism, responses to public complaints, and public
opinion surveys or polling.
Internal
governance
NGO internal governance should be
built in line with the NGO’s values.
Good internal governance will enable the NGO to develop its
organizational instruments and to effectively utilize its resources and further
maintain its accountability.
Among the most important
instruments is a Board of Trustees/Board of Directors that can act as a
guardian for moral integrity, control the implementation of the organizational
mission and provide general policy for the organization. The Board of Trustees or Board of Directors
must be separate from the executives in order to create a mechanism of checks
and balances. Discourse also emerged as
to the need for NGOs to have standard operating procedures (SOP) to be used as
a reference for internal and external relations.
Follow-up
The National NGO Workshop unveiled
a number of issues that need to be addressed, including:
Sharing information throughout
regions by organizing a series of regional workshops with a similar theme to
enable wider involvement of NGO communities.
Improving internal governance: Every
Indonesian NGO needs to reflect upon its own existence, values, vision, mission
and program; clarify its constituents; and strengthen organizational capacity
to achieve accountability.
Increasing public access: Indonesian
NGOs need to be more transparent and inform the public regarding their
activities and funding sources.
Continuing initiatives for
certification and development of common code of ethics: A number of NGOs have
taken steps to develop a common code of ethics, as well as to establish an
umbrella organization to implement and supervise the code of ethics. Other NGOs plan to develop a program and
institution for NGO certification. These
initiatives need to be followed up by preparing a code of ethics at the
national level through a national-level umbrella organization.
Two perspectives on NGO Good Governance
The First
Perspective
As indicated above, it is clear
that there are two perspectives used by NGOs in viewing NGO principles of good
governance. The first perspective emphasizes that NGOs should be established
with ideal objectives, namely the manifestation of the spirits of philanthropy
and altruism and caring for other people or humanity. NGO programs or activities should be based on
ideal values that are described in the organization’s vision, mission and
strategic objectives. These moral values
should also be formalized as a code of ethics to guide the NGO in determining
what is right or wrong, good or bad.
Establishing a code of ethics is necessary for the NGO to regulate
itself. Aside from embracing and
practicing the chosen moral values and principles, the NGO should also be able
to promote those values and principles to its constituents and stakeholders,
such as the government, donors, the private sector, community groups and
society at-large. By conducting regular
promotion of its mission and values, it is expected that the NGO will become
well-known and respected, and therefore, have easier access to resources.
The other element of this
perspective concerns NGO accreditation and certification. In this view, certification is intended as a
tool to help improve NGO quality by using parameters to evaluate the health of
an NGO. In a certification program,
there are at least five elements: a) vision, mission and goals of the NGO; b)
internal governance; c) administrative and financial management; d) operational
programs; and e) legitimacy, by developing indicators and means of
verification. With the initiatives
toward a certification program, it is hoped that support from the international
donor communities as well as government, private sector and society will
further increase. The government, for
instance, may draft a tax law that provides incentives for individual and
public contribution to NGOs or a law that will motivate growth of the nonprofit
sector.
The Second
Perspective
The second perspective holds that
NGO accountability should be directed mainly to those who are called
constituents or members, beneficiaries, primary stakeholders, target groups and
society at-large, rather than standard accountability to the government or
donors, which is technical in nature.
This approach emphasizes NGOs’ accountability to those they represent or the people
they work with. In order to improve
accountability, NGOs need to involve members/constituents/beneficiaries in
important decisionmaking processes related to their interests by positioning
them as subjects, not as objects. An
accountability mechanism being developed, among others, is constituent
involvement in the formulation of NGO vision and mission, program planning,
monitoring, and evaluation of projects/programs, as well as maximum access to
information on NGO activities. Wider
public involvement may be mobilized through public opinion polls and need
assessments. According to this view, the
ideal form and legal status for an NGO in the future is that of a broad-based
membership organization and not the present non-membership organization in the
form of a yayasan or foundation.
