Best Practice in Village Law Implementation

Transcription

1 1

2 2

3 Best Practices Publisher by : Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (Pattiro) August 2016 Researcher : Ahmad Rofik Agus Salim Bejo Untung Indro Laksono Wahidah R. Bulan Umi Arifah Setyawan Heryanto Editor : Sad Dian Utomo Lay Out : Ahmad Romdoni Copyright by : Pusat Telaah dan Infomasi Regional (Pattiro) Jl. Mawar Komplek Kejaksaan Agung Blok G.35 Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan Jakarta, Indonesia 3

4 Foreword The existence of Law Number 6 Year 2014 on Village provides more space and authority to the village to be more independent. After the Village Law establishment, every village in Indonesia is now expected to be able to manage and develop the potencies they have. As a unit of a legal community, Village Law positions the village as a hybrid organization between self-governing communities with local self-government. This regulation makes the village administration different from other governmental administration. Therefore, it is interesting to find out and see the best practices of the Law implementation. This research is a qualitative research that is purposed to capture good practices occurred before and after the ratification of Village Law, thus the results may be recommended to policy makers to develop/improve policies. On the other hand, this research has observed field facts about topics of village issues, including: (a) rural governance; (b) village-owned enterprises; (c) village assets and finances; (d) active citizen; (e) indigenous villages. We would like to thank the local and village government, as well as the village citizens in the research area who have helped us by providing information about the Village Law implementation and their ideas to improve it. We also would like to thank MAVC and IDS who have supported us in conducting this research. Research Team 4

5 Contents INTRODUCTION Background Problem Points Objectives Research Benefits Research Constraints Conceptual Definition And Framework Methodology ANALYSIS ON FIELD FINDINGS Governance Village s Financial And Assets Village-Owned Enterprise ( Bum Desa) Active Citizenship Indigenous Village CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion Recommendations

6 6

7 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background Many efforts have taken by various parties in improving village welfare. These efforts have reached culmination point of achievement at the issuance of Law No. 06/2014 on Village, which is regarded the most progressive policy in the village welfare improvement history. The Law includes policy of Village Fund, stated in article 72, which conveys many village financial sources with quite promising allocation. The sources include village s real income (business income, income from assets, income from people s self-empowerment and participation efforts, contribution, etc.), State Budget, local tax and retribution from district/city (at least 10%), Village Fund allocation (part from shared fund received by district/city government, with minimum amount of 10% after reduced by Special Allocation Fund), financial aid from Province and District/City Budget, non-binding grants and contribution from third parties, and other legitimate income sources. This is a very progressive achievement. Fund allocation to villages did not exist before. But now, the policy allows great amount of fund allocation to villages. Every village receives at least 700 million rupiah per year. It does not include fund from shared funds from district/city, which amounts 10% after reduced by Special Allocation Fund. The fund is not only those transferred to local level. With total trillion rupiah divided by about 72,000 villages, each village would receive about 1.4 billion rupiah annually. 1 Compare it to village authority, as stated in Law No. 32/2004 article 206, which does not specifically pays attention to village authority, yet only specifies that village authority is a part of governing affairs distributed as village authority. Authority as based on village s origin rights means that the right is living legacy and village s or villagers initiative that is in line with people s living condition progress; while local authority in village scale is authority for governing and administering village community s interests that is run by village or is able to be run effectively by village or that the skill is emerged because of village s progress and initiative, such as building boat mooring, market, irrigation, environment sanitation, etc.; while authority of doing monitoring task from central, province, or district/city government includes village administration delivery, village development implementation, and village community empowerment. The intriguing part is that running all of those tasks is village affairs entirely (article 20-21) and cost incurred (article 22 clause 2). Democracy strengthening at village level is also another important policy that makes Law on Village promising for village improvement in the future, including in democratization context. It relates to strengthening of Village Forum function, which 1 Delivered by Vice Chief of Special Committee of RUU (law plan) of Law on Village, Budiman Sudjatmiko, in an interview after issuance of Law on Village. accessed on 20th May

8 is now given full authority of monitoring performance of Village Head and being involved in Village Regulation Plan discussions and agreement-making, as well as being channel of village community s aspirations and village forum as a mean for actual political involvement for village inhabitants Problem Points Authority is often regarded an important element in encouraging changes, including in village. Village underdevelopment, for instance, is often regarded a consequence of minimum authority of village, therefore effective measure to develop village should start from strengthening village authority. Despite of being important factor, authority alone is not enough. Various reform practices show that, because authority is only a potential power. Referring to reform practice in Solo City, for instance, authority can result change (actual power) when it meets other important factors, such as actor s ability to build relation with multi actors (Bulan, 2013), to produce reform ideas, which is called by Giddens (1984) as capability to make difference, courage, and motivation to action. In a book titled Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (1990), Joseph Nee called these capabilities as soft power, which he thinks as necessary as to maximize hard power. Justification of the hypothesis can also be seen in factual condition of power management practice at local level, in which although every local has leader with same amount of authority, not all of them can produce reform. Referring to that, it is interesting to find picture of power management practice in rural level after the issuance of Law on Village. Does the new authority attached to village leaders and village development boards have influence to village governance and democratization practices? Can the new authority encourage village development to be more progressive and able to emerge good/best practives? If it can, what factors that enable it? Is it because of the given authority to govern and the fund alone as mandated by Law on Village, or there are other factors? From these critical questions, we formulate problem statement of this study, that is: identification of village governance practices (particularly good/best practices) that occur in the implementation of Law on Village in five strategic issues, namely village governance, village financial and asset management, active citizenship, indigenous village, and BUM Desa; as well as influencing factors (push factors and pull factors). The research questions of this study are: 1. How is village governance practices in the implementation of Law No. 6/2014, particularly in the five strategic issues? What are positive improvements that emerge and crucial issues that are found? How do villages and village communities respond to the changes? 2. Are there good practices in village, and how do these practices run? What are the influencing factors (push factors and pull factors)? 1.3. Objectives Objectives of this study include general objective and specific objectives. 1. General objective of this study is finding general picture of village governance in the implementation of Law on Village. 8

9 2. Specific objectives of this study are: a. Finding comprehensive, detailed, and actual picture of complexity of problems of Law No. 6/2014 implementation, particularly in the five strategic issues, namely village governance, BUM Desa, village finance and assets, active citizenship, and indigenous village. b. Finding comprehensive, detailed, and actual picture of good practices in villages and identifying influencing factors (push factors and pull factors). c. Finding inputs for recommendations for village policy (Law No. 6/2014) improvement and strengthening of policy implementation, particularly in village governance, BUM Desa, village finance and assets, active citizenship, and indigenous village issues. 1.4 Research Benefits Benefits of the study include theoretic and practical benefits, which include: 1. Theoretical benefits: Finding influencing factors to reform action (agency) in village that influence structure, particularly in context of Law on Villlage implementation by village actors. 2. Practical benefits: a. Being input for recommendations of addressing gap problems of Law No. 6/2014, determining direction of intervention strengthening, and strengthening operational policy of Law on Village implementation. b. Giving knowledge contribution to village activists in understanding village issues more comprehensively, more detailed, and more actually; which is useful for improving advocacy performance in village assistance and strengthening in the future Research Constraints The study is conducted in only seven villages (which, of course, does not represent all categories of existing villages) in relatively short period (two to three weeks). With such limitation, study results cannot be justification of overall practices of village governance Conceptual Definition And Framework 1. Conceptual Definition Some concepts are explored through these selected strategic issues: village governance, BUM Desa and village finance, active citizenship, and indigenous village, particularly by observing the good practices. Referring to Giddens (1984), good practice as mentioned in this study includes all indications of village leaders (agency or actor s reform action), which include policy, program, or activity, which are beyond mainstream ones (capability to make different) and/or are implemented with unusual ways (not as business as usual) which contribute to efforts of improving village. They are called good practices instead of best practices because the reform actions are not necessary materialized into justified reform practices, but also reform actions that are still in initial phase, such as in formulation phase or they are indicated to have possibility of bringing improvement to village. 9

