Main menu:

Site search

Categories

 

January 2009
S M T W T F S
« Dec    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

Links:

State Dept. Blogging One Year Later (Part 4): State Department 2.0

by Nicholas Brody

This is the fourth part of a five part series on about the one-year anniversary of the State Department’s Dipnote blog. In Part 1 we focused on reviewing DipNote management and processes. In Part 2 we looked at what the State Department bloggers were writing about. In Part 3 we conducted an in-depth content analysis of reader comments on the blog.  In this post I look at the larger context of Web 2.0 effort being pursued by the State Department, of which Dipnote is a part.

In analyzing Dipnote comments in Part 3, we found that the “Responses to Others’ Comments” category was the second largest—an interesting finding revealing the extent and centrality of social interaction between readers. However, there was much less direct interaction between the bloggers and commenters. New forms of social media, many of which the State Department has begun to embrace, offer unique tools for more direct interaction with their audiences for public affairs and public diplomacy efforts.

Last week I had the chance to interview State Department spokesman and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Sean McCormack.  He has been a driving force behind many of the department’s new media efforts. During the interview, McCorcack mentioned that when he took over in 2005 much of the work of the Public Affairs office was centered on the daily press briefings. However, he saw an opportunity to embrace media efforts to disseminate content:

I thought it was a great opportunity to provide people the raw information, the transcripts, the videos, the photos, etc. that we produce. We produce a tremendous amount of content here at the State Department every single day that people are interested in. So, given where the Internet was headed, the various new applications and technologies that were out there, there was a great opportunity to allow people to access this information firsthand.

The efforts were inspired by his trip to Silicon Valley in 2006, during which he was impressed by the “creative, goal-oriented spirit” of the Internet industry.  McCormack decided to build the technical aptitude of his department to help foster a more creative approach to their online efforts.

This was the genesis of Dipnote and the other Web 2.0 efforts of the department today.  Results can be seen in web site usage statistics.  According to McCormack, in 2005 the State Department website received about nine million hits per month. Currently, they receive around eighteen million hits per month.

In further efforts to increase direct interaction with the public, McCormack recently initiated Briefing 2.0. Inspired by the CNN Youtube debates during the presidential primaries, he saw another opportunity to directly engage the public. While originally the briefing was to be combined with the daily press briefings, he decided that the goals of Briefing 2.0 were distinct, and would benefit from a separate event.  The first briefing took place last month, and questions have just been answered in the second round.

In May of this year, the State Department created a Facebook page.  It is fairly straightforward. The group page contains links to the State Department Flickr site, a discussion board, and links to recent blog posts. It has 853 “fans.”  The discussion board is not very active.  It currently contains five topics.  The most active of these is the opening post, inviting users to say what they would like to see on the page.  That thread has 15 replies, many noting Facebook pages at existing embassies (see below).  In contrast to Dipnote, all but one reply has a rejoinder from a State Department employee.  As the page continues to grow and develop a larger fan base, it should be able to direct more traffic to Dipnote and other public affairs efforts.

In an increasingly interconnected world, the line between public affairs and public diplomacy becomes more and more fuzzy. For example, on Dipnote (presumably a public affairs outlet) many of the commenters are from foreign countries. Facebook also has domestic and international potential.  It is offered in 38 languages, indicating an international user-base. While the content of the State Department Facebook page may be targeted to domestic audiences, it has potential as a global medium for public diplomacy goals as well.

I was surprised to find Facebook pages for individual embassies, often in native languages. As it turns out, so was McCormack.  He didn’t learn of the embassy pages until he considered setting up a page for the Mother Ship and started doing research.  Facebook pages exist for U.S. Embassies in Egypt, Japan, Lebanon, Montenegro and Uraguay.

I took a look at one of these, the U.S. Embassy in Uruguay. It has 483 “fans”, many of whom appear to be Uruguayan citizens. Their “Wall” contains almost 50 comments (in Spanish of course) regarding U.S. politics and questions about the daily operations of the Embassy. We salute this effort to follow pragmatic complexity principles: By allowing users to dictate the theme of the group, this embassy is deemphasizing control of the message, and promoting a more complex communication structure.

The structure of the State Department certainly plays a role in the immersion of these somewhat disconnected Facebook efforts. While he has no direct control over the use of Facebook by the embassies,  McCormack emphasized their importance:

I think it’s going to be, going forward, very important for the embassies to develop these kind of engagements with their publics. It’s important for their efforts to ensure we don’t have a 20th century state department in a 21st century world.

In contrast to its Facebook efforts, the State Department’s use of Twitter leaves quite a bit to be desired. The Twitter website explains its goals succinctly:

Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

But to date, the State Department has used its Twitter account only as a means to disseminate new Dipnote posts, something that is already accomplished through its RSS feed. To truly engage in public diplomacy and public affairs, they should embrace the Twitter mission statement by keeping us informed about what they are doing. Is the Secretary of State currently in talks with a foreign leader? Are ambassadors in Sudan in talks over the tragedy in Darfur? Dipnote usually discusses these events in-depth.  But the strength of Twitter is its speed and conciseness.  McCormack agrees with this—and thinks that as more State Department employees incorporate Twitter into their personal daily routine, the Department’s Twitter efforts will benefit as a result.

While the efforts of Public Affairs efforts are by definition targeted at a domestic audience, State Department content is now consumed globally. The Bureau of Information Programs and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, produce content for the global audience. Going forward, these efforts can be combined to take further advantage of the worldwide interconnectivity provided by new technologies.

In the upcoming final part of this series, we draw implications from our one-year anniversary review of Dipnote and other new media efforts by the State Department, and offer recommendations for improving these efforts in the future.

