Mainstreaming Human Rights in the Governance of HIV/AIDS Response in Indonesia: A Study of Children with HIV/AIDS in Jakarta and Surakarta

This research aims to compare the advocacy model of Children Living with HIV/AIDS (CLWH) informal-- non-professional and formal--non-professional network, represented by Lentera Anak Surakarta (LAS) and Lentera Anak Pelangi Jakarta (LAP) respectively. The characterization of the network was adapted...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Jurnal studi pemerintahan (Journal of government and politics) Vol. 9; no. 3; pp. 420 - 451
Main Authors:	PRABANDARI, ATIN, RIMBAWATI, PUTRI RAKHMADHANI NUR, DINARTO, DEDI, ARDHANI, IRFAN, KURNIAWAN, MUHAMMAD DIAZ, IRSADANAR, RAFYOGA JEHAN PRATAMA
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta 01-08-2018
Subjects:	children living with hiv/aids, advocacy, lentera anak surakarta, lentera anak pelangi
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	This research aims to compare the advocacy model of Children Living with HIV/AIDS (CLWH) informal-- non-professional and formal--non-professional network, represented by Lentera Anak Surakarta (LAS) and Lentera Anak Pelangi Jakarta (LAP) respectively. The characterization of the network was adapted from Lhawang Ugyel conceptual framework on four types of social network based on their personnel types and formality. Meanwhile, the comparison was made under the metric of 3 advocacy channels; legislation, political and mobilization process. This research found out that LAS informal—non-professional advocacy model reflected a more dominant usage of law and political channel compared to LAP formal—non-professional model since LAS was rising from marginalized society hence they need well lobbying politically and involving in legal drafting. Meanwhile, LAP had shown a more systematic maneuver on the socialization and mobilization channel of advocacy. This was because LAP was formally driven by academia spectrum that could establish methodical movements of CLWH advocacy; thus the engagement with policymaker was less prioritized, even though it was still an essential element of its advocacy.
ISSN:	1907-8374 2337-8220
DOI:	10.18196/jgp.9387