Dynamic Governance in Countering Terrorism in Indonesia: A Discourse Network Analysis on Online News Media
Abstract
Countering terrorism involves new challenges amid the increasing use of information technology. This has implications for the emergence of various modes of terrorism that are increasingly disruptive. This research examined the use of dynamic governance in efforts to create dynamic and contextual policies in establishing comprehensive and targeted counter-terrorism programs. Qualitative methods were used with a discourse network analysis approach. The data were collected from online news media sources (Kompas.com and Okezone.com) about content related to countering terrorism between 2018-2020. The results of the study showed that only a few governance actors carried out comprehensive discourse on dynamic governance in countering terrorism. In addition, some of the systematization of the concept caused polemics among the stakeholders involved, so that not all actors were in agreement with the meaning of dynamic governance. This article recommends that, on the one hand, each actor must carry out benchmarking so that they have the same capacity in actualizing the concept of dynamic governance, while on the other hand, the government must pay attention to the participation of each actor in order to ensure a consistent paradigm is used in countering terrorism.
Keywords: counter terrorism, discourse network analysis, disruption, dynamic governance, policy contextualization
References
[1] Smith M, Zeigler SM. Terrorism before and after 9/11 – A more dangerous world? Research and Politics. 2017:4(4): 1–8. doi: 10.1177/2053168017739757
[2] Bureau of counterterrorism and countering violent extremism country reports: Middle East and North Africa. United States : US Departement of State ; 2019. Available from: https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2017/282844
[3] Kumar A. Dynamics of global terrorism. New Delhi: K.K. Publications; 2021.
[4] Yunanto R. Tumpulnya BNPT, melempemnya deradikalisasi. Tirto.id; 12 February 2016. Available from: https://tirto.id/tumpulnya-bnpt-melempemnya-deradikalisasi-kr
[5] Amin MI, Haryani TN, Arifah NH, Husna AM. Islamic education in supporting de-radicalization: A review of islamic education in Pondok Pesantren. Nadwa. 2018;12(51):259–272. doi: 10.21580/nw.2018.12.2.2581
[6] Kis-katos K, Liebert H, Schulze GG. On the origin of domestic and international terrorism. European Journal of Political Economy. 2011;27(2):517–536. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2011.02.002
[7] Acemoglu D. Why nations fail. Jakarta: Kompas Gramedia; 2018.
[8] Ardli JK, Warsito T, Surwadono et al. The construction of the Indonesian government’s repressive counter-terrorism policy. Otoritas. 2019;9(2):107–125.
[9] Awan I. Cyber-extremism: Isis and the power of social media. Social Science and Public Policy. 2017;54:138–149. doi: 10.1007/s12115-017-0114-0
[10] Serpa S, Ferreira CM. The concept of bureaucracy by Max Weber. International Journal of Social Science Studies. 2019;7(2):12–18. doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v7i2.3979
[11] Neo BS, Chen G. Dynamic governance embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2007.
[12] McQuail D. McQuail’s mass communication theory. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2010.
[13] Hao X, Zheng D, Fan W. How to strengthen the social media interactivity of egovernment. Online Information Review. 2016;40(1):79–69. doi: 10.1108/OIR-03-2015- 0084
[14] Friend C & Singer J. Online journalism ethics traditions and transitions. London: Taylor & Francis; 2015.
[15] Hajjar L. Social inquiry the counterterrorism war paradigm versus international humanitarian law: The legal contradictions and global consequences of the US “War on Terror”. Law & Social Inquiry. 2019: 00 (00) : 1–35. doi: 10.1017/lsi.2018.26
[16] Pajri EH. The move toward dynamic governance in Indonesian public service. Kebijakan dan Manajemen Publik. 2015;6(2):14–22.
[17] Puspita Y. The usage of online news media to simplify communication and transaction of gay prostitute. Jurnal Pekommas. 2015;18(3):203–212.
[18] Ariff, Kassim NA, Shoid MS et al. The benefits of using social media and the impact of not filtering the information. Human Resource Management Academic Research Society. 2018;7(3):304–313. doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v7-i3/4368
[19] Prasetyo YA. Fake practices versus protection. Jakarta : Indonesia Press Council; 2018.
[20] Ugwueze MI, Ohuoha FC. Hard versus soft measures to security: Explaining the failure of counter-terrorism strategy in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Security Research. 2020;15(4):547-567. doi: 10.1080/19361610.2020.1811936
[21] Kasali R. The great shifting. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama; 2018.
[22] Abidi & Joshi. The vuca learner: Future-proof your relevance. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018.
[23] Breindl Y. Discourse networks on state-mandated access blocking in Germany and France. Emerald Insight. 2015;15(6):42–62. doi: 10.1108/info-03-2013-0011
[24] Leifeld P, Haunss S. Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research. 2012;51:382–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02003.x
[25] Leifeld P. Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of german pension politics. The Policy Studies Journal. 2013;41(1):169–198. doi: 10.1111/psj.12007
[26] Ulya FN. Kembali jadi pemenang kategori media online tepercaya. Kompas.com; 2019 Aug 1. Available from https://money.kompas.com/read/2019/08/01/124215826/kompascom-kembali-jadipemenang- kategori-media-online-tepercaya?page=all
[27] Alexa. Top sites in Indonesia. Alexa; 20 December 2020. Available from: https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/ID