State Dept. Blogging One Year Later (Part 3): What DipNote Readers Have To Say

By Edward T. Palazzolo and Dawn Gilpin (With analysis support from Nick Brody, Jesse Herrera, Krista McNaughton, and Jordan Wolff)

This is the third post in a series about the one-year anniversary of the State Department’s Dipnote blog. In Part 1 we focused on reviewing DipNote management and processes. In Part 2 we looked at what the State Department bloggers were writing about. In this post, we focus on our analysis of all the readers’ comments in response to the 344 DipNote posts that existed as of early October. We were able to gather 4,057 comments and place them into 13 emergent categories.

Recall from Part Two that 99 of the blog posts were not authored posts, but were links to Today’s Top Issues. Therefore, the following analysis omits those 99 entries, leaving us with 245 DipNote posts for comment analysis. Likewise, the corresponding 99 analyzed “No Comments” were removed resulting in 3,959 comments for analysis.

On average, each post received 16.2 comments. The graph on the above shows the distribution of number of comments per post. Across all categories, the most popular post in the blog’s history was the October 23, 2007 Question of the Week, Does the UN Successfully Fulfill Its Mission?, which brought in a total of 542 comments by itself. This one post accounts for just over 13.7% of all analyzed comments. Other extremely popular posts included the original September 25, 2007 Welcome to DipNote post by Sean McCormack, with 314 comments (7.9%), and the November 6, 2007 post Letter From Iraq to My Overwrought Colleagues by John Matel, with 221 comments (5.6%). So, these three posts are responsible for over 25% of all comments written on DipNote.

Given the three popular posts, the average number provided above does not represent the full picture in this case because they skew the average upward. Removing those three posts yields an average of 11.9 comments per post. The graph below shows the distribution of the number of comments per post with those three outliers removed. Without the outliers, the distribution becomes easier to see.

Next, the frequency chart below shows the overall distribution of comments as classified by type of comment. The largest category by a significant margin is Question of the Week Answer which represents comments by readers on the Question of the Week posts (1,277 or 32.3% of the 3,959 comments analyzed). This result is not too surprising given that the Question of the Week appeared weekly and, therefore, had the greatest opportunity for comments. The DipNote editors were anecdotally aware that this was their most popular feature, and the number of comments confirms this impression. Still, it is worth noting the effort by the State Department to generate interest and conversations in foreign affairs appears to be working.

The second largest category consists of Responses to Others’ Comments (21.4% of the total comments). This finding is significant because it provides further evidence the State Department has succeeded in creating a social media space that fosters interaction among readers. Burgess, Foth & Klaebe (2006) noted that engaged citizenship can be practiced through social media that offers opportunities for community building, so fostering interaction can be seen as an important sign of effective public affairs communication.

A related finding is the relatively small number of direct interactions between the blog authors and commenters. Only 5.4% of comments were addressed to blog authors, and only 2.1% consisted of responses by blog authors to commenters. It seems DipNote commenters are creating a community that exists independent of the specific blog authors. Perhaps this is a result of the number and variety of blog authors (see the Part 2 analysis), as well as the limited responsiveness of authors. Thus, although the DipNote blog represents a two-way asymmetrical form of communication between the State Department and readers, with limited dialogue between the organization and its constituents, the resulting space allows for “multi-way” communication to emerge through conversations in the comments.

The third largest category is Critique which makes up 15.1% of the comments. This category includes comments that critique U.S. domestic or foreign policy, foreign countries, or individuals. After that, Positive Feedback is the fourth largest category, making up 10.4% of comments. This category contains complimentary comments regarding policy, government, or even the individual blogger. Taken together, it is encouraging to see that 25% of the comments to DipNote posts are remarks, either positive or negative, about the issues presented to them. This is further evidence that DipNote is promoting discussion and creating dialogue within its community of readers. The State Department has succeeded in creating a space where readers feel comfortable expressing a broad spectrum of opinions.

The remaining nine categories make up 23% of comments. These categories are Direct Question to Blogger (5.4%), Policy Suggestions (4.9%), Link to Outside Article (3.1%), Policy Questions (2.4%), Blogger’s Response to Comment (2.1%), Off Topic (1.9%), No Comments (0.6%), Hostile Comments (0.5%), and Other (0.1%). It is nice to see that approximately 5% of comments are Policy Suggestions. Critique comes easily to most people, but identifying alternatives requires considerably more effort–the kind of effort people typically exercise when they believe the outcome is worthwhile and they will be heard. It is also worth noting that less than 0.5% of the comments were Hostile Comments. While this finding is evidence of a civil dialogue, it may be artificial and not reflective of the universe of blog readers: DipNote comments are moderated to some extent such that hateful and overly hostile messages are removed by the editor. Therefore, it is not possible to completely interpret this finding based on these data alone.

As a final note, excluding the Today’s Top Issues posts, only 9.0% of DipNote posts went without comment. Thus, almost every post sparked at least one response from a reader. We judge this to be an impressive success rate given that this is only the first year of the blog’s operation.

In the next post in this series, we look at how the State Department, and DipNote in particular, is using other social media to enhance their efforts to create greater transparency and increased dialogue.

Moving beyond the obvious: Zawahiri on Obama

by ZS Justus

A recent audio recording from al-Qaeda #2 Zawahiri sends a series of “messages” to President-elect Barack Obama. News outlets have quickly grabbed one of the more provocative excerpts from the recording, Zawahiri’s labeling of Obama as a “house negro.” Several blogs have followed suit including hotair, gateway pundit, commentary magazine, the moderate voice, and right voices among others. I suppose the desire to label someone a “racist” is just too much to resist, but I want to urge readers to move beyond the obvious in considering the content of Zawahiri’s message. After all, are there really people out there who thought that Zawahiri was a-okay, but now that he has been exposed as a racist they are reconsidering their views? This idea that Zawahiri is a racist is not exactly news seeing as how his organization is interested in killing as many ethnic Jews as possible.

