Content uploaded by Prischa Listiningrum
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Prischa Listiningrum on Apr 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Indonesian Journal of International Law Indonesian Journal of International Law
Volume 16
Number 2
Culture & International Law II
Article 6
1-31-2019
Improving Indonesia's Commitment to Open Government Through Improving Indonesia's Commitment to Open Government Through
Online Petition Online Petition
Adi Kusumaningrum
Constitutional Law Department, Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University
, adi.kusumaningrum@gmail.com
Rizqi Bachtiar
Governmental Sciences Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Brawijaya University,
Indonesia
Prischa Listiningrum
Constitutional Law Department, Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/ijil
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Kusumaningrum, Adi; Bachtiar, Rizqi; and Listiningrum, Prischa (2019) "Improving Indonesia's
Commitment to Open Government Through Online Petition,"
Indonesian Journal of International Law
: Vol.
16 : No. 2 , Article 6.
DOI: 10.17304/ijil.vol16.2.762
Available at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/ijil/vol16/iss2/6
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UI Scholars Hub. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Indonesian Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of UI Scholars Hub.
IMPROVING INDONESIA’S COMMITMENT TO OPEN
GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP THROUGH ONLINE
PETITIONS
Adi Kusumaningrum,* Rizqi Bachtiar,** Prischa Listiningrum*
* Constitutional Law Department, Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University,
** Governmental Science Department, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Brawijaya University,
Correspondence : adi.kusumaningrum@gmail.com
Abstract
Since 2011 Indonesia has joined as a member of Open Government Partnership, which is
an international platform for countries committed to making their government more open,
accountable, and responsive to citizens. However, the implementation of open government in
Indonesia is criticized by some researchers because of the simplication of meaning. Open
government is often described as uploading all government information into the ocial
government website.Therefore, alternative policies are needed to ensure the openness of the
government. This study oers the idea of creating an online petition system ocially administered
by the House of Representatives as an alternative forum. The petition system oered is dierent
from the conventional online petition system, because the conventional system does not have
clear legal umbrella and is managed by Non-Governmental Organizations. By comparing the
advantages and disadvantages of the addition of the authority to the Parliament, it is expected that
the system will strengthen the oversight function by the Parliament. Nevertheless, the alternative
solution oered in this study is highly dependent on the political will of the government and the
House of Representatives in making clear and legal rules.
Keywords: civil society, Indonesia, online petitions, open government, Parliament
Submitted : 19 December 2018 | Revised : 29 December 2018 | Accepted : 14 January 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
As a democratic nation, Indonesia guarantees the right to speak and
participate in the government. As stipulated in the 1945 Constitution
of Indonesia, Indonesian citizens have equal rights to participate in
the government,1 the rights to assemble and the rights of expression.2
The participating rights set forth in the constitution are also spelled out
specically in various regulations to open opportunities for citizens to
participate in government. For example, Act No. 14 of 2008 on Public
Information Disclosure was enacted in order to encourage checks and
1 The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, art 27 and art 28D para 3.
2 Ibid, art 28E para 3. See also art 28.
Indonesian Journal of International Law (2019), Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 273 - 298
http://dx.doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol16.2.762
Copyright © 2019 – Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar and Listiningrum
Published by Lembaga Pengkajian Hukum Internasional
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
274
balances between the government and the public by disclosing public
information and encouraging active participation of the citizens in the
policy-making processes.3 In line with the Law Number 14 Year 2008
on Public Information Transparency, Act Number 12 Year 2011 on the
Establishment of Legislation Regulation especially Article 88 paragraph
2, Article 92 paragraph 2 and Article 96 open opportunities for all
citizens to take an active role in the formulation and implementation
of legislation, in particular for the acts (undang-undang) and local
regulations (peraturan daerah).
The rights to contribute and participate in the government are
not only guaranteed by ‘domestic’ laws. Internationally, Article 21
paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article
25a of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
also clearly regulate the rights to participate in government. These
legal bases strengthen people’s rights to voice their aspiration to the
government whether directly or indirectly through any bodies such as
parliament or ombudsman.
Apart from many regulations on citizens participation, the
government of Indonesia is relatively proactive encouraging openness
and participation through an initiative, namely Open Government
Partnership. Open Government Partnership is generally an international
platform to encourage the member countries to be more inclusive
and open. As a member as well as co founder of Open Government
Partnership, Indonesia has a responsibility to ensure openness and
participation in every policies made. One of which is by implementing
online portal to monitor public sector services by the public, namely
LAPOR! portal4.
However, the eectivity of the portal to welcome any complaints
or aspirations seems in doubt. The ndings from The Economist
Intelligence Unit show that civil liberty is still a serious problem in
Indonesia.5 The problem becomes one of the main causes of Indonesia
3 Law No. 14 Year 2008 on Public Information Disclosure, art 3.
4 See https://www.lapor.go.id/lapor/tentang_lapor/tentang-layanan-aspirasi-dan-pen-
gaduan-online-rakyat.html
5 The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2017: Free Speech Under
Attack, The Economist, 2018, p. 26, accessed from https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-
RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2017.pdf
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
275
experiencing a decline in the quality of democracy. Furthermore,
the research from Bappenas also reveals that there is several
misunderstanding, misinformation and even scared by some people
in Indonesia to participate and voice their aspirations properly.6 The
nding from Bappenas is likely conrmed by the Media Freedom
Ranking 2017 that civil liberty in Indonesia is categorised as ‘largely
unfree’.7
Furthermore, so far people’s voice seems to be only translated as
narrow as an ability to vote in general and/or local elections with the
principle of “one man one vote”. After the elections take place, the
practical involvement of the people in governmental activity is reduced.