10 2. Framework As mentioned in background part, through the new policy, village now gains added energy namely budget (resources) and authority (power) which allows efforts to encourage change to more progressive direction. Both are important source, especially power; as Giddens stated in one of his propositions in structuration theory (1984). In his proposition 3, Giddens argues that agency (agent s reform action) does not refer to intention or goal to conduct action (the intentions people have in doing things), but instead, it is rather caused by capability (capability of agent) in making difference which is only possible if agent has power. Another important thing, Giddens emphasizes, power is only meaningful when it is combined with capability of agent, namely capability of agent or actor to make difference (to formulate reform or innovative ideas). Therefore, when authority is used merely to do routine tasks and through usual ways (or business as usual), power would not mean anything in context of existence of good practices, moreover, best practices. In his proposition, he stated that agent s action will not produce or reproduce structure (will not produc good practices or best practices) if the individual does not make intervention to the action. The following part is complete quote Giddens s proposition on this matter: Proposition 3: Agency does not refer to intention or goal to conduct action (the intentions people have in doing things), but instead, it is rather caused by capability (capability of agent) in making difference; therefore, agent s action is related to power. Agent s action would not produce (and reproduce) structure if the individual does not make any intervention to the action. (Giddens, 1984:9). Referring to the proposition, authority as a power to encourage good practices cannot stand alone. Authority must be combined with capability of actor (in this case, village leader), particularly his/her capability of producing reform ideas. This is in accordance with Joseph Ned (1990) on the importance of soft power beside authority or power (hard power). The soft power can be found in actor s internal factors, such as courage and capability to make difference (Giddens, 1984), capability to build relationship with multi actors (Bulan, 2013), or what is called by Tanri Abeng (2012) as seven C of sources of leadership, namely clever, courageous, competent, clean, commited, caring, and communicative. Another thing to explain is that despite existence of Law No. 6/2014 creates some hopes, it cannot be denied that it also brings some consequences that village must face. Village s capability to administer financial disbursement process and to report its financial use, for example, are among many complexities complained by village apparatus, including village leaders. Also, financial use must comply with complicated specific rules, for failing to comply with the rules may lead the user to be scrutinized by Corruption Eradication Committee. This is another complexity that village must face. This is similar to Giddens s proposition, in which regulation as one of structural powers often causes various constraints that may actors to take actions, including to make good practices. However, referring to other Giddens s proposition (propotision 2), do constraints in Law on Village narrow the space 10

11 of village leader, as the main actor of reform in village, thus hampers his/her effort to produce good practices in village governance? It does not necessarily occur. This is because structure practice does not always constraint, but also enable as well as constraint at the same time. Although regulation makes constraints, to some actors (Giddens call them actors who have relation with structure), the constraints may trigger them to produce positive energy that can bring about new ideas (reform ideas). Figure 1. Existence of regulation between constraining and enabling In village context, the structural agent relations may be comprehensive knowledge of village actors (village leader, BPD/village development board, etc.) on village affairs and their complexity, because these actors have been dealing with the issues for a long time. Therefore, regulation demands that make them to do some actions or to prohibit some actions would not bring negative meaning. The constraints may even lead them to formulate new ideas, which may be good/best practices if implemented sustainably. Thus, hope for village innovation may not be hampered because of various regulations. Of course, this may not occur to any actor. Giddens argues it can only occur to actors who have power or authority and capability to make difference, as well as motivation of action. Actor who has strong motivation to make change for improving village may not find existence of various regulations as obstacle to his/her reform ideas. Giddens also mentions space and time aspects, or momentum and context. When producing good practices is hot trend, for example, existence of regulations (old and new ones) and their complexity may not have significant impact to actor s efforts in producing reform ideas, considering actions that are too strictly adhered to regulations (formalistic actions) may not have a chance (considered as negative actions). The right space or locus also counts. Villages with specific characteristics (open to change, have positive attitude towards change) may have higher possibility to experience good practices. Although regulation can make actors to do or not do certain actions, regulation as a structural power is not as mighty as it seems. Giddens argues regulation s control reach on agent (dialectic of control) as an evidence of regulation s limit to coerce. For example, central government has limitation to monitor regulation 11

12 implementation in details, considering vast areas of monitoring. Regulation cannot control everything (it has lobehole). In practice, there are always void of regulation, which is used by pro-change actors as a way to create change. We sought to understand these things in this study. We tried to explore pull factors and push factors of success practices that emerge and grow in villages during implementation of Law on Village. Giddens s Structuration Theory (1984) that we use as analysis tool in this study is quoted below: Proposition 1: Agency does not always comply with structure because agency can leave structure and find opportunity and possibility to move out of existing regulation or stipulation because of rules limited control reach on agency (dialectic of control) namely segmental autonomy (autonomy that applies on certain segment/layer) (Giddens, 1984;16). Proposition 2: Structure does not constraint. Structure is constraining and enabling as based on existing relationship of structure and agent (Giddens, 1984:205). Proposition 3: Agency does not refer to intention or goal to make action (the intentions people have in doing things), but rather to having capability (capability of agent) in making difference, therefore agent s action is related to power. Agent s action would not produce (and reproduce) structure if the individual does not make intervention to the action. (Giddens, 1984:9). The explanation leads to formulation of this study s framework as described in the following illustration: Power (authority and budget) Pull Factor Capability, Motivation, Knowledge Agent/ Village Head (Pull Constraini ng Enabling Good Practice of Village INDEPENDEN T & WELFARE VILLAGE Other actors of village Figure 2. Study Framework As seen in the illustration, village leader as the main agent of change in villagehas power (namely authority as village leader and village s authority that is strengthened due to new policy on village and help from other actors in village) and is influenced by pull factors within himself/herself, which can be capability as agent (to make difference), motivation to change, and knowledge on village. 12