In this perspective, NGO
accountability is connected to the source of its legitimacy. The degree of legitimacy that needs to be
achieved by an NGO is not only legal/formal legitimacy as provided by laws that
recognizes NGO existence or support from donors, but more importantly social
legitimacy. This means whether the NGO’s existence is being recognized, its
actions supported (including by financial aid), and whether it is protected
from irresponsible acts by the state/government.
This perspective views formal
accountability mechanisms--such as a code of ethics or certification system--as
merely a technical solution to the question of accountability that often fails
to reflect the values embraced by the concerned NGO, and one that will only be
useful in maintaining good relations between the NGO and donors or with the
government. This view even claims that
codes of ethics or certification systems are neo-liberalist instruments to serve
the interests of the government and international capitalism. In this perspective, the important roles of
NGOs/CSOs are actually to control the state and the market while at the same
time working in the interests of the grassroots community.
INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS/RESPONSES
As indicated earlier, many networks
have been established among NGOs. These
networks are established for various purposes.
Some are established to campaign for certain issues, some are ad hoc in
nature. Bonds among network members are
informal, and the network serves as a forum for discussion without any
hierarchy or clear rights and responsibilities from its members. Memberships are usually very loose.
However, there is still no umbrella
organization for NGOs in Indonesia. Such
umbrellas can function as a representative in promoting the existence and the
interests of NGOs to outside parties and serve internal capacity building
purposes for its members. The absence of
such an organization may be related to the traumatic history of Indonesian
NGOs, who always tried to avoid unity to avoid being coopted by the New Order
authoritarian regime or used as a political vehicle by opportunistic NGO
leaders.
During the last few years, however,
a number of influential NGOs have begun to take initiative on the issue of NGO
governance.
Preparation
of NGO Code of Ethics by the Agency for Research, Education, Economic and
Social Development (LP3ES)
Since 2002,
LP3ES, a well known national NGO, has taken the initiative to prepare and
implement a code of ethics and to establish an NGO association or umbrella
organization, particularly for NGOs that are working in community-based social
and economic development.
The preparation of the code of
ethics and the establishment of the NGO association has been carried out
through a number of meetings, seminars and workshops with the NGO community and
involving stakeholders such as the government and private sector. The program
has been organized in eight provincial capitals (Riau, South Sumatra, Jakarta,
Central Java, East Java, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan and South
Sulawesi) in Indonesia, involving at least 500 NGOs.
One of the activities carried out
under the program was a series of seminars in the capitals of the above
provinces with the topic “Developing Strong and Healthy, Democratic,
Transparent and Accountable NGOs: Multi-stakeholder Perspectives”. In each of
the seminars, government officials, private sector people and donors were
invited to present their views on the issue of NGO accountability and
transparency. Three speakers from the Philippines were also invited
(representatives from CODE-NGO and the Philippine Council for NGO
Certification). They contributed their experiences in developing NGO umbrella
organization/networks, preparing codes of ethics and improving NGO internal
governance.
The program eventually managed to
formulate a written code of ethics. The code, which was signed by 252 NGOs,
contains matters related to integrity, accountability and transparency,
independence, anti-violence, gender equality, and financial management,
including accountability to external parties such as beneficiaries, government,
donors, other NGOs and the public at large. There are a number of points in the
code of ethics that may be considered important to improve NGOs’ accountability
and transparency as nonprofit organizations, including: a) an NGO is not
established for the purpose of profit making for its founders; b) an NGO is not
established in the interests of its founders but is intended to serve the
people and humanity; c) all information related to its mission, membership,
activities and financing are basically of public nature and is therefore
available to the public; d) an NGO utilizes bookkeeping and financial systems
that are in accordance with acceptable accounting standards.
In addition to the code of ethics,
the NGO community also agreed to establish regional associations of NGOs, which
are responsible for the implementation of the code of ethics, and to help NGOs
in their capacity building. Future challenges for the NGOs which have accepted
the code of ethics is how to apply it consistently in each organization and
sanction those in violation, so it will not become merely an on-paper
agreement.
NGO Certification Program
The Satunama Foundation, an NGO
that is active in education, training and management consultancy, is launching
a program called “Certification of Indonesian NGOs”. The program is intended to
improve NGO public accountability and management performance in order to strengthen
partners’ trust in NGOs and to make NGOs capable of serving their advocated
groups well.
The program began with a national
seminar and workshop in Yogyakarta in November 2002, and it was attended by 50
NGOs with five or more years experience in various provinces in Indonesia. The
workshop then produced a task force consisting of 12 NGO leaders to formulate
future work programs and preparation of instruments required for a
certification program. During preparation of the instruments, the program received
valuable inputs from the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC).
The task force held its first
meeting on November 18-22, 2002 in Yogyakarta, resulting in the formulation of
the certification program vision (“the establishment of democratic,
responsible, transparent, sustainable, trustworthy NGOs supported by the
society”) and mission statement (“to help NGOs to be more ethical and
responsible, to achieve good performance levels, gain better access to
resources and be widely accepted by the society”).
For the next three years
(2003-2005) the task force has planned to conduct a series of activities, that
include: a) establishment of solid instruments, procedures and certification
standards; b) public campaign for NGO certification; c) establishment of an NGO
Certification Agency; d) advocacy campaigns for tax law reform and laws for the
nonprofit sector; and e) a program design for NGO capacity building and
implementation of various types of necessary technical assistance.
Three teams have so far been
formed: 1) a team for advocacy to the government, private sector and donors for
the creation of tax law reform; 2) a team that will disseminate ideas and
mobilize support from NGOs towards the program; and 3) a team that will
formulate instruments for the certification program. It is recognized that
future central issue of the program will be NGO accountability and transparency
and certification is one of the instruments which will be developed.
Civil Society Index
YAPPIKA, an NGO alliance for civil
society and democracy, implemented a program starting in 2000 to assess the
health of Indonesian civil society using the CIVICUS Index on Civil Society.[19] The objectives of the assessment include
increasing the knowledge and understanding of the status of civil society in
Indonesia, empowering civil society stakeholders through dialog and networking,
and providing civil society with tools to analyze sector-wide strengths and
weaknesses, as well as to develop strategies to foster positive social change.
YAPPIKA organized participatory
dialogues involving a wide spectrum of civil society organizations, as well as
a number of key stakeholders, such as government officials, local parliament
members, and representatives from the private sector. The dialogue was
conducted through a number of workshops in several provinces and involved more
than 400 CSOs from all over Indonesia. [20]
In this workshop, the definition of civil society was debated, the CIVICUS
analytical tools were reviewed, and a number of indicators were formulated and
analyzed by participants to assess the level of CSO health. There were five
dimensions analyzed: 1) the political, social-economic context as the external
environment in which civil society operates; 2) the scope of CSOs, including the
breadth and depth of citizen
participation within civil society, its inter-relations and resources; 3) values,
norms and behaviors being promoted by CSOs; 4) the relations of CSOs with the
state and the market; and 5) CSO contributions to the solutions of social,
political and economic issues confronted by its nation. The result of the
provincial Civil Society Index exercises was then discussed in a national
seminar/workshop, resulting in a report on the the status of Indonesian civil
society and common strategies to increase CSO performance over the next five to
ten years.
HAPSARI Women’s Association: Process towards social legitimacy
In 1990, four women from Sukasari
Village, Kabupaten Deli Serdang, 60 kilometers from Medan, established a
working group called “Village Women Working Group”. Each individual in the
group began to interact with individuals and groups of women in their village
and with groups from other villages to jointly develop a women’s organization
to strive for gender justice and equality. The method of work was through
“critical education” in the form of discussions to break the silence and to
build awareness. Ideas about gender justice were disseminated to village
communities through agriculture programs managed by women or through the
community radio station.