In fact, democracy is not only characterized by regular elections as
dened by Schumpeter8, but must also address other aspects such
as legal justice and sustained participation. O’Donnell also conducts
another critic to the narrow meaning of democracy. He says that the
rule of law becomes one of important foundations of democracy, apart
from “one man one vote”, which implies the strengthening of social and
political institutions.9
The simplication of the meaning of democracy is seen in some
of the policies adopted by the government. For example, rising fuel
prices (BBM), an increase in basic electricity taris and an increase in
vehicle administration costs in early 2017 triggered a wave of protests
and demonstrations from various quarters. The dissatisfaction of the
public regarding the policies taken by the government can actually be a
signal that the process of policy formulation requires the participation
of a representative community to make a pro-people policy. In other
words, some policies made by the government seems not to have
enough legitimation which results in many protests
6 Bappenas, Reviu Implementasi Open Government Indonesia (2011-2014), Jakar-
ta, 2018, p. 75, accessed from http://ditpolkom.bappenas.go.id/basedir/Kajian%20
Ditpolkom/4)%20Kajian%20Tahun%202015/Reviu%20Implementasi%20OGI/(Fi-
nal)%20Reviu%20Implementasi%20OGI%202011-2014.pdf
7 The Economist Intelligence Unit, op. cit., p. 40
8 Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd: London, 1943, p. 269
9 O’Donnell, G., On The State, Democratization and Some Conceptual Problems: A
Latin American View With Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries. World De-
velopment. 21(8), 1993, p. 1957.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
276
In addition, other important things in relation to public participation
in government are the extent to which the government listens to the
protests of the public such as conducted by mass demonstrations as
constructive criticisms in making or evaluating policies. Because
there are so many incidences where mass demonstrations as citizens’
rights to speak are banned by the government for various reasons. The
recent example is the not allowing of the National Movement of Fatwa
Guards of the Indonesian Ulema Council (GNPF MUI) to take action in
December 2016 by the police even though in the end the action is still
implemented.10 In fact, the submission of opinion, which in this form of
mass demonstration, is a human right, as mentioned above. Moreover,
Article 9 Paragraph 1 of Law Number 9 Year 1998 on Freedom of
Expression of Public Opinion also clearly states that demonstrations
are valid means of conveying opinions.
The House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-
RI) and the Local Representatives (DPRD) actually represent the people
of Indonesia. However, given the political oligarchy of both central and
local government,11 it makes a big question mark; whether the decisions
taken by representatives of the people really represent the wishes of the
wider community or just political factors. Indeed, so far the mandate of
the people of Indonesia represented by the members of the council both
in the central and regional. However, it is not necessarily the decision
decided at the institution to represent the wishes of the community. For
instance the case of “Ahok Gate” where the DPR-RI tries to raise people’s
support to conduct a questionnaire (hak angket) in order to challenge
government’s action to reactivate the ex-Governor of Jakarta, Basuki
Tjahaja Purnama who holds the status of defendant.12 The initiation of
10 Raja Eben Lumbanrau, ”Dilarang Kapolri, GNPF MUI Tetap Demo 2 Desem-
ber”, The CNN Indonesia (21 November 2016), online: <http://www.cnnindonesia.
com/kursipanasdki1/20161121155853-516-174156/dilarang-kapolri-gnpf-mui-tetap-
demo-2-desember/>.
11 Burhanuddin Muhtadi, “Jokowi’s First Year: A Weak President Caught between
Reform and Oligarchic Politics” (2015) 52:3 Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Stud-
ies at 351.
12 Arkhelaus, ”Gubernur Ahok Aktif Lagi, Gerindra Gulirkan Hak Ang-
ket DPR”, Tempo.co (13 February 2017), online: <https://m.tempo.co/read/
news/2017/02/13/078845949/gubernur-ahok-aktif-lagi-gerindra-gulirkan-hak-ang-
ket-dpr>.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
277
the questionnaire rights is indeed in line with the authority of the House
of Representatives, although on the one hand it is not necessarily in line
with the will of the people of Indonesia.
Furthermore, the absence of channels that have clear and responsive
mechanisms for communities to argue and channel their aspirations to
the government, ultimately creates new problems. One is the emergence
of various kinds of polemic in social media that usually leads to
blasphemy, satire and even slander. This is exacerbated by several
“rubber” or unclear articles of Law No. 19 of 2016 on the Amendment
of Law No. 11 Year 2008 on Electronical Information and Transaction
(hereinafter “UU ITE”), where anyone who is considered as defamatory
institutions and/or individuals in social media, although his intention
as a criticism, can be charged with imprisonment. A housewife in
Sulawesi was named a suspect and detained solely for complaining in
social media about unpleasant acts by local parliamentarians (DPRD).13
Another example is the suspect of Buni Yani, the one who uploaded a
video cut of the Basuki Tjahaja Purnama’s speech in Jakarta as a form
of protest against blasphemy conducted by the ex-Governor that took
place in the Thousand Islands.14
Even in early 2017 to coincide with the election process of the
Governor of Jakarta, the trend of mutual reports of defamation and
religious defamation is so strong.15 Prospective leaders of Jakarta who
have had alleged legal cases were raised and reported to the authorities.
Trend of reporting also continued between supporters of each candidate,
ranging from cases of religious contempt, Pancasila to defamation.16
In relation to these cases, the right of citizenship still needs to
13 Abdul Rahman, “Tulis di Medsos Rumah Dirusak Anggota DPRD, Ibu
Ini Ditahan” Tempo.co (26 October 2016), online: <https://m.tempo.co/read/
news/2016/10/26/058815263/tulis-di-medsos-rumah-dirusak-anggota-dprd-ibu-ini-
ditahan>.
14 Heyder Aan, “Buni Yani tersangka kasus video Ahok: tepatkah penggunaan UU
ITE?”, BBC Indonesia (26 November 2016), online: <http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/
indonesia-38093502>.
15 Koran Sindo, “Tren Saling Lapor”, Koran Sindo (27 January 2017), online: <https://
nasional.sindonews.com/read/1174570/16/tren-saling-lapor-1485439117>.
16 Fauziah Mursid, ”Fadli Zon Prihatin Aksi Saling Lapor”, Republika.co.id (25 Jan-
uary 2015), online: <http://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/politik/17/01/25/
okbwyu365-fadli-zon-prihatin-aksi-saling-lapor>.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
278
be rened, whether consciously or unconsciously, one’s opinion can
backre for him to be exposed to defamation and so on. However, the
tightening of the right of opinion by the government is also not a wise
decision from the government considering some of the above rules
related to freedom of expression in Indonesia.
In relation to the right of opinion submission and the right to
participate in the government, the community has actually “glanced” the
petition method as a means of conveying its criticism and suggestions to
the government. By using online-based petitions, for instance through
the change.org website, people easily reveal a problem and attract
support as much as possible to gain attention from the government. This
e-petitions method is in fact a potential means of becoming a “bridge”
between people who want their voices to be heard and governments as
public policy makers.
However, since the petitions are accommodated by NGOs, there is
no guarantee that the authorities will respond it. Furthermore, Indonesia,
in fact, has no laws on regards to petitions complicates the situation.
Taking an example is the disclosure of the murder case of human rights
activist, Munir. The unnished case disclosure for more than a decade
of the murder of the human rights activist made Munir’s wife created
a petition to the President of the Republic of Indonesia to reveal his
case.17 In fact, until now the case is still untouched despite getting the
support of more than 11,000 signatures.18
In some cases, Indonesia needs to have appropriate legal certainty to
ensure that criticisms and suggestions from the public to the government
are noticed and responded by the government itself. The criticisms
are not necessarily regarded as either defamation or contempt, but as
constructive criticism for the government. With regard to the current
petition run by NGO in Indonesia, the legal certainty is not yet clearly
regulated by the government to ensure that the voices, criticisms and
17 Jessi Karina, “Peringati 10 Tahun Kematian Suaminya, Istri Munir Tagih Janji
SBY”, Kompas.com (8 September 2014), online: <http://nasional.kompas.com/
read/2014/09/08/01243921/Peringati.10.Tahun.Kematian.Suaminya.Istri.Munir.
Tagih.Janji.SBY>.
18 Suciwati Munir, “Pak Jokowi dan Pak JK; Tuntaskan Ujian Sejarah Bangsa Pak
SBY #10thnMunir”, Change.org, online: <https://www.change.org/p/pak-jokowi-
do2-pak-jk-tuntaskan-ujian-sejarah-bangsa-pak-sbyudhoyono-10thnmunir>.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
279
suggestions through the petition system will be discussed and reviewed
by the government.
According to this short background, this paper will discuss the
feasibilities of the ‘legal’ e-petitions in Indonesia. The discussion
begins with a description of the involvement of the citizens in the public
policy, followed by a discussion of the petition system in the UK, the
petition dilemma, the feasibility of e-petitions and the challenges of the
implementation of e-petitions in Indonesia.
II. RESEARCH METHOD
This research is a normative legal research that focuses on the
possibility of additional function in the Parliament in which is
online petition. It uses primary and secondary legal materials with
the statute, comparative, and conceptual approaches as well as case
study approaches. The case study is based on the dynamics of citizen
participation in the government in Indonesia and how the parliament
works in order to aspire people’s voices. This research is divided into
four part of discussions, which are: citizens involvement in public
policy, petition system between UK and Indonesia, the feasibility of
e-petitions in Indonesia, and challenges in implementing it.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC POLICY
In the era of globalisation, the trend of public involvement in
the formulation of public policy in various countries is increasing
nowadays considering the greater government’s duty in addressing
emerging issues, such as climate change and immigrant issues.19 The
involvement is based on the fact that citizens as a social capital has an
enormous power to inuence the government if they can unite to force
the government to do so.
As noted, social capital in a particular country can be a potential
19 Beatriz Sanz Corella, “Citizen Engagement to Enhance Accountability and Prevent
Corruption in the Provision of Public Services in OECD”, online: <unpan1.un.org/
intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN047621.pdf>, accessed 15
February 2017 at 1.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
280
power in inuencing the direction of the government’s policy by its
action; a phenomenon known as social movement. Basically, a social
movement is a collective action that involves like-minded people in a
particular conict or issue to obtain their goal or goals.20
Some scholars, for instance Della Porta and Diani dene such a
socially oriented conict as a demand for change in, or reform of, the
current conditions.21 For example, Fukuyama explains that there were,
in the so-called Arab spring, waves of protests from citizens in Libya,
Tunisia, Egypt and Syria demanding changes in their regimes from
authoritarian to more democratic.22 The protests in those countries can
be seen as a social movement to achieve their common goals. The goals
tended to be focused on signicant changes in society or in the state’s
policy.23 Thus, social movement, to some extent, has an important role
in changing the way the government run.
One of the methods used by social movement to inuence a
government’s policy is mass protest. Della Porta and Diani reveal that
the main characteristic of social movements is protest.24 The protest
itself appears as a reactive phenomenon, where a social movement has
grown from its members being unsatised with the current condition.
In terms of development, the demonstration or, in this case, the signing
of petitions tends to reect dissatisfaction with a policy or policies that
aect the lives of the social movement’s members. That kind of protest
is a conictual collective action, in which the protesters want a social
shift.25 Thus, the protest might be used to oppose the current policies or
conditions, culminating in demands for change.
The success of the protest depends on certain factors; for example,
the number of people who join the movement. In some cases, the
20 M Diani, and I Bison, “Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements” (2004) 33:3-4
Theory and Society 281-309; and D Della Porta, and M Diani, Social Movements: An
Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006).
21 Ibid.
22 F Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay (London: Prole Books, 2014).
23 J Christiansen, “Four Stages of Social Movements. EBSCO Research Starters”
(2009), online: <http://wiki.zirve.edu.tr/sandbox/groups/economicsandadministrati-
vesciences/wiki/0edb9/attachments/1aabe/1.pdf> at 1-7.
24 D Della Porta, and M Diani, supra note 20.
25 Ibid.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
281
more people joining the movement, the more powerful that movement
becomes. The example of changing away from an authoritarian regime
during the reformation era in Indonesia, can justify that argument. Before
1998, Indonesia had been an authoritarian state for about 32 years, in
which the centralised government made the president the most powerful
person in Indonesia.26 In those 32 years, corruption was rotting the
government and the country; making the regime one of the most corrupt
in the world.27 At that time, the centralised regime in Indonesia tended
to be vulnerable also to the inuence of some international negative
trends; for example, the impact of a global nancial crisis.28 The global
crisis 1998 made Indonesia suers from a catastrophic nancial hit,
since the central government had to deal with the devastating impact
of the crisis in more than a hundred local governments.29 As they were
unsatised with their circumstances in Indonesia, citizens from dierent
backgrounds, such as students and labourers, created a massive social
movement to bring down the regime.30 Students, who were perceived
as an educated group, led the campaign for changing the regime, and
inuenced citizens to join their protest movement.31
Those huge waves of protest were arguably successful in forcing
out the regime, which fell after the parliament building was occupied
by the students.32 The importance of the students in inuencing citizens,
26 E Ahmad and A Mansoor, “Indonesia: Managing Decentralization” (2002)
IMF Working Paper, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=879921>; R Rasyid, “The Policy of Decentralization in Indonesia” in J Alm, J
Martinez-Vazquez, and SM Indrawati (eds.), Reforming Intergovernmental Fiscal
Relations and The Rebuilding of Indonesia: The Big Bang Program and Its Econom-
ic Consequences (Chaeltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004) 65-74; H Antlöv,
DW Brinkerho, and E Rapp, “Civil Society Organizations and Democratic Reform:
Progress, Capacities, and Challenges in Indonesia” (2008) Paper presented at the 37th
Annual Conference, Association for Research on Nonprot Organizations and Volun-
tary Action, Philadelphia.
