Introduction
The term of “civil
society” has been globally used and therefore might have been misused. It could
be understood as the concept itself has transgressed its own historical and
cultural boundaries. However, it becomes problematic if we try to limit its
meaning as the term of “civil society” has been becoming a global term and used
in many countries with their own historical and cultural backgrounds as well. As
Neera Chandhoke points out that when concepts become consensual then they
become problematic (Chandoke 2010).
The
evolutionary process of the concept and term even much more complicated and
diverse if we trace back its history to Cicero, Thomas Paine, Georg Hegel, Karl
Marx, Antonio Gramsci, and Alexis de’Tocquiville and many other social and
political thinkers (Carothers and Barndt 2000; Chandoke 2010; Cox 1999). In recent
times, “civil society” discourse has reemerged since 1970s and 1980s with
Stalinist states hegemony style in the background (Chandoke 2010). In its evolutionary process,
“civil society” as a term has been defined in many ways based on its particular
context. Some scholars have explained that civil society might be part or as an
opposing entity to the state (Ferguson 2008), while some others have viewed
it as a different entity juxtaposed to “the state” and “the market” (Carothers and Barndt 2000).
It is
interesting to observe how “civil society” term has been introduced and
developed in Indonesia and replaced by “masyarakat madani” term. The later term has been becoming the most acceptable
and widely-used term in Indonesia. However, it should be noted that the term has
developed its own definition and uprooted the original meaning of “civil
society” that has been recognized in the global context. As a consequence, it has
created confusion within Indonesian public discourse about the actual meaning
of “civil society” and “masyarakat madani”. Furthermore, it has led public in
Indonesia to misuse the terms simultaneously. In many cases the terms has been
defined as a similar concept. While in fact, they are not the same.
The evolution of "civil society" to "masyarakat madani"
The term of “civil
society” was introduced by Indonesian leading political scholars in 1990s as a
response to social and political dynamic in Indonesia (Jurdi 2008; Rosyada et al. 2005; Sazali 2005). During
that time, some of Indonesian scholars believed that Indonesia needs to develop
and strengthen its “civil society” as an independent entity that can work as a balancer
to the power of the state (Sazali 2005). It is a response to Suharto regime, as the
representation of the state, that had been considered too powerful.
Some of the
scholars who introduced the concept of civil society were Abdurrahman Wahid, Amien
Rais, Arief Budiman, Azyumadi Azra, A.S. Hikam, Dawam Rahardjo, Mansour Fakih, Nurcholis
Madjid and Ryaas Rasyid. Most of those scholars were graduated from American universities.
They introduced the term of “civil society” as they came back from their study
in America in early 1990s. Therefore, it could be argued that “civil society”
term was an imported term and had been much more influenced by the social and
political discourse in United States universities at that time.
However, most
of the scholars have difficulty to popularize “civil society” term in Indonesia
as it intrinsically had had a foreign understanding with its foreign context. To
make it closer to local audiences, they tried to adapt the imported term to its
local version. They did not only translate the term into Indonesian language
but also try to elaborate and explain it in accordance to Indonesian social and
political setting at that time. The locally adapted versions of civil society
term are, “Masyarakat Sipil”, “Masyarakat Kewargaan”, and “Masyarakat Madani” (Rosyada et al. 2005).
All of those
scholars had translated “society” to “masyarakat”, which is a common word in
translating “society”. However, it became difficult to translate “civil” to
Indonesian as it doesn’t have a common understanding. Therefore, some scholars
literally translate “civil” to “sipil” (as its literal translation in
Indonesian language); or in totally different word with similar meaning of
“civil” such as “kewargaan”; or even to the most creative term such as “madani”
which doesn’t have the same meaning to “civil”.
A.S. Hikam and
Amien Rais are among the scholars who keep “civil society” in its original
term. A.S. Hikam argued that as a concept, civil society is originated from
Western Europe, therefore, it would be much more closer to its substantive
meaning if the term is mentioned as it is (Rosyada et al. 2005). Among all of those terms, “masyarakat
madani” has gradually becoming the most popular one.
“Masyarakat
madani” term was firstly introduced by Anwar Ibrahim, a Malaysian political
figure, at National Symposium Scientific Forum, Istiqlal Festival on 26
November 1995 in Jakarta. He fundamentally put forward that an ideal society is
“society groups with advanced civilization”. He identified that “masyarakat
madani” is a fertile social system which is based on moral principles which
ensures balance between individual freedom with social stability. He also
explained that society supports efforts and individual initiatives. On the
other hand, polity has to abide law in contrast to submitting to personal
desire. These circumstances, he argued, will generate predictability,
sincerity, and transparency within the society “Masyarakat madani” term was
influenced by the concept of “city of God” (kota Ilahi), civilized city (kota
peradaban), or “city society” (masyarakat kota). This concept also was
influenced by “al-mujtama’ al-madani” concept introduced by a Malaysian
scholar, Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas. He explained that masyarakat madani has two
major components: city society and civilized society (Rosyada et al. 2005).
Before 1995,
Indonesian social and political discourse had been flourished by “civil society”
idea and its other local terms such as “masyarakat kewargaan” and “masyarakat
sipil”. After Anwar Ibrahim introduced “masyarakat madani” term, Indonesian scholars
found out that the term was much more suitable to be used in Indonesian
context. Among Indonesian scholars who adopted the term were Nurcholis Madjid,
Dawam Rahardjo, and Azyumardi Azra (Rosyada et al. 2005). Subsequently, in the process, Nurcholis
Madjid was widely-recognized as the leading scholar who had popularized “masyarakat
madani” in Indonesia.
What had
made Nurcholis Madjid approach distinguishable was that he referred “masyarakat
madani” to the earliest Muslim society under the Muhammad leadership in Yatsrib
from 622 to 632 CE. I argue that referring the term to Islamic history had
become effective to make the term closer to Indonesian audiences as most of
Indonesians are Muslim and therefore more likely to accept the term.
Before hijra
(migration) to Yatsrib in 622, Muhammad and his followers had been opposed and persecuted
in Mecca as the result of Muhammad preaching Islam. At the same time, Yatsrib
had had more than a hundred years unending battle that involving clans and religious
communities which was culminated in a great battle, War of Bu’ath, in 618. To
solve the deadlock, representatives from Yatsrib communities invited Muhammad
to Yatsrib to be their leader. It had been possible as they were trust to
Muhammad’s sound characters and his likely neutral position to mediate the
conflict in Madina (Hodgson 1974; Watt 1977). Muhammad’s first step as a
leader for communities in Yatsrib was to change the name of “Yatsrib” to be
“Madinah” (“city” in English). Muhammad then composed “Madina Charter” as the
basic law. He invited all communities in Madina to live and cooperate under the
Charter (Tahir-ul-Qadri 2000).
Nurcholis
argued that those steps are Muhammad’s strategy to build a modern political
society. Moreover, he argued that, semantically, “madina” is originated from
“dina-yadinu” which means “submit” or “obey”. Therefore, the basic meaning of “Madinah”
is “place of submission” or “system of submission”. Therefore, “madinah” can be defined as a place
to live for those who are willing to submit or obey to rules and laws. The Arabic
term for civilization is “madaniyah” and the Arabic term for “civil society” is
“mujtama’ madani”. If the Arabic version of “civil society” translated into
Indonesian then it becomes, “masyarakat madani”. (Madjid 2000)
The problem of oversimplification
However, the
use of “masyarakat madani” term as “civil society” version in Indonesia has
been oversimplified. It seems that public has avoided many fundamental differences
between Muhammad leadership era and Indonesian recent social and political
circumstances. The fact that Muhammad was recognized as a prophet and as a
state leader at that time is impossible to be repeated. Madina Charter, for
example, had been much influenced by lslamic teaching as it was composed by
Muhammad himself (Tahir-ul-Qadri 2000).
Furthermore, It seems impossible for Muhammad to
take the leadership in Yatsrib if there was not any long and deep conflict that
involving clans and religions in that region for many-many years. It is the
deadlock that brought them together and decided to invite Muhammad as an
impartial adjudicator for them. It should also be noticed that as a prerequisite
to convince Muhammad, people of Yatsrib need to accept Muhammad as a prophet. It
shows that the leadership of Muhammad in Madina was impossible to happen if
Muhammad was not a prophet. It then becomes problematic if we try to compare circumstances
in Madina and Indonesia. It is clear that Islam values had become the most
influential factor during Muhammad leadership as it had been translated by
Muhammad himself into Madina Charter. While in Indonesia, Islam has been viewed
as part of society life but not a defining factor. Indonesia itself is considered
as a secular country (Wahid 1999).
Conclusion
It is
interesting to observe how Indonesian scholars creatively adopted “civil
society” to “masyarakat madani” as its Indonesian version. But it is also
important to know and understand the reasons why the term of “masyarakat
madani” was chosen. By doing so, public or, particularly, academicians might be
more careful in using the term because each of those terms represents a
different meaning with its own history and cultural background. It should be
understood that “civil society” is “civil society” and “masyarakat madani” is “masyarakat
madani”. Each one of the terms has its own explanation.
References