In 1997, in order to obtain
legal-formal legitimacy, especially in relation to the government and to enable
them to gain access to donor assistance, this working group transformed itself
into a yayasan. They invited a number
of outsiders (men and women) who were concerned about gender equality to sit on
the Board of Trustees.
In 1998 the
HAPSARI Foundation carried out strategic planning to formulate the vision,
mission and goals of the organization. 15 persons attended from the Board of
Trustees, Executive Board, representatives from its beneficiaries, and a number
of NGOs that have working relations with HAPSARI. With its status as a
foundation, HAPSARI has obtained its formal-legal legitimacy to move more
freely within village communities and began to receive assistance from donor
agencies.
Meanwhile, the women’s groups
nurtured by HAPSARI established an independent women’s organization with the
support from HAPSARI. In 1999 a Free Women’s Association or SPI was established
with 721women members from the lower strata such as farm workers, plantation
workers, fishermen and small vendors. SPI was then divided into five districts/Kabupaten based working areas in North
Sumatra (Deli Serdang, Labuhan Batu, Simalungun and Langkat), each being
independent from the other. HAPSARI Foundation provided funds and moral support
to these local SPIs to function effectively.
In September 2001, SPI organized
its first congress. The congress is the highest institution that formulates
vision and mission for the organization, as well as acts as an accountability
and reflection mechanism for its members. It was agreed in this congress that
each Kabupaten level organization was
allowed to have its own structure and management, relatively independent of one
another.
In November 2002 HAPSARI organized
a meeting to discuss monitoring, evaluation, maintaining accountability and
reorganization. The meeting produced a new organizational design and structure.
Besides members of Board of Trustees, SPI Deli Serdang, SPI Langkat, SPI
Labuhan Batu and SPI Simalungun all attended the meeting. The attendees then
decided that HAPSARI should dissolve itself and become the secretariat for a
Federation of Independent Women of North Sumatra. This federation will function
as an umbrella organization of the women’s organizations mentioned above. The
HAPSARI experience may become an example of how a non-membership NGO in the
form of a yayasan can dissolve itself
to become a broad-based membership organization and obtain better social
legitimacy.
CHALLENGES FOR THE CIVIL SOCIETY
SECTOR
There are three main challenges to
be confronted by NGOs in Indonesia. First, reformulation of NGO positions vis a
vis the state (government) and various other sectors in the society. With the
emergence of democracy, power is no longer centralized but distributed among
new power centers such as parliament, political parties, and judicial
institutions. Therefore, NGOs have expanded their strong criticism and
opposition to include all institutions in power. The stance taken by some NGOs
who consider themselves watchdog organizations towards all state institutions
has turned them into common enemies. Accusations against NGOs remain, but now
are made by political parties instead of the government. NGOs are still branded
as agents of foreign interests and traders of poverty, especially due to the
fact that there have been corrupt practices among NGOs themselves. Politicians
have started to ask questions regarding NGO legitimacy and how much they really
represent their constituents.
The situation seems to be
unfavorable for the future development of NGOs without a breakthrough on
relations and interactions with government and other sectors in the society.
There is a need for a genuine two-way dialogue with the government and private
sector to develop trust, as well as a common cause. This means bringing changes
towards a better Indonesia through the process of lobbying and negotiations,
and not only through strong advocacy or street rallies.
The second challenge is to minimize
NGO reliance on foreign donors and the third is how to develop public trust
towards NGOs by developing legitimacy, accountability and transparency. The
second and third challenges are probably best illustrated through recent cases
related to the Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI). YLBHI has been one of
the outstanding NGO in the fields of law, democracy and human rights for the
past thirty years. This organization is in the middle of a severe financial
crisis. Two major donors plan to stop their assistance to YLBHI. The decision
has had a huge impact on YLBHI and they
have decided to reduce their activities and to rationalize their staff. The
reasons for the cessation of aid to YLBHI are related to internal governance
issues, particularly the internal conflicts between the board of trustees and
executives during the last couple of years.