27 RH McLeod, “Soeharto’s Indonesia: A Better Class of Corruption” (2000) Agen-
da: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 99-112, online: <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/43199068?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
28 HA Crouch, Political Reform in Indonesia After Soeharto (Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 2010).
29 J Alm, J Martinez-Vazquez, and SM Indrawati (eds.), supra note 26.
30 Ibid.
31 HA Crouch, supra note 28.
32 L Suryadinata, “A Year of Upheaval and Uncertainty: The Fall of Soeharto and Rise
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
282
and spreading awareness of the issue, made them the most important
actors in toppling the regime. However, it is pleasing to note that
the regime’s removal in mid-1998 had some promising and positive
impacts. Democratic values were implemented; one of which was
the implementation of decentralisation. The dramatic impact of the
movement was described by Hofman and Kaiser as the ‘Big Bang’
change.33 Therefore, it is fair to conclude that a social movement in
Indonesia was successful in forcing change through the use of massive
protests.
The massive protest approach was also used by citizens in Egypt to
demand change of the Mubarak regime in 2011. The protest in Egypt
was caused by the corrupt authoritarian regime and, in particular, its
failure to deliver good public services.34 The pattern of massive protests
in Egypt was almost the same as the scale of the protests in Indonesia.
The huge wave of protests by citizens in the Tahrir Square that went
on for almost a month was arguably successful in causing the regime
to collapse.35 After the regime came down, democratic values were
implemented, one of which was a democratic presidential election.
Interestingly, utilising the internet, more specically social media
took an important part in spreading the issue and gaining support from
the Egyptian population.36 Social media are an important means for
of Habibie” (1999) Southeast Asian Aairs 111-127, online: <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/27912223?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
33 B Hofman and K Kaiser, “The Making of The ‘Big Bang’and Its Aftermath: A Po-
litical Economy Perspective”. in J Alm, J Martinez-Vazquez, and SM Indrawati (eds.),
supra note 26 at 15-46.
34 D Acemoglu and JA Robinson, Why Nations Fail, The Origins of Power, Prosperity
and Poverty (London: Prole Books, 2012).
35 A Ramadan, “From Tahrir to the World: The Camp as a Political Public Space”
(2013) 20:1 European Urban and Regional Studies 145-149, online: <http://eur.sage-
pub.com/content/20/1/145.short>.
36 SI Bhuiyan, “Social Media and its Eectiveness in the Po-
litical Reform Movement in Egypt.” (2011) 1:1 Middle East Me-
dia Educator 14-20, online: <http://ro.uow.edu.au/meme/vol1/
iss1/3/?utm_source=ro.uow.edu.au%2Fmeme%2Fvol1%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_
medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages>; A Ramadan, ”From Tahrir to
the World: The Camp as a Political Public Space” (2013) 20:1 European Urban and
Regional Studies 145-149., online: <http://eur.sagepub.com/content/20/1/145.short>
and Z Tufekci and C Wilson, “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
283
citizens to discuss their strategies to exert pressure on the government,
as well as to update and spread information about the actual condition
of the protest. By using social media, Egyptian citizens from various
classes were able to unite to demand a move to a more democratic state.
However, both the above cases were not without victims; victory
came at a high price. Both protests had many members who lost their
lives. Mass protest against a government can involve lawbreaking,
from a constitutional perspective, that should be punished.37 For that
reason, those protests faced pressure, often in the form of bullets, from
the military forces in both countries.38 At this point, indiscriminate
attacks and violence from both conicting parties may well erupt.
Therefore, any social movement has to be aware of the potential
negative consequences of protesting against a government; particularly
an authoritarian one.
Another challenge is that the demands from the protesters may not
be relevant to a government’s priorities. The governments in both the
countries cited might notice the mobilization of the movements and
their demands; however, factors, such as political pressure from within
the governments and the lack of capacity to deal with the movements,
make the demands irrelevant to the government’s priorities. In some
cases, the policy makers know the demands from the protestors, but
Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square” (2012) 62:2 Journal of Communication 363-
379, online: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x/
abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturda
y+14th+May+11%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2F+06%3A00-09%3A00+EDT+%2F+
18%3A00-21%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.Apologies+for+the+inconv-
enience.&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=>.
37 B Goodwin, Using Political Ideas, 3rd ed (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).
38 T Lee, “The Armed Forces and Transitions from Authoritarian Rule Explaining
the Role of the Military in 1986 Philippines and 1998 Indonesia” (2009) 42:5 Com-
parative Political Studies 640-669, online: <http://cps.sagepub.com/content/42/5/640.
short>;MA Rashed and I El Azzazi, “The Egyptian Revolution: A Participant’s Ac-
count from Tahrir Square, January and February 2011 (Respond to this article at
http://www. therai. org. uk/at/debate)” (2011) 27:2 Anthropology Today 22-27,
online: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2011.00798.x/
abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturda
y+14th+May+11%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2F+06%3A00-09%3A00+EDT+%2F+
18%3A00-21%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.Apologies+for+the+inconve
nience>.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
284
some factors, such as bounded rationality and political pressure, cause
the governments to ignore their demands.39
In this regard, great pressure is in the hands of the government in
relation to open access to public information and being accountable
so that the citizens play an active role in public policy making; in this
case called open government.40However, the implementation of open
government in some cases attracts criticism from some researchers
because of the simplication of meaning. The simplication is that open
government is often described as uploading all government information
into the ocial government website.41 Though uploading information to
the ocial government website is not enough to explain the meaning of
open government itself. Uploading of public information on the ocial
government website (vision) should be followed by the opening of
interactive communication channels between government and society
(voice).42If it is denied, the wave of social movement will try to force
the government to do what they demand.
Interestingly, in 2011, Indonesia, as an international entity, had a
fundamental role in improving the quality of governance by initiating
and joining Open Government Partnership (OGP). OGP is an
international community which has an initiative to encourage openess
and responsiveness of the activities of the governments.43 As a member of
OGP, Indonesia consequently has to commit implementing the principles
of open government stated in the Open Government Declaration, such
as improving public information disclosure and professionalism among
civil servants, supporting citizens engagement in the government, and
utilising technologies for participatory democracy.44
39 BW Hogwood and LA Gunn, Policy Analysis for The Real World (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1984).
40 D Della Porta, and M Diani, supra note 20.
41 Albert J Meijer, et al., “Open Government: Connecting Vision and Voice” (2012)
78:1 International Review of Administrative Sciences at 10.
42 Ibid.
43 Open Government Partnership (2015a) What Is The Open Government Partner-
ship? [online]. Available from < https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about>. Ac-
cessed 21 March 2017.