What seems to be lost on the mainstream media and many bloggers alike is that Ayman al-Zawahiri’s condemnation of Obama is based largely on policy considerations in Afghanistan. For instance, Zawahiri comments, “what you’ve announced about how you’re going to reach an understanding with Iran and pull your troops out of Iraq to send them to Afghanistan is a policy which was destined for failure before it was born.” The significant take-away from Zawahiri’s message is that he appears completely out of touch with most Muslim’s who overwhelmingly favored Obama in the last election (three to one in Palestine among those responding). Granted, some key areas like Pakistan, expressed disinterest in the election, but reporting populations in five different Muslim nations all favored Obama.

This is a strategic communication blunder by Zawahiri. The strongest arguments made by al-Qaeda have always relied on the concrete actions of the United States. Misguided as they were, these arguments were persuasive to many people who had been negatively affected by US foreign policy. Ridiculing the new American President before any concrete action has been taken runs the risk of eroding existing support for al-qaeda among local communities, many of whom seem moderatley hopeful about a new direction in US foreign policy. And opponents of terrorism we should be encouraged by this new message from Zawahiri because in his desire to keep al-Qaeda relevant he has rushed into a strategic communication blunder that could have serious negative implications for the support of organization itself.

Can Facebook Defeat Terrorism?

by Steven R. Corman

In two recent briefings, one for the MSM and one for bloggers, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Jim Glassman spoke approvingly of an incident that took place in Colombia earlier this year.  It involved Facebook and a march against Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a Bolivarian revolutionary guerrilla organization.  FARC is classified as a terrorist group by the government of Colombia, the United States, and the European Union because of the large number of kidnappings the group has committed over more than a decade.

In early January of this year, a 33 year old Colombian engineer named Oscar Morales expressed his indignation (and that of many other Colombians) against the FARC by launching a Facebook group called Un Millón de Voces Contra las FARC (UMVCF, “One Million Voices Against the FARC”).  It contained the declaration

Firmly and unanimously we want to express to the whole world that the FARC does not represent any of us, nor our interests, nor our people. We also want to express that we strongly condemn all their terrorist actions that, for more than 40 years, have been producing death and pain, while stopping the progress of the country we want for our families and children. For the previously listed reasons we want the whole world to know: We DON’T want more kidnappings. We DON’T want more death. We DON’T want more terrorism. We DON’T want more FARC.

The Facebook group, and its companion web site colombiasoyyo.org (I am Colombia), underwent exponential growth.  Within four days the group had 20,000 members, and by late January it swelled to almost one-quarter million members.

UMVCF became the basis for an anti-FARC protest march on February 4th that was one of the biggest civil events in Colombian history.  On the day of the protest, February 4th, an estimated 4.8 million people turned out across Colombia.  Numerous other protests were held simultaneously in 44 other countries around the world.

Press accounts tend to credit the Facebook group itself with causing the march.  For example, the Christian Science Monitor’s story carried the headline “Facebook used to target Colombia’s FARC with global rally.”  Glassman also seems to regard Facebook as a primary cause of the marches.  In his press briefing, the Under Secretary said

I recently came back from Colombia, and in Colombia, a small group of young Colombians, without government assistance, used Facebook to build a movement that put 12 million people around the world into the streets on February 4th, including 1 million in Bogota alone, in demonstrations against the FARC, a violent extremist group that has terrorized that country for more than 40 years.

Accordingly, he is launching efforts to “speed the use of the same techniques — again employed by foreign citizens, not governments — to build movements against violence.”

While there can be no doubt that Facebook played an important role in the events, it is a mistake to assume that it was the root cause of the movement.  What most press accounts of the march leave out is that the UMVCF group formed in the wake of an event in late December of 2007 that sources in Colombia describe as being similar in impact to the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.  Here is the rest of the story.

In the third week of December 2007 the FARC announced plans to release three high-profile hostages to President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who was acting as an intermediary with the Colombian government.  They included Consuelo González, a former senator, and Clara Rojas, a campaign manager for former Colombian presidential candidate and FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt.  In 2006 it was learned that Rojas had given birth in captivity to a son named Emmanuel, and he was also to be released.

The hand-over was to take place on December 31st in an area of Colombia near the Venezuelan border.  Chávez and numerous international observers waited to receive the hostages.  But at the last minute, the FARC canceled the release, citing military operations and a lack of security in the neutral area.

An infuriated President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia flew to the area and gave a televised address to the Colombian people in which he accused the FARC of duplicity. Uribe revealed that his Attorney General’s office was investigating the case of a foster child in the care of the Colombian Family Welfare Institute who they believed to be Emmanuel.  Four days later the Attorney General announced that a first round of DNA tests showed a “very high probability” that the boy was Rojas’s son.

Ordinary Colombians were off work for the holidays, and watched the address and other televised developments by the millions.  It soon became apparent to everyone that the release was canceled not because of security concerns, but because  the FARC had promised to release a hostage they did not hold.  The result was that public sentiment turned overwhelmingly against the group.  It is notable that UMVCF was launched on the same day that the Attorney General announced the results of the DNA tests identifying Emmanuel.

While Facebook played an important role in the development of the protest march, it can be better described as a catalyst than a cause.  Public resentment was building against the FARC, especially over 2007.  “Emmanuel-gate,” as it came to be called — plus its fortuitous timing when Colombians were home to follow events in the media — pushed things to a tipping point.  It was in this environment that something as seemingly innocuous as an online group could lead to a protest involving millions.

Under Secretary Glassman and other commetators like Marc Lynch have correctly pointed out that Web 2.0 technologies may offer important asymmetries (in our favor, for a change) in the effort to resist terrorist groups.  But at the same time, the full story of the anti-FARC marches in Colombia shows the danger of technological determinism in these efforts.

Had the conditions not been exacrly right, UMVCF probably would have become one more drop in an ocean of online groups.  Likewise, merely giving Facebook (or other social networking technologies) to people in other terrorism hotspots will probably do little until the right social conditions develop for them to have an imact.  Facebook, by itself, is not enough to cause social movements that can defeat terrorism.

UPDATE 11/18

Here is a post by Matt about a conference the State Department is sponsoring to catalyze similar uses of Facebook.

UPDATE 11/25

I have it on good authority that Under Secretary Glassman does not think of Facebook as a primary cause of the Colombia protests.  I suppose this illustrates the hazards of divining someone’s beliefs from press statements.  In any case, I’m glad to hear this is the case.

Strategic Communication for an Administration-in-Transition

by Bud Goodall

The headlines from WatchAmerica show worldwide optimism and support for President-Elect Obama.  Yet, despite this large and welcoming window of public diplomacy opportunity, there are still 10 weeks to go before President Obama is sworn in and can officially represent America.  In the meantime, we have a world waiting to see if we have, in fact, something newer and better to offer under a new administration while the old and roundly discredited administration still commands media attention and wields whatever is left of its power.

What can Obama do?  What should he do?  From a strategic communication perspective it would be a serious mistake to let this moment pass.  Here are three strategies derived from a 21st Century Model of Communication that allow him to capitalize on this unique opportunity as a public diplomat before he assumes the office of the Presidency:

  1. Transfer his Internet success in the campaign to a strategic communication campaign to rebuild our image in the world:  Obama and his team constructed the most powerful political fundraising network in the history of US elections, and what that team learned about leveraging social networks, viral marketing, and the use of alternative news sources must be mined in a new effort to create and sustain the positive initial perceptions of the US via an Obama administration.
  2. Create one or two major disruptions in “business as usual” via bold strategic communication moves that capitalize on existing hopes for the US Foreign Policy: Steve Corman has opined on this subject and called for a “game-changer” that significantly shifts attention away from perceptions of the US as arrogant to one of humility.  Obama is perfectly situated to do that now.
  3. Move from “Yes We Can” to “Yes We Have”:  Launch a weekly press conference that updates us all on the fulfillment of campaign promises regarding the improvement of our image in the world and the steps he has taken to rebuild an effective diplomacy team.
These steps may be undertaken before he takes the oath of office on January 20th, and should continue to inform his strategic communication team afterward.  But my point today is that this is no time to ignore or postpone addressing the foreign and domestic concerns about his administration and their intentions.  Speaking as a prominent citizen–one just elected President–he has a platform that does not interfere with the conduct of government between now and January, but rather smoothes the way to it.

GAO: Improving U.S. Image is Top Priority

by Steven R. Corman

The GAO has just released a report on the 2009 Congressional and Presidential Transition.  Number five on the hit parade of urgent issues is improving he U.S image abroad (good beat, but it’s kind of hard to dance to).

The GAO says that to accomplish this, policy makers must

  • “improve their strategic planning, coordination, and performance measurement efforts;”
  • “enhance the substance and sharing of government audience research efforts; and”
  • “address a range of human capital challenges that include developing an overseas workforce with requisite language capabilities.”

The emphasis on this issue is spot-on, though I might bump it up a notch or two on the priority list.  I also endorse the concern about human capital challenges, which are in no small measure related to budget challenges.

I am disappointed in ths other two recommendations, though.  The are all about how we gather information about the audience and organize ourselves.  They say nothing about how messages about us interact with audiences to create our image, i.e. where the rubber meets the road.

The GAO should have recommended that the government extricate itself from 20th century thinking about strategic communication.  Instead it recommends that we redouble efforts to implement that tired old model, which has served us so poorly in recentl years.

Resisting Wahhabi Colonialism in Yogyakarta

by Mark Woodward*

(Yogykarta, October 2008) Accounts of the “War of Words” or the “Battle for the Soul of Islam” or whatever else one choose to call the ideological struggle between “radicals” and “moderates” in the Muslim world tend to focus on elite level intellectual discourse that is largely divorced from the daily realities of Muslim life. This is understandable. Most western observes of Muslim life are political scientists or pundits who are at home conversing in terms of political theory, in abstract discourses on such topics as “religion-state relations.”

While it is understandable it is also unfortunate. For one thing, the vast majority of the world’s more than one billion Muslims do not find this intellectual environment comfortable or even comprehensible. They are more concerned with being Muslims than with conversing about the contrast between inclusive and exclusive variants of Islam, political thought and praxis or terrorism. These are conversations that, even when they are in Muslim languages, are so littered with English terminology as to make them little more than word salad for most Muslims. For another thing, ultimately, these are the people who matter. They are the ones who will decide the course that Islam takes in the twenty-first century.

PKS Flag

PKS Flag

Here I describe one skirmish in this “War of Words”: One for the meaning of the fast of Ramadan and the feast of Id al-Fitri that marks its conclusion in the Sultanate of Yogyakarta in south central Java in the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim nation and the world’s third largest democracy. The skirmish I describe pitted the Islamist political party Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS, The Justice and Prosperity Party) against most other Muslim groups in the Sultanate. The struggle was not overtly political. It was about the content of sermons, the spirit with which the fast should be observed, and how the Id should be celebrated. It was also a battle of symbols that pitted the PKS party flag, which is of great political (but not cultural) importance, against the bedug, an oversized drum that in Java accompanies the azan or call to prayer. The bedug is among the most important symbols of traditional Javanese Islam, but heretofore, has been entirely apolitical.

A Bedug

A Bedug

This essay delves deeply into the particulars of Javanese Islamic culture and symbolism, which are almost certainly uncharted territory for most COMOPS readers, and certainly for the pundits whose voices dominate western discourse about political Islam. The outcome of this struggle might seem to be of minor significance, except, of course, for Javanese and other Indonesians. It is, however, one that is repeated in culturally distinctive ways across the Muslim world. In that sense it is at the very center of the struggle for the soul of Islam. Struggles like this one will determine the degree to which the Muslim world falls under the sway of Wahhabi religious exclusivism or, alternatively (and to my mind hopefully) the degree to which Muslim peoples retain their locally distinctive religious and cultural traditions.