The above illustration provides an
example of the financial reality of Indonesian NGOs. Most NGOs in Indonesia
depend highly on foreign donor agencies so that when the support is suddenly
stopped it affects programs and even the NGO’s own existence. This suggests the
need for Indonesian NGOs to raise their own funding from domestic sources such
as from the public, government and private sector.
In order to gain public trust,
however, Indonesian NGOs need to improve their governance, especially in
relation to the issues of legitimacy and accountability. It is important for
the NGOs to prove their capacity to deliver intended services to the community
so that their existence can be socially recognized and supported.
ANNEX
List
of Participants to Focus Group Discussions
Cemara
Hotel Jakarta, 9th April 2003
PRIVATE
SECTOR
1. Ms. Ditta Amorhorseya
Corporate Affairs Head, Citibank
2. Mr. Deddy Afidick & Ms. Luciana
Ferrero
Community Relations Advisor, Exxon
Mobil
3. Mr. Soegiono Dharmatjipto & Ms.
Suprianti
Bogasari
4. Mr. Tom Malik
Deputy Director Community Relations,
PT. Rio Tinto Indonesia
5. Ms. Ade Ichromi
General Manager, Unilever Peduli
Foundation
NGO
1. Ms. Geni Achnas & Ms. Darwina
Widjayanti
Executive Director, Yayasan Tifa
2. Mr. Hamid Abidin
PIRAC
3. Ms. Susanti Sitorus
Yayasan Kehati
4. Ms. Abdi Suryaningati
YAPPIKA
5. Mr. Rustam Ibrahim & Mr. Ison
Basuni
LP3ES
6. Mr.
Eryanto
Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan
(Center for Law and Policies Studies)
Puri Imprerium Office Plaza
7. Mr.
Muchtar Abbas
Yayasan Mitra Usaha
8. Mr. Paulus R. Mahulette
LBH Jakarta (Legal Aid Foundation
Jakarta)
9. Mr.
Riza Primahendra
Bina Swadaya
GOVERNMENT
1. Ms. Made Kamimi
& Mr. Iwan Sukresno SH
Department of Justice and Human
Rights
2. Mr.
Freddy & Mr. Tonizar
Directorate General of Tax
REFERENCES
1.
Budianta, Eka. “Respons Sosial
Perusahaan dan Keswadayaan Publik” (“Corporate Social Responses and Public
Self-Reliant”). Paper presented on the “Seminar on the Development of Strong and
Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable: Multistakeholders
Perspectives” (Membangun NGO yang Sehat dan Kuat, Demokratis, Transparan dan
Akuntabel). Banjarmasin (South Kalimantan), 14 May
2002. A series of seminar with the same themes was held by LP3ES in
eight big cities in Indonesia around May till July 2002.
2.
Damayanti, Rolly Aruna.
“Membangun NGO yang Sehat dan Kuat, Transparan dan Akuntabel: Perspektif Donor”
(To Develop Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable:
Donor Perspective). Paper presented on the “Seminar
on the Development of Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and
Accountable: Multistakeholders Perspectives.” Palembang (South Sumatera): 9 July 2002.
3.
Indonesian NGOs Code of Ethics.
4.
Ibrahim, Rustam. “Mengapa NGO
Membutuhkan Kode Etik” (“Why NGOs Need Code of Ethics”). Position Paper prepared for the Program for
Formulation and Implementation of NGO Code of Ethics and Formation of NGOs
Umbrella Organization (Program Penyusunan
dan Pemberlakuan Kode Etik dan
Pembentukan Asosiasi LSM). Jakarta:
2002.
5.
Ibrahim, Rustam. “Membangun
Hubungan yang Sehat, Produktif dan Setara antara Pemerintah, Swasta dan NGO”
(“To Develop Healthy, Productive and Equal Relationship between the Government,
Private Sector and NGOs. Paper presented for the Series of the Seminar on the Development of Strong and Healthy NGOs,
Democratic, Transparent and Accountable: Multistakeholders Perspectives.
6.
Law Number 16/2001 on Foundation (Yayasan).
7.
Malik. Tom. “Pola Kemitraan
dalam Program Pengembangan Masyarakat
Rio Tinto (Partnership Patterns in the
Rio Tinto Community Development Programme). Paper presented for the “Seminar
on the Development of Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and
Accountable: Multistakeholders Perspectives.” Pekanbaru: 16 May 2002.
8.
McCarthy, Paul. “A Thousand
Flowers Blooming: Indonesian Civil Society in the Post-New Order Era.” Paper
prepared by Civil Society Consultant of the World Bank Office in Indonesia,
Ottawa/Jakarta: March 2002.
9.
Report of the Civil Society Assessment Program: Implementing the Index on
Civil Society. Jakarta: YAPPIKA (Civil Society Alliance for
Democracy), 2002.
10.
Report of the National Workshop on Advocacy, People Empowerment and
Accountability: Between Rights and Responsibilities of NGOs. (Laporan
Lokakarya Advokasi, Pemberdayaan Rakyat dan Akuntabilitas: Antara Hak dan
Tanggungjawab NGO. Jakarta, 9-11 January 2003.
11.
Report of the Workshop on the Development of Indonesian NGO Accountability
and Transparency: Developing Synergy
(Laporan Lokakarya Peningkatan Akuntabilitas dan Transparansi NGO
Indonesia: Membangun Sinergi. Held by PIRAC (Public
Interest Research and Advocacy Center), Jakarta, 4-5 September 2002.
12.
Report of the Workshop on
Increasing Quality of NGOs with Accreditation and Sertification (Laporan Lokakarya Peningkatan Kualitas NGO
melalui Akreditasi dan Sertifikasi. Held by Satunama Foundation.
Yogyakarta: 4-6 November 2002.
13.
Rochman. Meuthia Gani. Needs Assesment of Advocacy NGOs in a New
Indonesia: Report to the Governance and Civil Society Program of the Ford
Foundation. Jakarta, 2002.
14.
Rooney. Greg. “Membangun NGO
yang Sehat dan Kuat, Demokratis, Transparan dan Akuntabel: Perspektif Donor.”
(To Develop Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable:
Donor Perspective). Paper presented on the “Seminar
on the Development of Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and
Accountable: Multistakeholders Perspectives.” Banjarmasin: (South
Kalimantan), 14 May 2002.
15.
Sociology Laboratory, Faculty
of Social Sciences University of Indonesia in cooperation with National
Democratic Institute (NDI). Dinamika
Koalisi Ornop (The Dynamic of NGO Coalitions). A Research Report. Jakarta:
August 2002.
16.
Tulung. Freddy H. “Membangun
NGO yang Kuat, Demokratis dan Transparan: Perspektif Pemerintah” (To Develop
Strong, Democratic, and Transparent NGOs: Government Perspective). Paper presented for the “Seminar
on the Development of Strong and Healthy NGOs, Democratic, Transparent and
Accountable: Multistakeholders Perspectives.” Jakarta, 17 July 2002.
17.
Zailani. Lely. “Membangun
Perjuangan Terorganisir, Keadilan untuk Semua. Pengalaman Membangun Proses
Kolektif Perempuan Pedesaan (The
Development of Organized Efforts: Justice for All: The Experience of
Developing Collective Process of Rural Women. Paper presented in the National
Workshop on Advocacy, People Empowerment and Accountability: Between Rights and
Responsibilities of NGOs. Jakarta, 9-11 January 2003.
[1] In
Indonesia, the term NGO means organizations that focus their activities toward
social and economic empowerment through poverty alleviation programs and policy
changes through advocacy programs. The
terms CSO is conceptually wider than NGO; CSO also includes the academic
community such as student organizations, universities and research agencies
that function as think tanks, the media (independent newspapers, radio and
television), community organization, social religious organizations and labor
unions. This paper mostly refers to
NGOs.
[2] There
are no accurate data on the exact number of CSOs in Indonesia however the
current number is estimated to be close to 100,000 organizations.
[3]
See also Paul McCarthy, “A Thousand Flowers Blooming: Indonesian Civil
Society in the Post-New Order Era”, paper prepared by Civil Society Consultant
of the World Bank Office in Indonesia, Ottawa/Jakarta, March 2002.
[4] During
Soeharto’s rule, Indonesian NGOs began to use the name of Lembaga Swadaya
Masyarakat (LSM) which means "self-reliant community development
institution.” The term NGO term was
often interpreted as (especially by the government) as an Anti-government
institution or against the establishment.
This was especially related to the New Order regime policy not to give
room for any opposition. LSM is still
commonly used now though some have changed to OrNop which is the literal translation of NGO.
[5] The opinions were expressed for instance in a
number of seminars on “Developing Strong, Healthy, Democratic, Transparent and
Accountable NGOs: Multi Side Perspective” which were held in eight provincial
capitals in Indonesia from May to July 2002.
Speakers from the government, private sector and Donor Agencies were
invited to present their views on NGO roles.
The seminars were organized by LP3ES, a national NGO based in Jakarta.
[6] Freddy H. Tulung (Director Politics,
Communications and Information, BAPPENAS): “Developing a Strong, Democratic and
Transparent NGO: Government Notes”, a paper presented in a one day seminar
“Developing Strong, Healthy, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable NGOs:
Multisided Perspectives: Government Record”, Jakarta, 17 July 2002
[7] Ibid
[8] See
paper presented by Greg Rooney, Civil Society Program Advisor with ACCESS
AusAid who represented Donor Agencies’ perspectives in a seminar entitled
“Developing Healthy and Strong, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable NGOs:
Multisided Perspective, Banjarmasin, 14 May 2002.
[9]
Recommendation of Workshop for Health Index of Civil Society in Indonesia
organized by YAPPIKA, a civil society alliance for democracy.
[10] Rolly
Aruna Damayanti, Program Officer with Mercy Corps in Indonesia, in a paper
presented to represent donor perspectives in the seminar for “Developing Strong
and Healthy, Democratic, Transparent and Accountable NGOs: Multisided
Perspectives”, Palembang, 9 July 2002
[11] Greg
Rooney
[12] See Eka Budiana, “Corporate Social Response
and Public Self Reliance”, a paper
presented in a seminar “Developing Strong and Healthy, Democratic, Transparent
and Accountable NGOs: Multisided Perspective”, Banjarmasin, May 14, 2002
[13] Immediately after the beginning of the
monetary and economic crisis in Indonesia at the end of 1997, Indonesia again
invited IMF to come and provide help to stabilize its monetary system and
economy.
[14] Sociology Lab., Faculty of Social and
Political Science, University of Indonesia in collaboration with the National
Democratic Institute (NDI), Dinamika
Koalisi Ornop, Research Report, Jakarta, August 2002 page 15-16
[15] Paul McCarthy, op.cit.
[16] Meuthia Ganie-Rochman, Needs Assessment of
Advocacy NGOs in a New Indonesia, Report to the Governance and Civil Society of
the Ford Foundation, Jakarta, 2000
[17] Among Donor Agencies interested in the issues
of rights and obligations, transparency and accountability of NGOs are Ford
Foundation, Partnership for Governance Reform and Tifa Foundation.
[18] The conclusions are taken from the Report on
Advocacy Workshop for Community Empowerment and Accountability: Between Rights
and Responsibility of NGOs, Jakarta, 9-11 January 2003
[19] CIVICUS is an international non-profit
organization which is active in civil society development in numerous countries
and carries out advocacy for monitoring of civil society. Memberships of
CIVICUS consist of CSOs and individuals from many countries of the world.
[20] There were six workshops organized, in
Yogyakarta for Java Region, Palembang for Sumatra, Pontianak for Kalimantan and
in Makassar for Sulawesi and Jakarta for Jakarta, Bogor and Bekasi. Each
workshop was attended by around 70 participants.