44 Open Government Partnership (2015b) Open Government Declaration [online].
Available from < https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-dec-
laration>. Accessed 21 March 2017.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
285
Practically, Indonesia has introduced two policies in order to build
open government in Indonesia. First, Indonesia is initiating Open Data
Indonesia (ODI). The ODI attempts to build a portal containing sets of
data from every level of governments in Indonesia. This policy, aside from
the embodiment of the Law Number 14 Year 2008 on Public Disclosure
Information, is based on the fact that every level of governments has their
own data. Ironically, in some cases, some institutions have inaccurate
or dierent data on the same type of information. For example, the data
on poverty rate in Indonesia is criticised by some experts since three
government institutions have dierent data, namely the Health Care
and Social Security Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial
/ BPJS), the State Logistics Agency (Badan Usaha Logistik / Bulog)
and the Central Statistics Agency (Badan Pusat Statistik / BPS).45 The
dierence over the data eventually impacts on the policy to be decided
by the government. Thus, this portal has an opportunity to reduce the
possibility on inaccurate policy as well as develop the openess of the
data in the government, although the impact of world-wide-web in order
to improve the governance system needs further research.46 Citizens can
access the information online at www.data.go.id.
Second, Indonesia is developing an online portal to bridging citizens
in order to speak their voices as well as complaints about national and
local matters to the governments, namely LAPOR! (Layanan Aspirasi
dan Pengaduan Online Rakyat/the National Online Public Service
Complaint System) (www.lapor.go.id). Until April 2015, the portal had
received more than 250.000 complaints to be answered and solved.47
The portal seems to give a greater chance for citizens to participate in
the government. This idea, of course, is parallel with the argument from
Meijer, et al. that open government is not only about the openess of
government’s data, but also participation of the citizens to speak to the
45 Jawa Pos (2015) Aneh, Data Kemiskinan Tiga Lembaga Pemerintah Berbeda [on-
line]. Available from < http://www.jawapos.com/read/2015/09/28/5036/aneh-data-
kemiskinan-tiga-lembaga-pemerintah-berbeda >. Accessed 21 March 2017
46 Madon, S. (2000) The Internet and Socio-Economic Development: Exploring The
Interaction. Information Technology & People, 13(2), pp.85-101.
47 LAPOR! (2017) Tentang LAPOR! [online]. Available from < https://www.lapor.
go.id/lapor/tentang_lapor/tentang-lapor-dan-info-gras.html >. Accessed 21 March
2017.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
286
government.48 However, LAPOR! is only focued on accommodating
voices of public services matters. Thus, any ‘controversial’ policies
taken by the government the citizens are still not equipped enough with
any portal and legal basis to speak their voices on public policies.
B. PETITION SYSTEM: BETWEEN UK AND INDONESIA
The petition is a term derived from Greek, petere, which means
asking or pleading.49 In general, petitions are the ocial letter of
request or demand to the government.50 In this case, citizens or NGOs
can write the petition to the government. One of the countries that apply
the petition system is the UK.
Historically, the granting of petition rights to citizens became a long
debate in the colonial days of America about whether the petition is
enough to represent the real problems and solutions in the government.51
In Britain, with the enactment of Magna Carta in 1215, as a legal
umbrella of human rights arrangements in Britain as well as a symbol
of the implementation of modern democracy, in 1628 the statesmen
of England began to initiate a petition system to be implemented as a
form of checks and balances between parliament and the king.52 It was
during this year that the British parliament issued the Petition of Rights
in response to the unconstitutional act of the king.53 The petition is one
of the great milestones for Britain in relation to the development of
human rights.
The petition system in the UK eventually grew until nally the
British parliament made an online petition policy for the people to
48 Meijer, A.J., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M. (2012) Open Government: Connecting
Vision and Voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), pp.10-29.
49 Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Katharina Johnsen, “On the Use of the E-Petition Platform of
the German Bundestag”, HIIG Discussion Paper Series, 02 June 2014.
50 Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, “Petisi”, online: <http://kbbi.web.id/petisi.
51 Stephen A Higginson, “A Short History of the Right to Petition Government for the
Redress of Grievances” (1986) 96:1 The Yale Law Journal at 165.
52 United for Human Rights, “A Brief History of Human Rights”, online: <http://
www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/magna-carta.html>.
53 UK Parliament, “Civil War”, online: < http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-
heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/petition-
of-right/ >.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
287
voice their aspirations. In general, the online petition is also a means for
the community to carry out political participation through the Internet,
which ultimately gets support for the issue that is being purged.54 On
the ocial website of the British parliament, there is information and
guidance that specically focuses on the online petition system.55
The UK government provides a vast space for its citizens to convey
their aspirations, one of them with the online petition method. The
petition will be responded by the government if the signing of the
petition is at least ten thousand signatures, and it will be discussed in
Parliament if the signing of the petition is at least one hundred thousand
people. If needed, petitioners may be invited to attend discussions to
deepen or add related information.
Surely this petition system is arranged in detail to avoid unfair
and irresponsible petitions. In connection with this matter, the British
government set very strict standards for sorting out any of the petitions
submitted to the government that is reasonable to be responded or
discussed.56 Some of the requirements include:
1. The petition should be clearly addressed to the government or
parliament
2. The obligation to conform to the duties of the government or
parliament
3. Knowing that the problem to be triggered is the responsibility
of the British government or devolved body like the Scottish
parliament
4. Avoiding personal issues
5. Avoiding issues that are condential, slanderous or false
6. Avoiding ambiguous language
7. Avoiding a provocative issue
8. Avoiding advertising issues or even ‘spam’
9. Avoiding unreasonable issues even leading to jokes
10. Avoiding to represent political parties
54 Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Katharina Johnsen, supra note 22.
55 UK Government and Parliament, “Petitions”, online: <https://petition.parliament.
uk/>.
56 UK Government and Parliament, “How Petitions Work”, online: <https://petition.
parliament.uk/help>.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
288
11. Avoiding the issue of respect systems or appointments from the
government
12. Avoiding potentially unlawful issues
13. Avoiding issues relating to cases still being handled in court
14. Avoiding issues that could potentially cause new problems for
others
15. Avoiding issues relating to government employees except at
senior management level
16. Avoiding issues related to someone who is in the process of
investigation by the parties concerned
17. Avoiding requests to obtain Freedom of Information (FOI)
In its development, the British government has received more
than 30 thousand petitions with various intents and purposes.57 Of the
thousands of petitions, the majority who use the e-petitions facility
are individual British citizens, not from interest groups.58 However,
statistics show that citizens aliated with interest groups gain more
support for government response than others.59
The simple statistical information above shows that e-petitions
in the UK became one of the most important channels of citizens’
participation. Important issues that may be missed for discussion in the
government are possible to become one of the government’s agenda,
such as the issue of British attitudes toward the result of the general
election in the United States in which Donald Trump elected as the
President of the United States or the issue of the increase of the tuition
fees for students from the European Union studying in the universities
in the UK after Brexit. The assurance that the government will discuss
all issues that are addressed if they have the support or signature makes
the communication pattern between the community and government
more uid. As a modern democracy, it appears that British people is
positioned as a principal that gives the government mandate as an agent
to implement policies in accordance with the will of the British citizens.
57 Scott Wright, “Populism and Downing Street E-petitions: Connective Action, Hy-
bridity, and the Changing Nature of Organizing” (2015) 32:3 Political Communica-
tion at 414.
58 Ibid at 429.
59 Ibid.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
289
On the other hand, online petition system that has been developed
in Indonesia is also widely used by people in Indonesia to voice their
aspirations. The change.org site, for example, has so far facilitated
numerous petitions in Indonesia. The issues that are expressed also
vary, ranging from environmental, political and social issues.
Looking at e-petitions in the UK, there are some fundamental
dierences between English e-petitions and Indonesia.60 In terms
of relations with the government, the petitions in Britain are legally
regulated under the auspices of the British government, while petitions
in Indonesia are managed by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
with no formal relationship with the government. These dierences
have a signicant impact on the follow-up of a petition. The petition in
the United Kingdom is guaranteed a response from the government if
it meets the standards, measured by the number of people signing the
petition, while the petition in Indonesia is no guarantee no matter how
much support given to a petition will be responded by the government.
This fundamental dierence ultimately determines whether this petition
system is truly useful as a form of public participation in government
or merely a formality.
Viewed from the theory of multiple streams analysis,61 petitions
in Indonesia are highly dependent on political factors within the
government. As Kingdon points out, three factors of success of an issue
become the main subject in government are problems, policies and
politics.62 Problems are an emerging issue that may need a solution.
Policies are solutions or ideas oered by interest groups, in this case can
be a petition, while politics is a decision taken by the government on
issues that develop. The government’s nal decision on the issue can be
in two attitudes; Discussion of issues that ultimately provide solutions,
or even make a decision not to take action. Among the three factors,
politics has a very signicant role because the political factors in the
government can make something that previously seems impossible to
implement, but in the end can be implemented.63
60 Change, “Petisi Tampilan”, online: <https://www.change.org/id/petisi>.
61 J Kingdon, “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies” (1984) New York 82-83.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid at 152.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
290
In the absence of government rules managing the petition in
Indonesia, making all petitions with any support depends on the political
will of the government to discuss the issue. The dependence on the
political will of the government makes the weakening of the petition
function as a letter of request or solicitation of solving problems from
the public to the government. The government’s response to a petition
may be based on the basis of only political counts.
Furthermore, the dull of petition in Indonesia can be seen in many
cases. A recent example is the petition concerning the disbanded of
the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP). The petitioner
believes that the PDIP has violated the constitution because it supports
a candidate for governor of Jakarta who was hit by a case of religious
defamation.64 The petition, which has the support of more than 48,000
signatures until now, has no ocial follow-up from the government.
There are several factors that petition is only limited attention of issues.
First, the political factor is very clear because the petition was made
during the election of the governor of Jakarta. Second, the PDIP is a
‘government party’ in which the President is currently supported by the
party. Given the oligarchic politics still happening in Indonesia, targeting
the PDIP will be very dicult to achieve. Eventually, the petition only
became viral within a certain period and eventually disappeared.
From the explanation mentioned above, the current petition in
Indonesia is experiencing a dilemma. On the one hand the petition
system in Indonesia has made people have many channels to express
their opinions and participate in the government. On the other hand,
there is no clear legal umbrella about the ‘rules of the game’ of the
petition system, and the continued existence of oligarchic politics made
the petition in Indonesia uncharted.
C. THE FEASIBILITY OF E-PETITIONS IN INDONESIA
According to the problems of public participation in Indonesia’s
government and the implementation of e-petitions in the UK, the online
petition that has legal foundation seems to be an alternative policy
64 Abyan Karami, “Bubarkan Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan”, Change.org,
online: <https://www.change.org/p/mahkamah-konstitusi-bubarkan-partai-demokra-
si-indonesia-perjuangan>.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
291
to be implemented in the countries that need to improve the quality
of governance, especially on the right to speak and participate in the
government. In Indonesia’s case, policy transfer of e-petitions in the
UK and other countries needs a careful adoption in order to be suitable
with the conditions in the country. Hulme convincingly argues that
assessing the policies or ideas before they are adopted can facilitate the
opportunity of a successful implementation65. Therefore, the feasibility
of the e-petitions to be implemented in Indonesia can be discussed in
two dierent focuses, namely the political factors and the arrangement
of the policy.
In terms of political factors, it is commonly agreed that every policy
to be taken by the government is more or less inuenced by political
powers; what benets can be earned by the elites and other reasons.
The inuences are unavoidable since political parties are the main
source of member of the parliament and many positions in executive.
E-Petitions, however, can also be politically inuenced by those powers.
In one hand, e-petitions will be possible to be implemented, if the
political elites in Indonesia support the ideas of open and accountable
government. Unfortunately, e-petitions will also face some diculties
to be implemented in Indonesia, if the elites think that the policy will be
a threat of any suspicious and transactional policies as well as nuisance
of their self-interests.
Muhtadi, an Indonesian scholar reveals that the political system in
Indonesia is vulnerable to oligarchic politics.66 The political system
in Indonesia, as mentioned by Muhtadi, is still occupied by certain
inuential actors. For example, business people in Indonesia take an
important part in shaping the political system, because there are some
of Indonesia’s politicians that have a background in, or are endorsed by,
business persons.67 Mass media are also owned by the leaders of political
65 R Hulme, “The Role of Policy Transfer in Assessing the Impact of American Ideas
on British Social Policy” (2006) 6:2 Global Social Policy 173-195.
66 Muhtadi, B. (2015) Jokowi’s First Year: A Weak President Caught between Reform
and Oligarchic Politics. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies [online]. 51(3),
pp.349-368. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00074918.
2015.1110684 [Accessed 21, March, 2016]
67 Sukoyo, Y. (2015) Partai Harus Hindari Kepentingan Pengusaha. Berita Satu [on-
line]. 26 April. Available from: http://www.beritasatu.com/nasional/268722-partai-
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
292
parties.68 The strong relationship between business and politics tends
to make the condition where political elites, such as local government
leaders, are occupied by individuals who have strong nancial power
or backing.
The condition potentially leads to illiberal democracy; the condition
where the implementation of democracy is hijacked by the cooperation
between political elites and business people to gain self-interests without
considering civil rights69. The strong involvement of business people in
the political arena, of course, can shape the policies implemented by the
government by their own interest. Based on Knill and Tosun, interest
groups attempt to propose an idea to government in order that the
policies made and the groups’ interests are relatively the same70. Again,
if they have hidden interests to benet their side, e-petition will not be
easily implemented since by implementing e-petitions, it will have a
power to force the government unpacking any transactional policies.