13 1.7. Methodology Best Practice With combination of power and pull factors, village leader can respond challenges and opportunities he/she faces in governing village. It is indicated by occurring good practices in village, which later can be expected to help improving and creating self-empowered and welfare village. 1. Research Methodology Based on data collection strategy, the study conducted by using CASE STUDY research method considers the following issues: a. Most of the research questions used in this research method are how and why, as to explore complexity of problems in village policy implementation (particularly Law No. 6/2014) and to identify the main factors that cause problems and to explore how some processes run in village that makes village policy implementation produces good practices, as well as to identify factors that influence them. b. Researchers have little opportunity to control events they would study, namely complexity of problems in village policy implementation, particularly Law No. 6/2014, that bring about reform (innovation) practices; c. Research focus lies on contemporary phenomenon in real life, that is implementation of village policy by village-level actors that bring about good practices as well as some problems. Based on number of cases it studies, the study is categorized as Multi Case Study, as it studies five clusters of issues. These clusters of issues are selected to find complete picture of complexity of problems of village policy implementation (as social practice), particularly Law on Village, and to identify successful practices on the policy implementation. These clusters of issues are: (1) village governance, (2) village financial and assets, (3) BUM Desa, (4) Indigeneous village, and (5) Active citizenship. Based on the size of case (bounded case), the study focuses on researching institution/organization, namely social institution, political institution, and village social institution, and individuals (village head, social and political leaders of village, economic actors, etc.), and all activities that involve institution and individual actors. Entity mentioned in this research includes political institution, economic institution, and social institution of village and village community in general. 2. Type and Source of Data: a. Source of data: main source of data of this research, like most qualitative research, is words and action. Other data, such as documents, are additional data (Lofland and Lofland, 1984:47). Results of in-depth interview, observation, and FGD are primary data source, thus they are recorded, written as transcript, and made as special note. Results of interview and FGD are inputted to special form of interview and FGD results. Observation results on field situation and condition are written in log-book or researcher s journal. b. Types of data include primary and secondary data. Primary data are data collected through interview, FGD, and observation on actor s utterance and action on the studied case. Secondary data include written source, such as 13

14 newspaper, document, photograph, and statistic data. 3. Research location and justification of village selection a. On setting of location, the study is conducted in 7 villages in three districts of three provinces. Locus of study is divided to 3 villages as main locus (one village in each district) and 4 vilages as assisting locus. b. Main locus (village). Selection of village is based on two methodologic considerations, namely: a) Availability of information on five strategic issues, and b) Availability of information on good practices on the issue in the location. Therefore, the selected villages are winners of best village competition (this research selects Panggungharjo Village of Sewon Sub-district, Kampung Brumbung Baru of Dayun Sub-district in Siak District) or village whose good practices have been acknowledged (Pejengkolan Village in Kebumen District). Selection of assisting village is to enrich data on the issue collected in main village or on overall issue. Observation on assisting village is limited to only issues set to be observed and certain data collection methodology, instead of using all methods of data collection. 14

15 Table 1. Selected Village and Studied Issue NO Village Name Studied Issue Information 1 Panggungharjo Village, Subdistrict of Sewon, District of Bantul 2 Tirtonirmolo Village, Subdistrict of Kasihan, Bantul District 3 Tualang Village, Sub-district of Tualang, District of Siak All issues BUM Desa All issue,particularly BUM Desa Main locus. Selection reason: first winner of national competition of best village Data collection method: all data collection methods are used. Assisting locus. Selection reason: achievement in BUM Desa management (with initial capital of only 1 million rupiah in 1990 and stimulant aid of 10 million rupiah, this village has gained turnover of 8.7 billion rupiah today) Data collection methods: Indepth interview, observation, and document compilation. Main locus Selection reason: the safest village (2012), village that is able to organize Village-level Sports Competition, achievement in BUM Desa management (in 2 years, total asset per 31 December 2014 reached IDR 685,567,303). Data collection method: all data collection methods 4 Kampung Berumbung Baru, Dayun,District of. Siak All issues, except BUM Desa Assisting locus Selection reason: winner of national competition of best village Data collection method: all methods of data collection, except economic FGD. Questions on village s economy as listed in economic FGD agenda are asked via indepth interview activity. 5 District of Siak Indigenous village Assisting locus Selection reason: recommendation of custom assemblies. Data collection method: is waiting for confirmation. 6 Pejengkolan Village, Subdistrict of Padureso, District of Kebumen 7 Petanahan Village, Subdistrict of Petanahan, District of Kebumen All issues, particularly local governance BUM Desa. Main locus Selection reason: best practices in local governance issue. Data collection method: all methods of data collection, except economic FGD. Questions on village s economy as listed in economic FGD agenda are asked via indepth interview activity. Assisting locus, Selection reason: village with newly growing BUM Desa, selected to observe the problems. Data collection method: indepth interview, observation, and document compiling. 15

16 4. Data Analysis and Validation General strategy of data analysis is based on the propositions mentioned earlier. To see problems and innovation practices in village, first and second propositions are used. Both propositions consider structural power has limitation of reach and structural power does not constrain alone, instead it constrains and enables, as relationship of structure and agent does (Giddens, 1984:205). To find factors that allows agency s action (enabling) or innovative action of village actor, we use the third proposition, that is to identifity characteristic of actor who makes change. There will be testing on validity of theoretic proposition in the selected issues and study locus, as well as exploration on other factors that are not yet mentioned in the Giddens s propositions of structuration theory. From the analysis to the causes and driving factors, we expect to formulate typology of agency s action, specifically reform action of village actor in village policy implementation context. We also conduct data analysis with more specific tehcniques, namely: managing, reading and memorizing, describing, classifying, interpreting, dan representing and visualizing (Creswell (2007). Data management is conducted by organizing record, interview transcript data, log book, and field note to look closely words, context, and consistency of data, in order to find the big ideas (Krueger, 1998). Collected data are categorized and then interpreted by linking it to goal, output, and outcome of the research. Data validation strategy involves triangulation technique to check data validity. The triangulation technique includes triangulation of measures (Newman, 1999: ), which involves comparing and rechecking credibility of information collected in different time and measurement instrument. Comparison is conducted to various collected data, namely: observation data, interview result, FGD result; comparing subjects say in public and in private conversation; comparing what people say on research situation with what they say on everyday situation; comparing one s situation and perspective with public s view; comparing interview result with document; and comparing interview result, FGD, and observation on media coverage on the issue. 16

17 17

18 CHAPTER II ANALYSIS ON FIELD FINDINGS 2.1. Governance Unlike previous regulations, Law No. 6/2014 (Law on Village) constructs Village as community that has its own authority to manage its own affairs through self-governing community function. Based on this concept, village-level governance is conducted independently and democratically. Such construction is seen from norms of Law on Village that deal with: 1) direct election of village head by village community members; 2) existence of BPD (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa/village assemblies); 3) existence of Musdes (village forum) as aspiration forum for village community in making village policy; 4) affirmation of village citizens in participating in village government monitoring; and 5) obligation of village head to submit report of village administration to BPD and village community and to provide information to community on his/her duty as village administrator, development implementer, community development, and community empowerment apparatus. Referring to process of Law on Village discussion, there is discourse on encouraging modern village governance that is professional, efficient and effective, open and accountable, while maintaining local value system. 2 Study on governance in six villages in three districts found that they mostly have run democratic procedure as regulated by Law on Village as their self-governing community function. Complete exposition on how democratic procedure is run is illustrated in the findings section. This section will describe how the village democratic process involve participation of district government. The participation is consequence of Law on Village construction that regulates village to run self-governing community function as well as placing village in local self government frame. 3 Referring to the construction, democratic process is run in village governance, yet it is a part of local government s organization composition and procedure. Challenges in Creating Village Democracy On village democracy, Hans Antlov and Sutoro Eko 4 implicitly remind that strengthening village democracy is to encourage accountability of village governance through process of monitoring and community involvement in development planning, thus community s priority needs can be accommodated in the development process. It means village democracy places village citizens as subject in village governance process. If village democracy is understood in this context, creating village democracy alone can be challenging, considering villages in Indonesia are still under strong political patrimonialism. Referring to Mx Weber s concept, patrimonialism refers to traditional government form that is run by familial leadership-frame rules. The rule authority is very 2 Delivered by representative of PPP fraction in meeting of Special Committee of Law on Village, as quoted by Muhammad Yasin, et. al., in Anotasi UU No. 6/2014 tentang Desa (Jakarta: PATTIRO, 2015). 3 On hybrid construction of self-governing community and local self government functions, see Explanation of Law No. 6/2014. Bito Wikantosa, one of those who monitor discussion of Law on Village, in internal discussion in PATTIRO on 7 th May 2015, explained that the hybridity is characterized by stating Article 18B clause 2 and Article 18 clause 7 of Constitution 1945 as constitutional basis of Law on Village. 4 Hans Antlov and Sutoro Eko, Village and Sub-District Functions in Decentralized Indonesia. (Paper, 2012) 18