The Traditionalists

The Sultanate of Yogyakarta is the last of the nearly two hundred Islamic kingdoms in what is now Indonesia to retain any degree of political significance. Like the other “native states” of South Asia today, they are nothing more than quaint anachronisms if they survive at all. Yogyakarta is home to a rich Islamicate culture heavily influenced by Sufi traditions and a Hindu-Buddhist heritage dating to at least the eight century. The Sultan—who is also provincial governor and a major national level political figure—is believed to be a living saint who communicates directly with God, and is the channel though which divine blessing and mercy are conveyed to the populace.

Yogyakarta Province

Yogyakarta Province (red)

Javanese political thought is based on the mystical-social concept of the “Union of Servant and Lord” according to which the Sultan it linked by spiritual bonds to both God and his subjects. An important element of this culture include the veneration of the graves of Saints, Scholars (Ulama, or in Javanese kyai), Sultans and heroes. It also honors the quest for intuitive understanding of (even union with) the divine, and belief in the power of sacred heirlooms (pusaka). It also honors the bedug. Every traditional Javanese mosque has one. Many are pusaka are said to have been made, or at least played, by important saints. There are also very strong links between the palace and the mosque. Many of the most important mosques in Yogyakarta were founded by members of the royal family who chose piety instead of politics as a vocation, and are built on land donated by the Sultanate. They display the royal coat of arms and are staffed by kyai who are also abdidalem (palace officials).

The Reformists

Yogyakarta is also home to Indonesia’s largest Modernist Muslim organization Muhammadiyah. Theologically Muhammadiyah shares much with PKS and other Muslim “reformists” sects, including Wahhabis, who are commonly referred to as Salafi. It rejects most, if not all, aspects of Sufism, particularly the veneration of graves. It considers such practices to be bidah or unlawful religious innovation that departs from the practice of the Prophet Muhammad. Ironically, Muhammadiyah was born within the walls of the Yogyakarta palace and continues to maintain its headquarters there. It was founded by Kyai Achmad Dahlan, an official at the Sultanate’s Grand Mosque in 1912.

Muhammadiyah initially strongly opposed most aspects of the Sultanate’s official Islam and traditional Javanese Muslim ritual practices. It has long since moderated its opposition to traditional rituals, describing them as culture, rather than religion. A compromise dating to the 1930s gave Muhammadiyah control of the Grand Mosque, but left other “Sultanate Mosques” in the hands of traditionalists. It also required leaders of the organization to officiate at palace rituals, including the Garebeg held on Id al-Ftri, at which “mountains” of offerings believed to be charged with the mystical power of the Sultan are carried from the palace to the mosque and distributed to crowds of thousands of traditionalist Muslims. The fine batik that can be worn only by royalty are made in workshops staffed by Muhammadiyah women who proudly boast that what they make, they could never wear. Sufi shrines and royal mosques scattered throughout the Sultanate are administered by the office of the Penghulu, or chief cleric, who is also a senior member of Muhammadiyah. This not the exclusivist, intolerant “Salafi” Islam so often described in the literature. It is rather a “purist” or “reformist” Islam that remains deeply rooted in traditional culture.

Coexisting Traditions

Muhammadiyah and Yogyakarta traditionalists share the notion that Islam is a religion, not a political movement, and that a mosque defines and provides ritual space for a locally defined territorially and socially based Muslim community. In rural and traditional urban areas ties to these mosque based communities are many generations deep. Because the community is divided between traditionalists and Muhammadiyah “reformists” so are the mosques, or at least most of them. Modernists and traditionalist pray in slightly different ways and in slightly different directions: traditionalists towards the west reflecting pre-modern geographic knowledge and modernists towards the north-west, reflecting twentieth century knowledge of the direction of Mecca. Modernist prayers are typically restrained, while those of traditionalists are punctuated with ecstatic cries of “ALLAH!” and “AMIN!” During Ramadan traditionalists perform 22 extra prayers in the evenings, modernists 11. Typically prayers of both numbers and in both directions are conducted in the same mosque. This is always the case at the Grand Mosque of the Sultanate.

The Special Region

Yogyakarta owes its special status as “a province with the status of a kingdom” to the central role Sultan Hamengukubuwana IX played in the Indonesian Revolution against the forces of resurgent Dutch colonialism in the late 1940s. Yogyakarta was the “Mother City” of the Indonesian Revolution from which it was fought. It was very nearly lost but ultimately won. Hamengukubuwana IX played a critical role in formulation of the policies that led to a retreat from radical nationalism and three decades of sustained economic growth following an abortive Communist coupe in 1965. He was later Vice President. His son and heir, Hamengkubuwana X, played a central role in the Reformasi (Reformation) movement that led to the democratic transition of 1998. Yogyakarta is a “Special Region” of Indonesia in more than the legal sense of the term.

Yogyakarta, PKS and Wahhabi Colonialism

Today Yogyakarta struggles with a different form of colonialism, the religious and cultural colonialism of exclusivist Wahhabi Islam originating in and financed by wealthy Gulf Arabs and the Saudi state. The Saudi government offers attractive scholarships for study in its Islamic universities. It continues to support graduates who return home and start schools ranging from kindergartens to universities. Middle Eastern Wahhabis are active is social welfare organizations and contributed significantly to relief efforts following a devastating earthquake that struck Yogyakarta in 2007. However, aid often comes with theological strings attached. Schools founded by Saudis teach Wahhabi Islam and they often attempt to link funds for mosque construction or restoration to the acceptance of Wahhabi imams.

Theologically PKS espouses positions similar to those of Muhammadiyah, but rejects its religious and sociological inclusivism. PKS is widely believed to be to be the local agent of Wahhabi colonialism and is often referred to as “the party that waits for instructions from Arabia.” PKS is very well funded. What the sources of its funds are is not clear, but many suspect that it receives financial support from the Middle East. Ideologically and politically PKS is more closely tied to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood than it is to the Saudi monarchy. PKS’s public political program resembles that of the “liberal” wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. It emphasizes good governance, efficiency, fighting vice and corruption coupled with a vaguely populist economic program shared by most of Indonesia’s religious and secular political parties. They strongly oppose the consumption of alcohol, smoking, gambling, prostitution, pornography and other “vices.” PKS emphasizes social responsibility and roots its political program in the Qur’an and Hadith, often citing passages according to which all humans are leaders in some sense and are accountable to God and their fellow humans.

Participation in politics is often described as a religious obligation (wajib) like the five daily prayers or fasting during Ramadan. PKS is the most thoroughly organized of Indonesia’s political parties. Cadres receive intensive training. They are taught that Islam is a totally encompassing system and that Shari’ah is the model for individual and collective behavior and that those who do not accept this view are kafir (unbelievers). Potential candidates for legislative office are tested on their ability to read the Qur’an in Arabic. Few PKS leaders or supporters are religious scholars. Many hold university degrees in technical fields. Some have studied in the US, Europe or Australia. Those who have pursued advanced religious training have most often done so in Saudi Arabia or in fundamentalist schools in neighboring Malaysia. Few have studied in traditional Indonesian religious schools (pesantren) or Islamic universities.

PKS rejects accusations of religious extremism, especially during election campaigns. During the 2007 Jakarta provincial elections the party went to great pains to deny that it would outlaw public celebrations of the Maulid, the Holy day commemorating the birth of the Prophet Muhammad that Wahhabis and other Muslim fundamentalists consider heretical.[1] However, PKS is among the primary legislative backers of a draconian “anti-pornography” bill that would ban, among other things, young couples holding hands in public, and would allow vigilante groups to enforce this and other equally extreme provisions. Most other Muslim organizations and almost all women’s organizations very strongly oppose the measure. They think of it as a thinly veiled attempt to impose Wahhabi morality on a population that is far more liberal than the measure’s supporters.

In this and many other respects PKS is clearly closer to Wahhabi moralism than to Islamic Brotherhood pragmatism. This is a very different portrait of PKS than emerges from the literature on its overtly political activities, where it is often described as a moderate Islamist party (as I have done in my own recent publications). Seen from this perspective, PKS can be understood as a movement that seeks to radically transform Indonesian Islam in the image of Arabian Wahhabism.

Expanding Influence

For the past several years PKS has attempted to define itself not only as a political party, but as a social-religious movement structurally similar to the older and more established Nhadlatul Ulama, (NU), the largest traditionalist organization, and Muhammadiyah. It now has an independent Shari’ah Council (Dewan Syariah) that often follows the Saudi lead, especially in ritual matters. It has also sought to become a mosque based movement. At the local level NU and Muhammadiyah are community and territorially based. For both a mosque defines both a geographic (wilayah) and a ritual (ummah) space. These are the spaces within which ritual activities (ibadah) and community based social, educational and economic programs are located. Until recently PKS has not had the advantage of this mode of social organization. The party’s base is primarily University students, most of them at technical, secular schools, and the new urban middle class. These social groups are largely cut off from traditional rural and urban communities. For many the local mosque is a place one goes for Friday prayers, not the center of an organic community also bound by social ties that transcend religion. PKS has, in the past, relied primarily on a “cell structure.” In these cells individuals relate to each other primarily as party members. The party has usually staged political meetings and rallies in non-religious public spaces.

This has begun to change. PKS has not built its own mosques, but has attempted to take control of those dominated by other organizations, and especially those defined on the basis of community, but which do not have clear organizational affiliations. They are not interested in sharing sacred space, but in monopolizing it. This is not terribly difficult because mosques are vacant most of the time. These actions are almost always local. PKS cadre move, often temporarily, into a neighborhood and gather at the local mosque. They take charge of cleaning and refurbishing those that need it. They erect flags, put up placards and stickers displaying the party’s logo throughout the neighborhood. Sometimes they seek permission, sometimes they find unused spaces and sometimes they pay poor people to let their walls and gardens be used as propaganda platforms.

Party cadres make certain that meetings of mosque governing boards are packed with supporters. They offer to supply speakers, books and instructional materials for children free of charge. They often distribute literature, stickers and T-shirts before and after Friday prayers. Sermons and religious talks by PKS speakers push the party’s political agenda and a Wahhabi religious agenda that denounces the veneration of holy graves, “musical” devotions and often the bedug as unbelief. As one informant put it: “You wake up one morning, and your ancestors’ mosque has become the PKS mosque.” Party cadres often explain they are purifying mosques and that have been led by kafir posing as Muslims for a very long time.

PKS steadfastly denies that it uses mosques for political purposes and officially supports a government ban on their use in political campaigns. Party President Tifatul Sembiring explained that because mosques should be “neutral” spaces PKS would never use them for political purposes. He continued that PKS only uses mosques for dakwah, or propagating the faith. Given that the party defines politics as ritual, this is disingenuous at best.

PKS has also attempted to infiltrate and take control of schools, clinics, hospitals and other social service organizations. This has evoked strong responses from national level Muslim organizations especially Muhammadiyah which operates a vast network of social service and educational institutions. The organization has taken steps to expel PKS members and supporters.

Ramadan and Resistance

Some the stiffest, and ultimately perhaps the most important, resistance to this new religious colonialism has come at the local level. This was readily apparent during the recently completed fasting month of Ramadan and the Id al-Fitri celebrations that marked its conclusion. During Ramadan, observant Muslims refrain from eating, drinking and sexual relations between dawn and sunset. There are also special prayers, some of the required by Shari’ah others that are optional. In the evenings many people gather in mosques to break the fast together, pray and perform other devotional acts including reciting the Qur’an. It is, or should be, a time of introspection during which one contemplates mistakes of the past and resolves to do better in the future.

It is especially important that those who are fasting remain in control of their emotions and avoid interpersonal or social conflict. Ideally it is a time when sectarian differences should be set aside. In Yogyakarta at least, religious inclusivism is a major theme. At one of the Great Mosque in Pleret, which is among the oldest in the Sultanate, entire neighborhoods gathered for communal fast breaking (buka puasa) ceremonies, without regard for sectarian differences. In the Grand Mosque in Yogyakarta there were meals and later snacks for everyone who chose to attend, no matter exactly how, over in exactly what direction they prayed.

This past Ramadan I spent many evenings sitting in mosques, ranging from the Grand Mosque in the city to very small ones deep in the countryside. I did not happen upon any “PKS” mosques and was not looking for them. I was not sitting in mosques to talk about PKS or Saudi’s or Wahhabis. I was there to get a better sense of the variety of Ramadan experiences in Yogyakarta than I had when I was first there in the late 1970s – and just because I wanted to. But the subject almost invariably came up, in part because 2009 will be an election year and in part because the party had mounted an intensive and entirely obvious campaign to capture the fast by attaching its’ own symbols to it.

A PKS Banner

A PKS Banner

At the beginning of the month PKS flags, banners and placards appeared everywhere, even in villages where the party has no members or supporters and no one knows what it stands for. There were regular PKS ads on Yogyakarta Public Television. It can very realistically be called “Yogya Palace TV.” The news is presented by men and women wearing traditional palace clothing and regalia and the background image is a collage of royalist images. PKS went so far as to stage prayer and video-tape prayer services in royal mosques, to which it could not be denied access. This was particularly outrageous because PKS was taking the lead in a political struggle to disestablish the monarchy at the time. They also publicly advertised the fact that they were providing “reduced cost” fast breaking meals. Most mosques provide free ones. It stated that it would handle the collection and distribution of zakat, the alms payable at the end of the month in modern professional ways. Most people prefer to give them directly to religious scholars, institutions and the poor. They offered to provide speakers for mosque events “free of charge.” There were few takers.

A Truck-Mounted Bedug

A Truck-Mounted Bedug

The bedug emerged spontaneously as a symbol of resistance. Yogya Television continually broadcasted a small one in the upper left hand corner of the screen. There were giant bedug prominently displayed in malls and supermarkets. Even international companies got into the act. Coca Cola displayed bedug adorned with its corporate logo. Politicians, other than PKS politicians, attempted to play it at rallies and “on air.” Small paper ones hung from the ceilings of shops and restaurants. A Ramadan festival sponsored by Muhammadiyah featured brightly lit floats that emphasized both the local and universal significance of Ramadan and the Id. There were children dressed as Egyptians, Chinese, and in costumes resembling the uniforms of the palace guards. There were floats featuring giant Qur’an. There was also one with a cardboard replica of the very distinctively Javanese Grand Mosque. Another was a giant papier-mâché bedug, despite the fact that Muhammadiyah does not normally approve of them! When I asked one of the organizers about this he replied: “It’s Ramadan and we have to be inclusive and besides, its part of Javanese culture.” There were no PKS flags or other Islamist symbols at the festival.

The clearest and definitely most amusing example of cultural resistance to Wahabbi colonialism this Ramadan was in Pleret, one of several former royal capitals in the Sultanate. The old mosque, which dated to the sixteenth century, had been completely destroyed in a major earthquake in 2007. While sitting talking about God and the world and snacking I asked my hosts about the new, very beautiful mosque. They explained that the Saudi Government graciously offered to build it. The community accepted the donation subject to the provision that it be a Javanese, not Middle Eastern style structure, and that is naturally include a bedug. They also agreed to put up a marble plague thanking their benefactors – in Arabic – which very few people in Pleret can read. I could not help but ask about the Saudi practice of attaching religious strings to development and reconstruction aid. One of the men laughed and replied that they had sent a Saudi trained religious teacher, and that he had been politely received, but told firmly that We don’t need any Arabs to teach us how to be Muslims. We all laughed and went back to snacking on fried bananas, fried cassava and fried bean curd – a very Javanese and therefore very Muslim thing to do on a Ramadan night.

The PKS attempt to disestablish the Sultanate ultimately failed largely due to overwhelming support for what can only be called Yogyakarta Royalist Nationalism. There were demonstrations supporting the Sultan prior to the measures final consideration by the national government at which speakers expressed the hope that “ … this matter can be resolved without bloodshed.” When it was announced that the Sultan would retain his position as governor there were enormous processions of courtiers dressed in traditional garb and carrying sacred heirlooms that circumambulated the palace and the royal cemetery.

This is where resistance to the new Wahhabi Colonialism begins, and where it is most important and effective – at the local level and in culturally meaningful ways. All that western powers can do to facilitate this process is to keep the world market price of soybeans at a reasonable level. Javanese Muslims can take care of the bananas and the cassava, and of course the bedug.

_____________________________

[1] Indonesia’s Religious Political Parties: Democratic Consolidation and Security in Post-New Order Indonesia, Asian Security, 4:1 (2008). pp. 41-60.

*Mark Woodward is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Arizona State University and Visiting Professor of Comparative Religion at the Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta Indonesia. He has been studying Political Islams for more than thirty years. This essay is based on field work conducted in Yogyakarta in September of 2008.

Hope and Wait and See

by Steven R. Corman

In a widely-read white paper published last year, my colleagues and I pointed out that strategic communication operates in a complex worldwide system.  One feature of such systems is that they can develop inertia, stubbornly insisting on interpreting messages in standard ways, practically no matter what the message is.  Such is the case, we judged, with U.S. public diplomacy in recent years.

In such a situation what you need is a disruption, a game-changer, something that will shake up the status quo and shock interpretive systems out of their patterns.  At the time we said that a

disruption that is sure to occur in the next two years is a change in the U.S. presidency. Some see rapid turnover in the Executive Branch caused by term limits as a liability. Be that as it may, it provides a regular possibility for disruption of international relationships and the rhetorical structure of strategic communication systems. The foreign policy of the current administration has attracted a good deal of international criticism, whether deserved or not, so the coming disruption has the potential for a significant impact.

