Coalitions for inclusion in Indonesia: communities and government tackling discrimination together

22nd August 2016

In a follow-up to Luke Arnold’s recent post on coalitions for disability inclusion in Indonesia, Angie Bexley introduces a broader initiative in which reform coalitions are working for the inclusion of six marginalised groups.

Indonesia has become a middle income country, yet inequality is on the rise. The government recognises that rising inequality hinders economic growth and social cohesion, and it aims to reduce the country’s Gini Coefficient from its 2014 high of .41 to .36 by 2019. But what about those who are systematically disadvantaged through discrimination? What will shift both the fact of social exclusion and the attitudes that sustain it?

Program Peduli is designed specifically to improve social inclusion outcomes for six of Indonesia’s most marginalised communities: people with disabilities, religious minorities, victims of past human rights abuses, remote and indigenous peoples, vulnerable children, and transgendered people (waria). It is a Government of Indonesia community development program supported by DFAT, and it works with civil society organisations in 84 districts.

At the core of the approach is a Theory of Change process. When the second phase of the program was launched in 2014, the first step taken was to invite local CSOs to workshops to discuss the local context and possible local solutions, facilitated by The Asia Foundation, the program’s managing partner.  Many of the CSOs were experts on a particular minority but had not yet looked at that group in the context of social inclusion; instead they tended to design highly targeted programs that risked ignoring the surrounding community and political economy.

CSO participants were asked to focus on three elements of their work: the most common types of social exclusion that affected their particular marginalised community; the most significant actors involved in both exclusion and inclusion; and the types of social change they thought most important in facilitating inclusion.

To better understand how NGOs define exclusion and the approaches they use to address it, a recent meta-analysis examined the Theory of Change papers from workshops with 68 CSO partners.

The most common manifestation of social exclusion, as defined by the CSOs, could be laid at the door of central government – difficulty accessing official documents, particularly legal identity documents and birth and marriage certificates. Lack of these documents creates barriers to all sorts of public services – education, health and social welfare, land ownership. People find themselves shut out from many opportunities to earn a living, and certainly from any hope of state employment.

Yet the CSOs reported that the ‘key excluders’ vary from minority to minority. For waria, people with disabilities and vulnerable children, leading excluders are likely to be family members. Most minority groups are excluded from economic opportunities and local decision-making processes by their neighbours and communities. Some are excluded by the state at different levels, such as indigenous communities whose land rights are not secure, and victims of gross human rights violations whose status remains unacknowledged. And some groups are more likely to self-exclude because they have been excluded from many layers of society, and that feeds into a perpetual cycle of community exclusion.

When asked to identify key agents for change and rate their importance, the CSOs ranked the marginalised themselves 2.5 times higher than other likely initiators of inclusive change. However, the workshop participants also believed that no single group or individual could generate inclusion alone. The CSOs identified that motivation and capacity within the excluded group needs to be matched by active support from others outside it – other civil society groups, local governments committed to implementing policies, and positive media coverage.

In other words, workshop participants came to the conclusion that where highly targeted programs addressing discrete minority issues had failed to address social inclusion, coalitions for change – or, in this case, coalitions for inclusion might fill the gap by involving many elements of the government and civil society.

This perspective is now reflected in Program Peduli programming. A year in, it seems that building coalitions for inclusion has indeed become the CSOs’ chief approach. The program has so far reached over 30,000 of the marginalised poor and provided more than 10,000 people with access to health services, legal identity and employment assistance.

While the approach in each of the program’s current 82 locations reflects the variation of exclusion faced by marginalised communities, there are a few common threads. Each has established a community learning forum which emphasises the participation of the whole community, from religious leaders, concerned citizens and others among the urban or rural poor, to the private sector. And each group is formally legalised, which brings official recognition and provides members with all-important access to decision-making, local budgeting and planning forums. This is the critical step that aims to link community efforts to sustainable and long-lasting systemic change. 

Program Peduli’s support to Disability Forums has helped empower people with disabilities to drive inclusive governance at the village and district levels. This approach diverges from conventional disability-related programming that tends to focus on rehabilitation or income generation without addressing cultural attitudes that keep people with disabilities in a cycle of social exclusion. Through the Disability Forums, their inclusion has been cemented in government budgeting and planning processes. The forums have connected them to other people with disabilities, the wider community, and other civil society organisations. A sign of the shift in cultural attitudes is the appointment of a person with an impairment as a village head. He has catalysed further change, including greater prioritisation of disability-inclusive development by the sub-district and district level governments.

The departure of such initiatives from the traditional focus of inclusion efforts on service outcomes shows how coalitions may be able to prompt transformation – of communities and mindsets. While Program Peduli’s second phase has only been operational for a year, robust emerging evidence suggests that results have a good chance of outliving the program itself. 

Image: The National Consortium for Disability Rights (KONAS), which involves Peduli partners, holds an 'Accessibility for All' event supporting the new district regulation on disability rights ensuring the active involvement of people with disability for inclusive development (Photo: SIGAB, February 2016)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.



Angie Bexley

Angie Bexley

Angie Bexley is the Deputy Director of Program Peduli. Angie’s research interests are in developing understandings about pathways to social inclusion. Previously, Angie worked in Timor-Leste and published on various issues including gender violence, youth identity, the development of civil society and the nation-state. She holds a PhD from the Australian National University.

Read more

Related items

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

Why more questions about gender relations could help

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

Welcome to DLP's blog

Welcome to DLP's new blog on politics, power, policy and developmental leadership

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th December 2013

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal15th October 2015

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Fiji's Roshika Deo - outlier, positive deviant or simply feisty feminist?

First in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Priya Chattier 1st February 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

What is transformative leadership?

Guest post in University World News

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2016

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Pacific power: new femininities and women's leadership in the Pacific

The educated, internationally connected women who are changing the way 'development' is done

Opinion by Ceridwen Spark24th June 2014

Gender analysis, and thinking and working politically – bridging the gap

Guest post on Devpolicy  introducing panels at this week's Australasian Aid Conference

Opinion by Chris Roche14th February 2017

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014