19 familial-personal and its governance mechanism depends highly on mechanism run in the family system. Opposite of patrimonial concept, according to Weber, is modern governance based on legal-rational bureaucracy bureaucracy that does not only accentuate individual, but also refers to procedure collectively arranged in an organization, thus it can separate private and official affairs. 5 Patrimonialism in village administration practice is shown by Jacqueline A.C. Vel in 6 her presentation of local politic dynamic in Sumba, East Nusa Tenggara. Patrimonialism, as Vel noted, is a government type characterized by strong leaders, and that their strength depends on specific culture attribute position including local understanding of power concept-, traditional religion, and attachment to ancestors. Patrimonial leadership depends solely on clients support. The system is stabilized by normative order that legitimates their leadership, such as through appointment of their assistants and strict boundary of patron and client. In colonial era, these patrimonial leaders are given discretion to run their authority at local level. After independence of Indonesia, there is national rule that bind patrimonial leaders. They sought ways to connect to central government and to keep their power. Since then, patron-client relationship of patrimonial leadership occurs not only in community local leader relation, but also in local central government realtion. Although Vel s explanation is specifically on Sumba case, such patrimonialism characters can be seen as sample of general picture. Beside Vel, Hans Antlov also indicates strong patrimonialism in village during New Order era, particularly in village government and central government patronage. 7 Such strong patronage is due to New Order government s interest in making village political mobilization mean. According to Antlov, patronage construction of New Order politic on village uses Golkar (a political party) and Army as the means. New Order bureaucratic style in village is then implemented at village government-level bureaucracy. Like New Order government that did strong control over people, village government did the same to its citizens. Development concept in New Order era that is strongly materialistic has shifted patrimonialism concept that previously relied on traditional power to material power. Material power becomes very important in patron client relation, in which only patron with material success that can maintain their leadership. 8 Village leaders in New Order era then manipulated development aid from central government to their own interest of making themselves rich. When New Order regime fell in 1998, centralistic leadership era began to fade. In reform era, leadership shifted to decentralization, in which locals are given high amount of authority through autonomy for managing their own affairs. Local government in the decentralization frame is regulated by Law No. 22/1999, which is then changed by Law No. 32/2004. Regulation on village is included in Law on local government, instead of in specific Law on village. Inclusion of regulation on village within local government makes village placed under local government. Referring to Law No. 32/2004, autonomy goes down to district/city level only, so that village authority is district/city 5 See Julia Adams, The Rule of the Father: Patriarchy and Patrimonialism in Early Modern Europe in Max Weber s Economy and Society: A Critical Companion, written by Charles Camic, Philip S. Gorski, and David M. Trubek (editor) (Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 2005). 6 Jacqueline A.C. Vel, Uma Politics: An Ethnography of Democratization in West Sumba, Indonesia, (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2008). 7 Hans Antlov, Negara dalam Desa: Patronase Kepemimpinan Lokal, translated by Pujo Semedi (Yogyakarta: LAPPERA, 2002) 8 Vel, Uma Politics, pg 8. 19

20 authority given to village. 9 It means the reform leadership merely shifted patronage of village politic from having central government as patron to having district/city government as patron. Law on Village is issued to evaluate such regulation practices on village under Law No. 32/2004. The spirit is to encourage village to have relatively full authority to manage their own affairs without excessive intervention from district/city government, although Law on Village in practice still allows district government s authority within local self government frame. Regulation on giving authority from district/city government in village affairs is experienced in norms that regulate it. For example, on district/city heads role in legalizing and terminating village heads and BPD members; village heads obligation to consult to camat (head of sub-district) as representative of regent/mayor in appointing village apparatus; role of regent/mayor in evaluating village regulation plan before it is enacted; village heads obligation to report to regent/mayor on implementation of village government; and role of regent/mayor as the authoritative party in settling disputes in village leader election process. With such regulation model, can Law on Village play as supporting structure for actual village democracy democracy that is run by village community and prioritizing village community, rather than district/city government? Can Law on Village change village into democratic one, after being trapped under political patrimonialism for decades? Analysis on research findings on village governance in six villages in three districts will be inside these questions framework. Village Democracy in Self Governing Community and Local Self Government Framework To see relatively real version of village democracy, this analysis is started with exposition on village head election (pilkades) practice in six villages. In the election process, village as the receiver of authority- forms election committee through BPD. The committee runs village election procedures as regulated by Law on Village. It can be said that pilkades committee has run excellent job, namely from gathering candidates, collecting data of voters, until voice counting. However, their excellent job is not free from district government involvement, as in district regulation or direct involvement. District regulation plays important role, because regulation of committee has operational guide, such as in requirements of candidates and series of tests that candidate must go through. Direct involvement of district government exists when committee face problems. For example, committee of Berumbung village election needed to consult to subdistrict government and BPMD when it had to annul a candidate who did not meet a requirement. Committee of Tualang village election consulted to subdistrict government when it needed to force attendance of witness of a candidate in voice count. Beside consulting, subdistrict government provides information to election committees on series of tests organized by district government. Law on Village constructs pilkades as regime of local government, thus naturally local government role becomes very strong. It is reflected in some articles that regulate village head election, particularly article 37 clause 6 that states that dispute settlement of pilkades process is at regent s/mayor s hand. Monitoring on pilkades thus belong to 9 Direktorat Pemerintahan Desa dan Kelurahan Direktorat Jenderal Pemberdayaan Masyarakat dan Desa Departemen Dalam Negeri, Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-undang tentang Desa (Jakarta, 2007) 20

21 district government authority as well. In practice, pilkades committee is formed by subdistrict government, thus everything related to regulation violation is noted by team and then settled by regent/mayor. Data of this research does not find dispute in village election, however, there is indication of money politics. Referring to Giddens s structuration concept, Law can be considered as structure. Mukunda Lamsal 10 explains that structure can be set of rules in which it can constrain human action, although it is made by human as something accepted in social life of society. According to Lamsal, Giddens recommends that universaly, structure remains valid although it can be changed particularly by unintentional action; for example, when people do not pay attention to social norms anymore, change them, or reproduce them into different way. Referring to Giddens s structuration and pilkades practice studied in this research, we consider Law on Village as structure that does not constrain, but rather enable. Agents, in this case pilkades committee, feel comfortable with norms stated in Law on Village, including norms that give authority to district government to play active role in the process. Not any single action of pilkades committee is beyond what is regulated by Law on Village or local regulation on village election. Because there is no action, it can be confirmed that there is no consequence occurs, moreover those that can change existing structure. All actions of committee complies with regulation and involve district (and subdistrict) as those representing the local regulation. Referring to concept that village democracy is basically form of active role of society, we find the role is not quite evident in pilkades, except in committee involvement. Committee under BPD assumes that pilkades is under village community authority. However, in practice, strong dependence on local regulation and involvement of sub-district and district governments show that village community role in this process is weak. Law on Village itself does not give opportunity to village citizens to be involved in pilkades monitoring, as it solely depends on district government. Moreover, requirements and selection process are organized by district. In Siak district, for example, the regent requires all pilkades candidates to be able to read Holy Quran. Law on Village gives village society rights to monitor village governance and to express their aspiration in village forum (musdes). In general, the monitoring action is not evident yet. Village head s reporting to community, as a form of responsibility to the people, is not yet evident in our study. Village report is submitted to regent and BPD only. In musdes, regulation only allows representatives of community to participate, therefore not all citizens can participate. There is room for citizens to participate in forum, namely in regular forum required by local custom or tradition. Some villages use annual meeting of village cooperative to gather community members. In the bigger forum, village leaders usually share their development agenda and give opportunity for citizens to give feedback. Also important element that characterize village democracy is existence of BPD. Referring to discussion process of Law on Village 11, BPD is called as an institution that conducts check and balances function to village government. BPD, according to Law on Village, collects and channels village community s aspirations, monitors village head performance, and discusses village regulation plan with village head. That is why 10 Mukunda Lamsal, The Structuration Approach of Anthony Giddens in Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Anthropology-Vol. V (2012). 11 Muhammad Yasin, et. al., Anotasi UU Desa. 21

22 BPD also plays key role in making good governance. BPD existence serves as control for village head in running village administration. Law on Village regulates BPD membership to represent village inhabitants as based on area representativeness. Process of filling the BPD member position is run democratically. The process can be considered guarantee representativeness, because every sub-village is represented, although the representative is not elected by all citizens in the sub-village, but rather elected by neighborhood leader. Regarding its role, BPD does not play it optimally yet. Beside organizing pilkades, BPD role in democratic village governance context is not yet evident. Its role in collecting citizens aspiration is not optimal yet. In some cases, village citizens prefer to express their aspirations to people they consider close to village head, in hope to find the people deliver the aspirations to village head. Some citizens express their aspirations to neighborhood leaders (RT or RW). In Panggungharjo, citizens aspirations are expressed to personnel who collect garbage from every household every morning. The personnel are assigned by village government to be village representatives that collect citizens aspirations and complaints. According to head of Panggungharjo Village, through this mechanism, village government once addressed citizen s problem with moneylenders. BPD s monitoring function on village government is not quite evident yet. Reports from village head are rarely discussed seriously, as BPD hardly ever gives notes to the reports. Village head considers reports to regent/mayor more important, as they have implication on approval on the next village fund disbursement. Findings show BPD and village government relation is good. There is no critical discourse raised by BPD on village administration delivery context. BPD office is usually at village government office. BPD admits to do monitoring, but it is only limited to checking on physical development implementation process, instead of comprehensive monitoring on consistency of actual material specification to that of planning document, for instance. If such practice is called monitoring, then it is not substantive monitoring. Most BPDs do not run their role in discussing village regulation. Most of villages in this research project are not productive in producing village regulations. They produce compulsory regulations, namely village s mid-term and long term development plan, Village Budget, and work plan. Production of other regulations is minimum. The less-than-optimum role played by BPD is related to their capacity. The BPD institution is not managed properly. For instance, a member who has been inactive for 6 months is not given any sanction; while in other case, the only active member is the BPD chief. In gathering recommendations, village government tends to ask recommendations from district government, instead of to BPD. For instance, head of Berumbung Village was going to use Village Funds to build meeting hall. To avoid procurement-related rule, the fund allocated should be reduced to be under 200 million rupiah, hence village head consult this issue to BPMD. The construction began after it is given recommendation from BPMD, instead of from BPD, whose function is controlling village government. Research findings generally suggest that village democracy within Law on Village framework is not optimum yet. Village s success in organizing pilkades is regarded result of dominant role of district government. On the other hand, village government regards district government more important than their people or BPD. This is disturbing 22

23 for democratic process in involvement of citizens and representatives of citizens. Village government appears to depend more on district government. BPD plays its role less than optimum level is probably due to lack of legal support set issued by district government, which makes BPD hesitant to perform its role optimally. Performance of Village Government The above exposition of village s democratic process show that district government has prominent role. In pilkades case, the process runs well because of support from local regulation (district regulation) and direct involvement of district government. Less optimum of BPD s and community s role is also influenced by village government s view which regards district government more important. There is no local regulation that regulates how BPD should do its roles and functions. It can be inferred that absence of regulations or district involvement may be obstacle for village s initiative actions. The exception is Panggungharjo Village, whose village head actively takes initiatives despite of the absence of local regulation. Other villages do not take initiatives. Petanahan Village feels unconfident with only 5 village apparatus and does not dare to appoint more apparatus because there is not perda (local regulation) on appointing village apparatus. Normatively, on Law on Village, there is clear regulation on how to appoint village apparatus, thus village can appoint their apparatus without perda. Law on Village states that appointment of village apparatus is authority of village head. Village head only needs to consult to sub-district head (as representative of regent/mayor) before appointing village apparatus. Village apparatus is fully responsible to village head. In Petanahan case, village head does not use discretion as she finds the absence of perda as obstacle in appointing apparatus. Another example of seeing the absence of regulation as constrain is in Tualang Village. The village head feels hampered to innovate because of absence of regulation. He does not dare to buy rented land of palm oil plantation for village asset. If village can rent land of 10 hectare, it can gain revenue of 10 million rupiah per month. In his opinion, if the rent works, village does not need to rely on Village Budget anymore. Self governing community as constructed by Law on Village is not understood and implemented optimally yet in village democratic process. In practice, local self government concept is still dominant. Understanding of the concept also occurs in village government performance. However, village heads show initiative in spirit of implementing self governing community, such as in being mediator in disputes among village citizens. Village heads show strong willingness to settle the disputes in village level, instead of taking the disputes to court. Panggungharjo Village government even institutionalizes this role by establishing legal aid at village level. Village stakeholders mostly regard village government performance success benchmark in implementation of physical development. Therefore, village government performance focuses more on physical development, such as building meeting hall, paving roads, applying concrete on gutter sides, etc. Economic development of village includes establishing BUM Desa, although it is not optimally run yet. We have not seen consistent BUM Desa management and specific scheme to increase BUM Desa profit that can improve citizens welfare. Despite all that, Panggungharjo Village government shows effort of making non-physical development. For example, a program called satu rumah satu sarjana 23

