CONTENTIOUS POLITICS: STRATEGI INTERNAL DAN EKSTERNAL MOBILISASI GERAKAN SOSIAL DALAM KOALISI
Abstract
Social movements are one of the civil society entities that play an essential role in triggering elite responses to fulfill their responsibilities for the welfare of citizens. We can call various collective activism carried out by these social movements as a contention. This research analyzes internal and external strategies in the dynamics of movement mobilization by the Koalisi Serius Revisi UU ITE, which can create contentious political episodes. Several previous researches in Indonesia have outlined the internal and external strategies that influence the success of a single movement. However, no one explained that movement collaboration is vital in creating sustainable conflict. This research uses a qualitative method with a case study approach. This research chose five key informants by purposive sampling and did in-depth interviews, and supplemented with secondary data by documents and literature. The data obtained was elaborated using Sidney Tarrow's contentious politics perspective and resources mobilization by Edward, McCarthy, and Mataic. The first research finding is related to the importance of internal strategies with resource expansion, and external strategies with the management of threats and opportunities in the process of mobilizing social movements. The second finding shows that collaboration in social movement networks can strengthen the quality of collective contention and encourage the formation of contentious, sustainable political episodes.
Keywords: Contentious Politics, Threats, Opportunity, Social Movement, Coalition
Abstrak
Gerakan sosial merupakan salah satu entitas masyarakat sipil yang berperan penting dalam memantik respon elite untuk memenuhi tanggung jawabnya atas kesejahteraan warga negara. Berbagai aktivisme kolektif yang dilakukan oleh gerakan sosial tersebut bisa disebut sebagai bentuk pertentangan atau contention. Penelitian ini menganalisis strategi internal dan eksternal dalam dinamika mobilisasi gerakan oleh Koalisi Serius Revisi UU ITE, yang berpotensi menciptakan episode contentious politics. Beberapa riset terdahulu di Indonesia telah menguraikan strategi-strategi internal dan eksternal yang mempengaruhi keberhasilan aksi dari sebuah gerakan tunggal. Namun belum ada yang menjelaskan tentang pentingnya kolaborasi gerakan untuk menciptakan pertentangan berkelanjutan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan pendekatan studi kasus, menggunakan purposive sampling untuk menentukan lima informan kunci yang diwawancara secara mendalam, ditambah dengan data sekunder berupa dokumen dan literatur dari koalisi. Data yang diperoleh dielaborasi menggunakan perspektif contentious politics dari Sidney Tarrow dan resource mobilization oleh Edward, McCharty, dan Mataic. Temuan penelitian yang pertama terkait dengan pentingnya strategi internal dengan perluasan sumber daya, dan strategi eksternal dengan pemanfaatan ancaman dan peluang dalam proses mobilisasi gerakan sosial. Temuan kedua menunjukkan bahwa kolaborasi jaringan gerakan sosial dapat memperkuat kualitas pertentangan kolektif dan mendorong terbentuknya episode contentious politics yang berkelanjutan.
Kata Kunci: Contentious Politics, Ancaman, Peluang, Gerakan Sosial, Koalisi
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alhakim, Abdurrakhman. 2022. “Urgensi Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Jurnalis Dari Risiko Kriminalisasi UU Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 4(1):89–106. doi: 10.14710/jphi.v4i1.89-106.
Amnesty International. 2019. Prioritaskan HAM: 9-Poin Agenda Untuk Pemerintah.
Anduiza, Eva, Camilo Cristancho, and José M. Sabucedo. 2014. “Mobilization through Online Social Networks: The Political Protest of the Indignados in Spain.” Information Communication and Society 17(6):750–64. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.808360.
Berenschot, Ward, Ahmad Dhiaulhaq, Afrizal, Otto Hospes, Rebekha Adriana, and Erysa Poetry. 2022. “Anti-Corporate Activism and Collusion: The Contentious Politics of Palm Oil Expansion in Indonesia.” Geoforum 131(July 2021):39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.03.002.
Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Caraway, Teri L. 2023. “Labor’s Reversal of Fortune: Contentious Politics and Executive Aggrandizement in Indonesia.” Social Movement Studies 22(5–6):689–705. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2021.2010529.
Creswell, John W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 3rd Ed. New York: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Darmika, I. Made Rudy, Sagung Laksmi Dewi, and I Made Minggu Widyantara. 2022. “Tindakan Kriminalisasi Terhadap Seseorang Dengan Menggunakan Instrumen Undang-Undang ITE.” Jurnal Konstruksi Hukum 3(2):344–50. doi: 10.55637/jkh.3.2.4835.344-350.
Van Dyke, Nella, and Bryan Amos. 2017. “Social Movement Coalitions: Formation, Longevity, and Success.” Sociology Compass 11(7):1–17. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12489.
Edwards, Bob, John D. Mccarthy, and Dane R. Mataic. 2019. “The Resource Context of Social Movements.”
Hidayatullah, Rahmat. 2021. “Music, Contentious Politics, and Identity: A Cultural Analysis of ‘Aksi Bela Islam’ March in Jakarta (2016).” Studia Islamika 28(1):53–96. doi: 10.36712/sdi.v28i1.11140.
Hutter, Swen, and Manès Weisskircher. 2022. “New Contentious Politics. Civil Society, Social Movements, and the Polarisation of German Politics.” German Politics 0(0):1–17. doi: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2044474.
ICJR. 2016. “ICJR: Mayoritas Putusan Pengadilan Untuk Kasus Pasal 27 Ayat (3) UU ITE Buruk | ICJR.” Retrieved October 16, 2023 (https://icjr.or.id/icjr-mayoritas-putusan-pengadilan-untuk-kasus-pasal-27-ayat-3-uu-ite-buruk/).
Jad, Islah. 2007. “NGOs: Between Buzzwords and Social Movements.” Development in Practice 17(4–5):622–29. doi: 10.1080/09614520701469781.
Lopes de Souza, Marcelo. 2013. “NGOs and Social Movements: Convergences and Divergences.” City 17(2):258–61. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2013.777551.
McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.
McCurdy, Patrick, Anna Feigenbaum, and Fabian Frenzel. 2016. “Protest Camps and Repertoires of Contention.” Social Movement Studies 15(1):97–104. doi: 10.1080/14742837.2015.1037263.
Miles, Matthew B., Michael A. Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. 2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd Ed. New York: SAGE Publications.
Millward, Peter, and Shaminder Takhar. 2019. “Social Movements, Collective Action and Activism.” Sociology 53(3):NP1–12. doi: 10.1177/0038038518817287.
Mitlin, Diana. 2018. “Beyond Contention: Urban Social Movements and Their Multiple Approaches to Secure Transformation.” Environment and Urbanization 30(2):557–74. doi: 10.1177/0956247818791012.
Moseley, Mason W. 2015. “Contentious Engagement: Understanding Protest Participation in Latin American Democracies.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 7(3):3–48. doi: 10.1177/1866802x1500700301.
Nabiyyin, M. Hafizh, and Stivani Ismawira Sinambela. 2023. “Peran Amnesty International Pada Pembatasan Kebebasan Berekspresi Human Rights Defender Di Indonesia : Studi Kasus Veronica Koman.” Papua Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 3(1). doi: 10.31957/pjdir.v3i1.2464.
Rohmy, Atikah Mardhiya, Teguh Suratman, and Arini Indah Nihayaty. 2021. “UU ITE Dalam Perspektif Perkembangan Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi.” Dakwatuna: Jurnal Dakwah Dan Komunikasi Islam 7(2):309. doi: 10.54471/dakwatuna.v7i2.1202.
Tarrow, Sidney. 2011. Power In Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 3rd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