In terms of the arrangement of the policy, there are many options to
be adopted in order to reduce a chance of policy failure. For example,
e-petition can be implemented under the supervision of the House of
Representative (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) in order to strengthen
the rights embedded in the DPR. The rights owned by the DPR, namely
the right of interpellation (hak interpelasi), the right of inquiry (hak
angket) and the right of expressing opinions (hak menyatakan pendapat)
are legally regulated in the Article 79 of the Law Number 17 Year
2014 on Legislative Institutions (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat,
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah / MD3).
Giving the DPR to manage the e-petition is based on the fact that,
in some cases, the use of those rights triggers debates because of
the lack of legitimacy. The latest example is the use of the rights of
harus-hindari-kepentingan-pengusaha.html [Accessed 21, March, 2016]
68 BBC Indonesia (2013) LSM: Parpol Susupi Media Untuk Kampanye. BBC Indo-
nesia [online]. 04 July. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indone-
sia/2013/07/130704_parpol_tv_media [Accessed 21, March, 2016]
69 F Zakaria, “The rise of illiberal democracy” (1997) Foreign aairs 22-43.
70 C Knill, and J Tosun, Public Policy: A New Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan,
2012).
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
293
House’s inquiry on the work of Corruption Eradication Commission
(Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi / KPK). Scholars and public seem to
be divided into two dierent sides on the move of the DPR. In one side,
they believe that the DPR uses the right to weakening the KPK, while
other side thinks that the House’s inquiry is useful to x any weaknesses
of KPK71. Furthermore, as a political body, the inquiry right to the KPK
is likely to be now more nuanced political interests than promoting the
aspirations of the people. Of course, the members of the DPR are the
representatives of the citizens in Indonesia, but it is dicult to ensure
their moves based on what people want. Thus, the DPR seems to need
legitimacy from the citizens to ensure they have chosen the right action
regarding to the will of citizens. The legitimated action by the DPR
itself can be proved by the use of e-petition.
Although the policy is under the supervision of the DPR, some
representative members, such as scholars and community or citizens
representatives, should run the body that manages the policy
professionally and independently. They should be legalised by a
particular regulation in order to legitimate their works. The body has
a responsibility to collect any online petitions from the citizens and
assess which petitions are suitable or not to publish. For example, as
mentioned above, the main objective of the petition is to question any
policies taken by the government. Therefore, any petitions submitted
by the citizens to the institution should inquire relating to the policies
chosen and taken by the government, unless the institution will not
publish the petitions.
D. CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING E-PETITIONS
The option to give the DPR additional authority to run online
petitions need a legal foundation to legalise their action. The legal
foundation, of course, is made by the parliament. As mentioned above,
it depends on the political will of the Member of Parliament to execute
71 See Bambang Soesatyo, “Hak Angket DPR akan Perkuat KPK” (5 July 2017),
online: <https://news.detik.com/kolom/d-3549066/hak-angket-dpr-akan-perkuat-
kpk> and Kristian Erdianto, “Penolak Pansus Angket KPK Bertanya, “Apa DPR
Masih Bisa Mendengar?”” (14 July 2017), online: <http://nasional.kompas.com/
read/2017/07/14/19502901/penolak-pansus-angket-kpk-bertanya-apa-dpr-masih-bi-
sa-mendengar->.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
294
it or not.
In the online petition case, the policy will succeed when the citizens
use the policy as a tool to collectively want an improvement on the
policies made by the government. However, their objective might be
dicult to achieve when the policy is used by any free-riders to claim
as much signatures as possible to change any ‘good and right’ policies.
Since the benchmark that the government will respond the petition is the
amount that supports or signs the petition, the petitioner must convince
the public that the petition made is related to the wider community. There
are many ways that can be taken to get support ranging from informing
in social media even aliated with printed and electronic media. In
addition, the system of e-petitions are also prone to be inltrated by free
riders that have self-interests, especially if the maker of the petitions
aliated with interest groups. The self-interests of course are going to
hijack the will of citizens that demand an improvement of any policies
made by the government.
Furthermore, the demands on the petition may range from political
interests to any other interest as humans, such as people’s basic needs.
However, the contesting of power between two movements occurs when
the demands of the groups are opposed to each other. As mentioned
by Goodwin, the minority within the group might be aected when
the majority of the movement has dierent views or demands from
the minority group.72 Those groups can work together, if their aims are
relatively the same. Thus, the actions of social movements tend to be
uid and dynamic.
IV. CONCLUSION
As a democratic nation, Indonesia guarantees the right to speak and
participate in the government. Nevertheless, so far people’s voice is
only translated as narrow as an ability to vote in general and/or local
elections with the principle of “one man one vote”. The important
matter in relation to public participation in the government is the extent
to which the government listens to the protests, critics of the public.
From that reason, open government appears as an initiative to make
72 Goodwin, B. (2007) Using Political Ideas 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
295
government more open to the citizens. There are many examples of
the implementation of open government in some countries that are
arguably success in making the government more accountable, such
as the UK. In the UK, the government implements online petitions that
legitimately collects any protests, critics, inquiries from the citizens to
any policies made by the government. This system can probably be
emulated by Indonesia. In this paper, we argue that the online petition
as implemented in the UK is feasible to be implemented in Indonesia.
Online petition in Indonesia can be implemented under the
supervision of the House of Representative (Dewan Perwakilan
Rakyat / DPR) in order to strengthen the rights embedded in the DPR.
Nevertheless, the option in implementing e-petition in Indonesia needs
a legal foundation to legalise its action. Since the legal foundation is
made by the parliament, it depends on the political will of the Member
of Parliament to execute it or not. Therefore, Indonesia should consider
more on the inuence of political factors in the implementation of
online petitions.
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
296
REFERENCES
Books
BW Hogwood and LA Gunn, Policy Analysis for The Real World (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1984).
B Goodwin, Using Political Ideas, 3rd ed (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).
D Acemoglu and JA Robinson, Why Nations Fail, The Origins of Power, Prosperity
and Poverty (London: Prole Books, 2012).
Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd: London, 1943, p. 269
F Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay (London: Prole Books, 2014).
C Knill, and J Tosun, Public Policy: A New Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
M Diani, and I Bison, “Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements” (2004) 33:3-4
Theory and Society 281-309; and D Della Porta, and M Diani, Social Movements:
An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006).
J Kingdon, “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies” (1984) New York 82-83.