24 which provides scholarship to poor families, so that the children can pursue education to university level, and to graduate bachelor-level school. The scholarship scheme involves education insurance, in which village government pays the premium. The insurance fund is disbursed when students enter next level of education. In health sector, Panggungharjo Village government implements a program called Desa Bebas Empat Masalah Kesehatan (DB4MK/Free From Four Health Problems Village). The four health problems include malnutrition in toddlers, toddler mortality, maternal mortality, and dengue fever. To address maternal mortality issue, village government provides full service, namely giving special letter to pregnant women from poor families to receive full service from maternity hospital. To address malnutrition issue, village government implements program of using home yard to plant vegetables and keep fish for food. On social security, village government provides the last layer of social security net in order to reach those who are not reached by central government s social security schemes, such as Jamkesmas or Jamkesda. Some citizens are not serviced by those schemes because of data clutter. They are saved by village government s scheme. Financial support to run those programs does not come entirely from village budget. Some of them are from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds from companies operating in Panggungharjo Village. To finance health security scheme, village government cooperates with hospitals organized by BAZNAS. Payment of of education insurance premium is made by village government (a half) and CSR fund of Bumiputera insurance company. Maternity service cost is halfly paid by village government, while CSR of maternity hospitals pay the rest. Observing Panggungharjo Village government performance, we can infer that the government does not depend on perda (local regulation). Instead, they rely more on their eagerness to implement village development. With or without perda, Panggungharjo does not find any obstacles because it believes that village has been given large discretion by Law on Village. Because of the efforts, Panggungharjo Village has made some achievements. First, many complaint channels provided by village government are not filled with complaints from citizens. According to village head, there is very little complaints on village government performance. Complaints are mostly on issues that are beyond village government s authority. Second, education index of this village in is above national s education index. In 2013, national s education index is 61.7, while Panggungharjo s is 69. In 2014, national s education index is 62.9, while Panggungharjo s is Third, at the end of 2015, Panggungharjo is free from health problems, particularly maternal and toddler mortality problems. Fourth, Panggungharjo won national competition of best village in The competition is organized by Ministry of Home Affairs. Fifth, Panggungharjo is made by Corruption Eradication Committee as model village that is clean, transparent, and free from corruption. And sixth, Panggungharjo is destination village for other village governments in doing comparative study on successful development implementation. 24

25 2.2 Village s Financial And Assets According to Law on Village, village has authority to regulate and manage administration affairs, interests of local community as based on community s initiative, origin rights, and/or traditional rights that are acknowledged and respected, as stated in Article 2 of Law on Village. Based on Chapter VIII of first section on village financial, village government manages income source of village for implementing its rights and obligation as implementer of administration affairs for the community s interests. Village s income source, as stated in article 72 of Law on Village and clause 1of Village Income in article 71 clause (2) includes: a. Village revenue, which includes business income, income from assets, self-empowerment business, etc.; b. Allocation of State Budget; c. Share of local tax and retribution from district/city government; d. Allocation of Village Fund, which is share from district s/city s share funds from national income; e. Financial aid from Local Budget of province government; f. Allocation from Local Budget of district/city government; g. Non-binding grants and contribution from third party; and h. Other legitimate income of village. One of sources of village incomes as stated in article 72 point b is State Budget allocation. Other source is, as stated in point c, is shared fund from district/city. This fund is received by village of at least 10% of what district/city receives. The amount of revenue received by village is proportional to the authority it receives 12 in running village administration, implementing development, assisting community, and empowering community as based on community s initiative, origin rights, and custom of village, in order to improve welfare of village and quality of life, as well as to alleviate poverty through fulfillment of basic needs, development of infrastructures and facilities, development of local economic potentials, and sustainable utilization of natural resources and environment. Village is led to understand administration process more strongly on disbursement, implementation, and accountability of Village Budget, ADD (Village Budget Fund) that comes from district s Local Budget, and mechanism of fund management that is regulated by regional head regulation. Village Fund (DD) that comes from State Budget will be transferred by central government through Local Budget of district/city, which then will be transferred to Village Budget. Mechanism of Village Fund disbursement is regulated by PP No. 60/2014 on Village Fund that is originated from State Budget, while technically distribution of Village Fund is regulated by local regulation. Other source of income is Village Assets managed by village itself. This is explained in Chapter VIII, second section of Law on Village. Village assets may include goods owned by village, whose ownership comes from original property of village, which is bought or acquired through cost of Village Budget or through other legitimate acquisition of 13. Existence of Law on Village restores all village rights; every property 12 Village Authority, article 34 of PP No. 47/2015 amandment of PP No.43/ See Law on Village section 2 of Village Assets, article

26 that belongs to village is accompanied by certificate under the name of village government. Management of village assets must prioritize principles of public interests, functionality, legal certainty, openness, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and certainty of economic value. Village Asset management is carried out by village head and BPD, with purpose of improving welfare and livelihood of village society and improving village income. More specific regulation on asset management is Regulation of Minister of Home Affairs No.1/2016 on Village Asset Management. The article 7 explains planning, procurement, utilization, security, maintenance, waive, handover, administration, reporting, assessment, monitoring, and control. Procedur of Receiving Village Budget is Different from One Another Village governments of this research already received ADD and DD, even before Law on Village is in effect. Law on Village strengthens village financial, particularly in ADD allocation because there is stipulation of the minimum amount of ADD received by each village, namely 10% of shared fund of central and local government. Regulation on fund distribution process, namely PP 43/2014 jo 47/2015 article 98, states that the mechanism is regulated by district/city regulation. This study found different mechanisms of ADD disbursement in each district. In Kebumen district, disbursement is carried out in 2 phases, while in Siak district the disbursement is in 3 phases, and in Bantul, ADD disbursement can be carried out every month. In distributing ADD to villages, district government verifies documents submitted by villages. The verification task is delegated to sub-district. Village government will receive ADD when it receives recommendation from subdistrict. In terms of disbursement mechanism carried out by each district, village governments experience some obstacles, namely: 1. Verification phase is time-consuming and often inconsistent in giving notes to village documents (notes given before and after documents are revised by village) 2. Organization appointed by district government for doing fund disbursement does not have enough money, thus village experiences postpone of payment. The obstacles make fund disbursement to villages take longer time, which in turn postpones development implementation in village. Phases of disbursement may cause villages to receive ADD late than they should. One of villages in Siak District respond to this problem by making loan to hardware store. Document verification, as a requirement for receiving ADD, is considered unnecessary by a village in Bantul District. The village regards it is unnecessary to submit request for ADD transfer, because receiving ADD is their right. According to village stakeholder, Bantul District does not include ADD in special bank account for DD, but instead, in Bansos account. Therefore, it needs mechanism of requesting. This mechanism may burden office s operational payment, while ADD belongs to villages but it is deposited in local government. Panggungharjo Village, however, always obeys the existing norm. Villages in this research project receive DD transfer in 3 phases, following the PP 60/2014. District government arranges DD distribution process through regulation of 26

