Julie Ida Chernov & Peaceful Islamic Mobilization

{ By. Husnul Isa Harahap }

Presentation about result of the research by Julie Ida Chernov was do at Tuesday evening, June 26. 2007 at Freedom Institute Office Room – Jakarta – Indonesia. It’s not different with a Dissertation of Julie (Ph.D.) “What Went Right ?: Political Participation State Effectiveness and Peaceful Islamic Mobilization”, which is it was defended at December 15. last year at Department of Political Science-University of Colorado at Boulder. Julie divide his views about relation between variation of Islamic mobilization toward the role of the state and international politics.

Julie made scope of his variable like; (1).variation of Islamic mobilization not more as violence or peaceful action also democratic and systemic channel; (2).the role of state is about state openness (election, parties, alliances) and state capacity (law & order, education, social welfare); (3)international politics are something influence of the networking of external forces namely international terrorist groups, Afghan returnees, revolutionary neighbors. The first has Julie’s “call” as dependent variable, the second as independent variable and the third as the intervening variable.

Study of Julie’s focus to Islamic mobilization at there country; Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey. There are two period has Julie separated about Indonesia, namely; (1).new order Indonesia (1965-1998) and (2).reformasi time (1998-present). Julie’s has to look round the phenomena which there are few of Moslem countries has a peaceful Islamic mobilization and there are few of Moslem countries has a violence Islamic mobilization. Main purpose of Julie study is; how to make the synthesis as quit possible peaceful Islamic mobilization.

How to make it? Julie believed the state is the main key to resolve the problem of violence Islamic mobilization in the Moslem countries. Julie’s Argue that “the state can have a positive or negative impact on Islamic mobilization through its policies, institution and its ability to help the people” (Source: Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 2.). She made three hypothesis about it. (1).If the countries can use his role to realize political openness and political capacity it will be (consequently) increased peaceful Islamic mobilization.

Diagram.1. Hypothesis 1


Source: Modified From Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 3.

(2).If the countries can use role to realize political openness but can’t to realize political capacity it will be (consequently) mixed variation of mobilizations (between peaceful and violence action).

Diagram.2. Hypothesis 2


Source: Modified From Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 3.

(3).If the countries can’t use the role to realize political openness but can to realize political capacity it will be (consequently) decreased violence Islamic mobilization (small violence).

Diagram.3. Hypothesis 3


Source: Modified From Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 4.

Julie’s having mind and found the each of hypothesis is applicable to each countries case. Model of the first hypothesis is describing of Malaysia state. Model of hypothesis 2 is describing of Turkey state. And model of hypothesis 3 is describing new order Indonesia. For further info can see on the table 1 by Julie modified. More specific question is; which one the ideal type to make peaceful Islamic mobilization at the Moslem country?

Table. 1. Result of Case Studies

Source: Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 4.

On table. 1. Julie’s has identification a map the spectrum of the each the Moslem country. The result is a synthesis that combines of the effective state capacity with political participation would be contributed to peaceful Islamic mobilization. In other word peaceful Islamic mobilization can be at the Moslem countries if the each country can’t use the role to realize political openness and also can to realize political capacity too.

Diagram 4. Synthesis Dissertation of Julie Ida Chernov


Source: Modified From Julie Slide Presentation Print, page. 5.

Observation by Julie Ida Chernov has get reward and critics from Ihsan Ali Fauzi (as observer). Ihsan said this study is particular, because it’s very interesting very important and very relevant. But than Ihsan say this study also having a lot of problem. Ihsan ask about the representative of the other Moslem countries because if only used three countries not enough. Ihsan think that international influence not always as negative factor. Ihsan commented about “parsimony” at social science. And Ihsan talked about the weakness of the state theory. Ihsan close his view wich is said that Indonesia case most complex.

On My Reviews: Having agreeable to read the synthesis of Julie Dissertation. Julie’s have aspiration to provide the “greatest” variables to solved the problem of violence mobilization at Moslem countries. Democracy and Moslem political living must adjoin to accomplish all of political contestation. Political openness would be providing the way for each interest group to pursue his mission. And the roles of this “game” are without violence. So the effectiveness of state capacities most important to supported this goal. The state capacity most enforce law & order, most enforce a good educational level, even the social welfare. Must admitted that in this context Julie having encouraging the Moslem countries to repairing their capacity. Seemingly Julie also encourages to the end of violence in the Moslem countries.

Question to Julie; Is it true the political openness and state capacity can stop the violence. Can the state realize the political openness and make the progress of the state capacity at the same time. How to do it? “They” are may be debatable because not clear to simplify Indonesia case with only 2 variables which is Julie said. In fact of that is there are many “ghost variable” in Indonesia politics. We can’t claim that the violence at Indonesia as the only creation of the Moslem mobilization. At the long time Indonesia politics skew has been designed to protecting of “elite” interest. And much politician used the democracy only as political commodity. So where is the state, and who is?

Julie’s skew argue that the violence as absolutely negative factors. But, some times obvious that Moslem mobilization in Indonesia viewed that the state must responsibilities to “this” decline. This is the dilemma of Indonesia politics. Julie’s choose concept “mobilization” refer to “Islamic”. Why Julie chosen it (mobilization)? My be Julie’s assumption that there are no participation in Islamic. The implication is Julie’s skew to reduce the concept “Islamic”. The problem; is it true? My be yes but not for all. Concept “mobilization” is not always universal to describing Islamic political participation. The impression about that is Julie skew can’t make differentiate between “Moslem mobilization” and “Moslem movement”.

As a closer, Julie’s has found that “there are no peaceful Islamic mobilization without combine the state capacity and political openness”. There is inviting controversy but also chummy and more sensational with problem of the Moslem countries. Because of that, there is no reason to not admire its hypothesis. The challenge of democracy in Indonesia is how to intercede the interaction of Islamic mobilization and secular political mobilization.

Salemba – Jakarta, Wednesday – June. 27th. 2007.


Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )


Connecting to %s

%d blogger menyukai ini: