Boundary Crossers: The Transformation of Civil Society Elites in Indonesia’s Post-Authoritarian Era

Abstract

This article discusses the strategies used by the leaders of civil society organisations (CSOs) to cross the boundary between the field of civil society and the field of the state. Moreover, it examines the implications of this boundary crossing for post-authoritarian politics in Indonesia. In doing so, it tries to answer two questions: First, what are the strategies used by CSO leaders in boundary crossing? Second, what are the political implications of this boundary crossing for Indonesia’s post-authoritarian politics? Using Bourdieu’s field theory as its conceptual framework and drawing on qualitative interviews with CSO leaders, this article scrutinises the mobility of CSO leaders in different sectors: agrarian, anti-corruption, law, and human rights. It identifies two main strategies used in boundary crossing: direct and indirect strategies. Such strategies tend to be individual rather than organisational. Neither strategy is exclusive; CSO leaders do not limit themselves to particular strategies but may combine them and use them simultaneously. Another finding is that, when crossing to the state field, CSO leaders may increase or reduce their capital, or even lose it. Furthermore, boundary crossing has several significant implications for post-authoritarian politics in Indonesia: it generates sectoral policies; it creates political linkages; and finally, it leads CSO leaders to exert political control within the state field.

“Electing a President is Islamic Worship”—The Print Media Discourse of Azyumardi Azra during Reformasi (1998–2004)

“…In all these positions, Islamic academics move between the elitist-scholarly, the political, and the popular sphere, making abstract, intellectualized-and oftentimes foreign-ideas and concepts accessible to the wider Muslim populace. Their high mobility between different social spheres strongly resembles what has been observed in the context of Indonesian civil society elites as "boundarycrossing" and "zig-zagging" between social subfields (Haryanto 2020). Where does this multidimensional competence and profile of Indonesian Islamic academics, and in particular their public and politicized feature, stem from?…”

Civil Society Elites: A Research Agenda

“…Four of the contributions (Haryanto, 2020;Lay & Eng, 2020;Lindellee & Scaramuzzino, 2020;Norén-Nilsson & Eng, 2020) draw explicitly on Bourdieu's field theory and the related concept of capital. This approach is useful because it sheds light on relations of conflict and cooperation within civil society and how different power resources are valued, gained and used by civil society actors, thus indicating how and why certain actors emerge as elites.…”

“…A field approach also opens up for analyses of elite mobility between spheres and several articles in this thematic issue (Gulbrandsen, 2020;Haryanto, 2020;Norén-Nilsson & Eng, 2020) examine how 'boundary crossers' move between civil society and other fields. Norén-Nilsson and Eng (2020) explore pathways to leadership within and beyond Cambodian civil society.…”

“…They observe that social capital, including networks in civil society and other fields, is especially important for coming into an elite position in Cambodian civil society. Haryanto (2020), in his study of civil society elites in post-authoritarian Indonesia, also focuses on boundary crossers. The process of democratisation has stimulated movement from civil society to the state field.…”

“…Whereas Haryanto (2020) and Norén-Nilsson and Eng (2020) explore boundary crossing from civil society to electoral politics and the state field, Gulbrandsen (2020) provides an analysis of how business elites take up positions within civil society. Based on a survey of Norwegian elites he finds that it is not uncommon for business leaders to become elected representatives in CSOs.…”