27 local government head on DD. In receiving DD, Village Budget is evaluated by subdistrict to match consistency with village planning document. Information on DD disbursement will be received by village government via phone call or during dissemination of regulation of village head. Disbursement Time Differs Another obstacle in receiving ADD and DD is that disbursement process takes different time, which makes village government have to prepare more document after receiving one source of fund. This condition takes village government s time for preparing administration process for disbursement process and reporting fund realization to district/city government. As mentioned above, each district has its own disbursement mechanism. Some make disbursement per 3 months, while other make it per month. It can be imagined how busy village government is, if the disbursement mechanism is made per month. Subdistrict Head s Role Significance in Village Development According to Law No.23/2014, kecamatan (subdistrict) is a part of district/city, which is established to improve coordination of government, public service delivery, and empowerment of village community. Subdistrict is established by regulation of district/city. Subdistrict (kecamatan) is led by camat who is responsible to regent/mayor through local secretary of district/city. Camat, as continuation of regent s/mayor s arm, plays significant role in village development, as mandated by PP 43/2014 jo 47/2015. It stated that, as organic regulation of Law on Village, camat is assigned tasks mandated by regent/mayor as the smallest government structure 14. Camat is involved in village governance, namely from selecting village apparatus, evaluating Village Budget, to assisting and monitoring village government. Camat plays very strong role in village financial part, as camat determines development direction and process. Regulation of regional head in each district of this research project places subdistrict as verificator and evaluator of village documents submitted for requesting funds or for reporting budget spending/implementation. As verificator and evaluator, subdistrict does not have instrument or guidance in doing the tasks. Therefore, mechanism of doing the tasks is random as complained by village. In delegating the tasks to subdistricts, district does not give guidance on how to verify and evaluate village documents. Consequently, the process becomes obstacle for district and villages. As receiver of delegated tasks, subdistrict should have been given assignment letter to support its authority in doing the tasks. Also, it needs clear job distribution among institutions handling local financial and village government in mechanism of ADD and DD distribution. Efforts of Collecting Development Proposals from Community This study found the villages are focused on regulation stipulations on formulating RPJMDesa (village mid-term development plan) document as basis of formulating RKP 14 Constitution 1945, article 18 amendment II 27

28 Desa (annual plan). RKP Desa cannot be far from targets set in RPJM Desa. Proposals of annual activities/programs accommodate proposals and inputs from communities at sub-village level. However, implementation of priority programs/activities refer to annual targets set in RPJM Desa. In village development planning process, most villages use conventional mechanism of collecting community proposals, namely inviting them to musdes event. Panggungharjo Village does variation of the mechanism, which is detailed as follows: 1. In 2013, pre musrenbangdes (village development planning forum) is conducted to collect proposals from sub-village level 2. In 2014, sectoral discussion is conducted by inviting stakeholders to be reference 3. In 2015, village government prepares list of strategic issues and indicative activities as material of discussion with community. Minimum Management of Assets Village ownership to its assets is not proportional yet to its effort of keeping inventory of the assets so as to make the record accessible for public. Even so, asset utilization is already enjoyed by village government and community, namely by income (village revenue) received from the asset utilization. For example, Berumbung Baru Village and Panggungharjo Village find their assets contribute the highest amount of village revenues. This study found that there is no strong effort given by district government and village government for making identification of village assets. Documentation of village assets does not make any progress. Awareness of such richness is not proportionate with activity of taking benefits of the assets. Process of identification of village assets should have been written in village data as basis of formulating RPJM Desa. This condition indicates that control and facilitation of district/city government and subdistrict government on village asset organization is still lacking. Lacking of attention of district/city in village asset organization issue indicates the needs for clear guidance in delegation of tasks to camat. Referring to Law No. 6, transitional provision clause (3), at the latest 2 (two) years since this Law is effective, district/city government with village government should make inventory of village assets. District government must anticipate serious impacts of ignorance in village asset organization. One of objectives of village asset organization as regulated in Law No. 6 article 4 point (d) is encouraging initiative, movement, and participation of village community to development of village potentials and assets for collective welfare. It indicates that village asset is important asset for building collective welfare. Strong inter-dependency between village society and environment should show that village welfare development can be seen from how much village asset management and organization is utilized for community welfare Village-Owned Enterprise ( Bum Desa) Practice of establishment and characteristics of BUM Desa 28

29 This study found different backgrounds of establishment of BUM Desa. First, establishing BUM Desa is encouraged by existing potential in village. It happens in Petanahan Village of Kebumen District. The village establishes BUM Desa because it sees abundant natural resources of coconut trees. It encourages some students of environment empowerment to organize integrated coconut processing, which processes all parts of coconut into various products, such as: VCO (Virgin Coconut Oil), Nata De Coco, and Coco Fiber. The first form of BUM Desa is cooperative. Second, establishment of BUM Desa is encouraged by situation, such as in Pangguharjo and Tirtonirmolo. Panggungharjo Village suffered problem of garbage. In 2013, the village head encouraged people to establish BUM Desa to do waste management as its core business. Tirtonirmolo Village had initiative of establishing BUM Desa in order to manage incentive fund from Local Agency of Village Community Empowerment. The fund is developed by BUM Desa to help small enterpreneurs finding capital for their business and combating moneylenders. Third, establishment of BUM Desa is encouraged by supra village (province) that gives grants to establish UED (village business). It happens in Siak District of Riau Province. Thus, there are two sources of motivation of establishing BUM Desa, namely internal and external motivation. Internal motivation tends to be strong, able to bring impacts to society, and sustainable. External motivation tends to experience decrease of number of beneficiaries and always needs market preference to its products. BUM Desa whose establishment background that comes from internal motivation, such as encouraged by eagerness to utilize potentials and address situation, experience progress. It is different from what happens to BUM Desa whose establishment background is supported by supra village. Capital comes from grants and loans. But to improve benefits, non-profit enterprise needs support from village government, such as in Panggungharjo village. Profit enterprise, namely BUM Desa savings and loans in Tirtonirmolo Village, in 2016 has owned capital of 11 billion rupiah. Understanding of BUM Desa In practice of BUM Desa implementation, managers find some confusion during change from UED to BUM Desa, because it has to wait for local regulation. It happens in Tortonirmolo Village. In Panggungharjo Village, the manager faces confusion of running business and obligation of improving community welfare. Its core business, namely waste management, should prioritize service (benefits for community) over profit. This condition makes subsidy obligation from village government to waste management. Option of increasing tariff must have approval from community as the service users. Selection of business type and management mode will form character of BUM Desa, as seen from number of citizen involvement in the business. This is an important point to discuss by village government and community, considering objective of establishing BUM Desa is to improve welfare of community. Therefore, it should involve and provide benefits to community, because the capital comes from their money. Understanding of BUM Desa must make profit will lead to selection of business type that can make profit. This will be trade off for involvement and participation of citizens in managing benefits of the business. 29

30 Further, if difference of BUM Desa before and during implementation of Law on Village is observed, it can be inferred that Law on Village concepts hybrid village as local government as well as self-reliant community. As self-reliant community, the people has right to have access and benefit of BUM Desa established. It is different from when village is positioned as local government, in which business type of BUM Desa should be like that of district-level BUMD (local government-owned enterprise) whose orientation is profit that can contribute to local revenues. Phases of Changing UED to BUM Desa Law on Village becomes motivation for local government and village government to establish BUM Desa as business unit in village. In the study area, we found change of business unit, such as from cooperative of UE-SP (savings and loans) to BUM Desa. The process of changing is different from one village to another. For example, change from USP (savings and loans unit) to BUM Desa occurred because of instruction from district government (Tualang). Change in Tirtonirmolo occurred because of waiting for local regulation on BUM Desa. Change from cooperative to BUM Desa in Petanahan Village is carried out by cooperative management because: (a) securing collective asset 15, (b) contributing to village revenues, (c) making monitoring easier, (d) BUM Desa administration is simpler than that of cooperative. However, questions may be raised: from cooperative with limited asset ownership to members only and then changed to BUM Desa whose ownership is granted to village and public, would there be reaction from cooperative members to such change? Or is it because most asset of cooperative are aid that citizens do not want to question the waive of such ownership? In Tualang case, the capital was aid from local government. In Tirtonirmolo Village, the change is due to waiting for local regulation on change from LKM to BUM Desa. Capital comes from State, which is given to community. After managed by community, the capital grows bigger and community finds difficulty to change it to BUM Desa. Assistance of Supra Village as based on activity approach Assistance from district government is conducted by not only agency that has duty and function of village community development, but also by agency that has activities related to business development in village. In Petanahan, assistance is given by Agriculture and Plantation Service of district and Agriculture Technology Assessment Agency of province level. These agencies evaluate the business of coconut processing, and then assist BUM Desa to set prioritized products. Another support comes from Trade Service and KUKM (Office of Small and Medium Businesses). In Tualang, district government provides assistance personnel to assist performance of BUM Desa and to connect the institution with district government. Assistance is not yet focused in developing BUM Desa business to process the products, consequently there is no sustainable cooperation. BUM Desa Petanahan cooperates with PT Tropica Semarang which agrees to buy its products if it can meet quota of 2 tons. However, BUM Desa only manages to produce 2 quintal, which makes Tropica to terminate the cooperation. 15 From experience, cooperative's assets are managed and ownership of craftmen. When aid-receptor craftment group does not work anymore, many of production assets disappear. 30