Other Documents
Bappenas, Reviu Implementasi Open Government Indonesia (2011-2014), Jakarta,
2018, p. 75, accessed from http://ditpolkom.bappenas.go.id/basedir/Kajian%20
Ditpolkom/4)%20Kajian%20Tahun%202015/Reviu%20Implementasi%20OGI/
(Final)%20Reviu%20Implementasi%20OGI%202011-2014.pdf
Burhanuddin Muhtadi, “Jokowi’s First Year: A Weak President Caught between
Reform and Oligarchic Politics” (2015) 52:3 Bulletin of Indonesian Economic
Studies at 351.
F Zakaria, “The rise of illiberal democracy” (1997) Foreign aairs 22-43.
The Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy Index 2017: Free Speech Under
Attack, The Economist, 2018, p. 26, accessed from https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-
RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2017.pdf
O’Donnell, G., On The State, Democratization and Some Conceptual Problems: A
Latin American View With Glances at Some Post-Communist Countries. World
Development. 21(8), 1993, p. 1957.
Raja Eben Lumbanrau, ”Dilarang Kapolri, GNPF MUI Tetap Demo 2 Desember”,
The CNN Indonesia (21 November 2016), online: <http://www.cnnindonesia.
com/kursipanasdki1/20161121155853-516-174156/dilarang-kapolri-gnpf-mui-
tetap-demo-2-desember/>.
Arkhelaus, ”Gubernur Ahok Aktif Lagi, Gerindra Gulirkan Hak Angket
DPR”, Tempo.co (13 February 2017), online: <https://m.tempo.co/read/
news/2017/02/13/078845949/gubernur-ahok-aktif-lagi-gerindra-gulirkan-hak-
angket-dpr>.
Abdul Rahman, “Tulis di Medsos Rumah Dirusak Anggota DPRD, Ibu Ini
Ditahan” Tempo.co (26 October 2016), online: <https://m.tempo.co/read/
news/2016/10/26/058815263/tulis-di-medsos-rumah-dirusak-anggota-dprd-ibu-
ini-ditahan>.
Heyder Aan, “Buni Yani tersangka kasus video Ahok: tepatkah penggunaan UU
ITE?”, BBC Indonesia (26 November 2016), online: <http://www.bbc.com/
indonesia/indonesia-38093502>.
Koran Sindo, “Tren Saling Lapor”, Koran Sindo (27 January 2017), online: <https://
Improving Indonesia’s Commitment to Open Government
297
nasional.sindonews.com/read/1174570/16/tren-saling-lapor-1485439117>.
Fauziah Mursid, ”Fadli Zon Prihatin Aksi Saling Lapor”, Republika.co.id (25 January
2015), online: <http://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/politik/17/01/25/
okbwyu365-fadli-zon-prihatin-aksi-saling-lapor>.
Jessi Karina, “Peringati 10 Tahun Kematian Suaminya, Istri Munir Tagih Janji
SBY”, Kompas.com (8 September 2014), online: <http://nasional.kompas.com/
read/2014/09/08/01243921/Peringati.10.Tahun.Kematian.Suaminya.Istri.Munir.
Tagih.Janji.SBY>.
Suciwati Munir, “Pak Jokowi dan Pak JK; Tuntaskan Ujian Sejarah Bangsa Pak SBY
#10thnMunir”, Change.org, online: <https://www.change.org/p/pak-jokowi-do2-
pak-jk-tuntaskan-ujian-sejarah-bangsa-pak-sbyudhoyono-10thnmunir>.
Beatriz Sanz Corella, “Citizen Engagement to Enhance Accountability and Prevent
Corruption in the Provision of Public Services in OECD”, online: <unpan1.
un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN047621.pdf>,
accessed 15 February 2017 at 1.
J Christiansen, “Four Stages of Social Movements. EBSCO Research
Starters” (2009), online: <http://wiki.zirve.edu.tr/sandbox/groups/
economicsandadministrativesciences/wiki/0edb9/attachments/1aabe/1.pdf> at
1-7.
E Ahmad and A Mansoor, “Indonesia: Managing Decentralization” (2002) IMF
Working Paper, online: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=879921>; R Rasyid, “The Policy of Decentralization in Indonesia” in J Alm,
J Martinez-Vazquez, and SM Indrawati (eds.), Reforming Intergovernmental
Fiscal Relations and The Rebuilding of Indonesia: The Big Bang Program and Its
Economic Consequences (Chaeltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004) 65-74;
H Antlöv, DW Brinkerho, and E Rapp, “Civil Society Organizations and Democratic
Reform: Progress, Capacities, and Challenges in Indonesia” (2008) Paper
presented at the 37th Annual Conference, Association for Research on Nonprot
Organizations and Voluntary Action, Philadelphia.
RH McLeod, “Soeharto’s Indonesia: A Better Class of Corruption” (2000) Agenda:
A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform 99-112, online: <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/43199068?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
HA Crouch, Political Reform in Indonesia After Soeharto (Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 2010).
See https://www.lapor.go.id/lapor/tentang_lapor/tentang-layanan-aspirasi-dan-
pengaduan-online-rakyat.html
L Suryadinata, “A Year of Upheaval and Uncertainty: The Fall of Soeharto and Rise of
Habibie” (1999) Southeast Asian Aairs 111-127, online: <http://www.jstor.org/
stable/27912223?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
B Hofman and K Kaiser, “The Making of The ‘Big Bang’and Its Aftermath: A Political
Economy Perspective”. in J Alm, J Martinez-Vazquez, and SM Indrawati (eds.),
supra note 26 at 15-46.
A Ramadan, “From Tahrir to the World: The Camp as a Political Public Space” (2013)
20:1 European Urban and Regional Studies 145-149, online: <http://eur.sagepub.
com/content/20/1/145.short>.
SI Bhuiyan, “Social Media and its Eectiveness in the Political Reform
Movement in Egypt.” (2011) 1:1 Middle East Media Educator 14-20,
Kusumaningrum, Bachtiar & Listiningrum
298
online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/meme/vol1/iss1/3/?utm_source=ro.uow.
edu.au%2Fmeme%2Fvol1%2Fiss1%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm_
campaign=PDFCoverPages
A Ramadan, ”From Tahrir to the World: The Camp as a Political Public Space” (2013)
20:1 European Urban and Regional Studies 145-149., online: http://eur.sagepub.
com/content/20/1/145.short
Z Tufekci and C Wilson, “Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest:
Observations from Tahrir Square” (2012) 62:2 Journal of Communication 363-379,
online: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x/
abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+
on+Saturday+14th+May+11%3A00-14%3A00+BST+%2F+06%3A00-
09%3A00+EDT+%2F+18%3A00-21%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.