Last night we saw the possibility of that disruption realized with the election of Barack Obama.  To see this you need only to scroll beyond the professional reportage in some newspapers around the world, and look at comments posted by regular folks.  Here are some examples I found this morning:

Well done Barack! Well done America! The American dream is truly not limited to economic prosperity now. But equal opportunities and rights. The world had to wait for quite some time for America to follow what it preached.  (Samuel from Sri Lanka, al Jazeera English)

A great leader inspires and motivates his people to do their best. From watching his various speeches, debates etc, I think Barrack Obama exudes those qualities. Congrats to team Obama and the US. A message of hope always triumphs, may he continue to inspire his country and the rest of the world to bring out their best. (cecellia_t2000, Straits Times)

Every Muslim over the world enjoys this victory! Masha’Allah! [Thanks be to God!] (Riyaz from UAE, al Jazeera English)

I can observe that Obama has managed to shake German politics (local politicians have not yet). It is to be hoped that this trend towards democracy will also impact on German politics. (piopol, Der Spiegel online forum)

Americans have rewritten history by electing Barack Obama as their next president. He represents just what the US and the world needs right now - a clear and positive change. President elect Obama stands for not just the African Americans, but also for a whole new generation of forward-thinking Americans who were tired of the often high-handed and obsolete policies of the previous government. I am hoping that Obama can deliver the much-needed change not just to his countrymen - but also to the World! (Shiuli Dutt Dey from Dubai, Gulf News)

There are many more such comments, too many to list.  They show that Obama’s election itself is good public diplomacy for the U.S., and that it has created a tipping point that is capable of shaking the current system.

At the same time a large number of comments imply that the opportunity is fleeting.  People say they “hope” Obama’s victory will lead to some real change, but they exhibit a skeptical “wait and see” attitude.

Unless President-Elect Obama seizes this opportunity and delivers a game-changer, communication between the United States and citizens elsewhere in the world will quickly sink back into the familiar old patterns–and probably stay there for a long, long time.

UPDATE (4:00 p.m.)

Here is a post from MEMRI giving some reaction from Arabic language media.  All but the al Hayat entry are considerably more pessimistic than the regular folks quoted above.  And how could I resist posting this boquet from Pravda? It’s stated with typical Russian circumspection:

Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law. Yet in choosing Obama, the people of America have opted to come back into the international fold. Welcome back, friends!

UPDATE (11/6)

Here is some reaction from the Bad Guy forums, complements of Will at Jihadica.

Strategic Communication and Campaign ‘08

by Steven R. Corman

Here are a couple of quick items from/regarding the campaign, for your reading enjoyment…

  • Yesterday at a news conference Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Jim Glassman said it would be a “great thing” for the image of the United States if Barack Obama were elected president or if Sarah Palin were elected vice president.   He didn’t say which outcome would “greater,” but this means our image is going to improve no matter what happens.   Finally a strategic communication situation were we can’t do something wrong!
  • Meanwhile a Hijab-ed Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney appeared on al Jazeera.  She spends a curiously long time ranting about disenfranchisement of black voters 8 years ago.  Not very good public diplomacy there, Ms. McKinney.  Then the commentator asks her:  McCain or Obama?  She says “McKinney.” That would be a good answer for a U.S. audience, but few if any al Jazeera viewers will be voting.  In that case an answer like Glassman’s above would have been more appropriate.

Strategic Communication vs. Public Diplomacy vs. Dialogue

by Bud Goodall

In today’s “Blogger’s Roundtable” with Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James K. Glassman, Matt Armstrong from MountainRunner asked a really good question about the relationship of strategic communication to public diplomacy.  Under Secretary Glassman provided a detailed and thoughtful response that distinguished public diplomacy, which is aimed at various publics engaging each other, from official diplomacy, which is aimed at officials engaging each other.  He went to say that he viewed strategic communication as a “subset of public diplomacy . . . [a term that is] interchangeable with the war of ideas.”

This last idea was new to me.  I’ve always understood strategic communication to be the goal-oriented means by which, and through which, public diplomacy (as well as official diplomacy and other forms of political interaction) operates.  In today’s volatile and highly mediated “war of ideas” environment, PD must be thought of and thoroughly integrated into SC operations.  SC is not an operational “subset” any more than PD is simply about “message.”  If anything, it is the other way around:  PD is better conceived as a subset of SC because PD activities are but one theater of SC operations across the global stage.

Under Secretary Glassman went on to identify three kinds of strategic communication activities:

He explained that all of these activities are part of “a conversation,” a statement that suggests an underlying model of all strategic communication is based on the achievement of dialogue.

Yet it seems to me that a dialogue and strategic communication are not synonymous.  For dialogue to take place, both partners to the conversation must be, as Martin Buber expressed it and we have explained in a previous white paper, “profoundly open to change.” While this principle of reciprocal openness to change may characterize economic educational and cultural exchanges, I doubt they operate at all in either “Telling America’s Story” or in “War of Ideas.”  America doesn’t want to change its story, and violent extremists have demonstrated a decided lack of openness to our ideas.

Another discrepancy between these terms is their very different relationships to ambiguity.  Strategic communication, when it is most effective in combating ideological support for terrorism, must always rely on ambiguity as part of the overall strategy.  Conversely, ambiguity in dialogue leads to a lack of trust, which in turn prevents that profound openness so inherently tied to productive change.

I applaud Under Secretary Glassman’s willingness to share his ideas about the relationship of strategic communication to public diplomacy.  But I worry that viewing SC as a subset of PD, and that tying all forms and practices of SC to dialogue reifies an outdated way of thinking about communication.  Strategic communication operates in a “rugged landscape” that is more complex than a conversation or dialogue. Continuing to think of SC in those terms is both theoretically muddled and pragmatically too simplistic.