31 Various Management Styles The study found the BUM Desa have various management styles. In Petanahan, establishing BUM Desa is not accompanied by articles of association and organization restructurisation. Its organization structure remains to that of cooperative, with majority of members comes from BPD and village apparatus, and other members include commissary (held by village head in ex officio), manager (chief of BUM Desa), treasurer, secretary, and assistance. 16 In Pangguharjo, waste management is handled by three personnel, namely village head and two personnel. Therefore, every decision and development plan is made by village head. In Tirtonirmolo, officials of UED-SP are appointed by village head (1988-now). Officials of UED-SP are also officials in village administration (head of sub-village, which also adds value to UED-SP). Organization structure does not experience much changes from ; 1 person resigned, 1 person passed away. Change of personnel is carried out by chief by appointing his children and children of other official, without selection process, approval from village forum, or consultation with BPD. In UED-SP management, village head does not have clear job and responsibility and does not ask anything about the management. Even so, village head gains shares from profit. Development plan of UED-SP is fully at officials hand. In Tualang, management and development of BUM Desa depends highly on instructions and decisions of village head, such as in anticipating bad debts, using shares from net income to purchase land for village meeting hall, and development of cooperative on rattan. BPD plays role in BUM Desa, such as in giving warning to bad debtor. Each management style has its own accountability pattern. In some BUM Desa, report of BUM Desa is prepared by village government and submitted to BPD. Some BUM Desa does not make any reporting at all. Some submit report every month to village head and forward it to subdistrict and district or BPMD. In other words, BUM Desa that originates from UED still uses the old mechanism. Contribution of BUM Desa to village revenue depends on its orientation. If it is benefit-oriented, the benefits are enjoyed by community, such as in Panggungharjo BUM Desa. Business core selected by BUM Desa may bring impacts to environment condition, such as BUM Desa that produces nata de coco. Village government should anticipate this risk Active Citizenship Many people regard the open room of broad participation for society is an added value of Law No. 6/2014 compared to older Laws. It makes sense, because some rules in the Law make more conducive climate to development of active citizenship in village. The Article 26 clause (1) states that village head carry out village administration, assistance of village community, empowerment of village community. The clause 4 point p explains that village head has obligation to provide information to village community, 16 Waiting for enactment of Local Regulation for structure adjustment. 31

32 and village citizens have rights to receive service, express aspiration, vote and be voted, and receive protection from threats to peace and orderliness. The regulation is made clearer in article 27: in carrying out duty, authority, rights and obligations mentioned in article 26, village head is obliged to give and/or disseminate information of government in written to village community at the end of budget year. The policy helps community to be able to participate, because knowledge is pre-requirement for participation, along with awareness and commitment and access to sources of power (Etzioni, 1968). With the policy, community is legally and formally given room for easily accessing information they need, because the Law has village government to provide the information. The village annotation states that rights and obligations of village community shall strengthen their role as development subjects in their own territory. Thus, the regulation is expected to open room for community for active citizenship, particularly in development context in their territory. Article 28 states that violation to the abovementioned obligation has legal consequences to village head, such as administrative sanction namely oral or written warning (clause 1), temporary to permanent termination of village head position (clause 2). If the administrative sanction stated in clause 1 does not make village head carry out his/her obligation to community, his/her position will be terminated temporarily, or permanently if worse. Beside opening wide room for community to participate (particularly in development) through village head s obligation to provide information, village community is also guaranteed with right to access to information. Article 68 clause 1 point (a) states that village community has right to request and gain information from village government and monitor activity of village government, implementation of village development, received assistance and empowerment. Compare it to article 203 clause 6 that regulates the same matter: monitoring in planning, development implementation, and management. It is emphasized in point (c) of the same article and clause: village community has right to express aspirations, suggestions, and oral and written opinions with responsible manner on activities of village government, village development implementation, village community assistance, and village community empowerment. Beside article 68, the matter is also regulated in article 82 (on development monitoring), village forum (article 54), particularly on involvement of village community elements in village forum, namely assembly forum to discuss strategic issues in village government. Strengthening BPD function is another form of strengthening of community participation (indirectly). This is also found in Law on Village. BPD is weakened in Law no.32/2004, such as in change of term of village representative body to village assemblies (Law No. 22/1999) because BPD is considered as doing too much intervention to village government, it is strengthened again as it is given authority to support its political role. The role is stated in article 55, that is monitoring performance of village head. Other functions include discussing village regulation plan with village head, and gathering and channeling aspirations of village community, as stated in Law No. 32/2004 article 209. Although there is no change in wording, the current Law 32

33 substantially gives strengthening of political role (it is not limited to assembly aspect, but also role in check and balance). Strengthening of the political role is clearlier in article 61 and 62 that explain the rights of BPD and BPD members, as well as their obligations and prohibitions. One of them is that BPD has right to monitor and ask for information on village administration to village government, and to express opinion and to get fee for operational cost. The strengthened political role is also reflected in selection of BPD members, whose process is emphasized to be democratic one (through election process, instead of appointment) while maintaining representativeness. Social participation improvement is explained in Chapter XII of Law on Village, which deals with strengthening of LKD (village community institution) and LAD (village custom institution) role. It states that LKD s duty is helping village government function, implementation of village development, assistance of village community, and village community empowerment (article 94 clause 1). Thus, LKD is not merely positioned as government s partner (article 94 clause 2), but also performing and bearing responsibility of village community empowerment, involvement in development planning and implemetntation, and improvement of services to village community (clause 3). Also, in context of implementation of programs and activities originated from government, provincial government, district/city government, and non-government institutions; local government is obliged to empower and use LKD (article 94 clause 1). On politic participation: 17 in general, there is relatively small changes to previous regulation. However, there is strengthening to political participation in the new Law, as it explicitly mentions citizens rights, instead of village s regular activity. In article 68 clause 1 point (d), it is stated that village citizens have right to vote, be voted, and/or appointed as village head, village apparatus, member of BPD, or member of LKD. The regulation gives concrete explanation on rights to voted and be voted, as well as political participation rooms available for village citizens (be village head, village apparatus, BPD member, and LKD member). Also important is that regulation on implementation of election activity is available in Law, instead of in lower legal basis such as PP (government regulation) as in PP 72/2005 and Perda no. 19/2006 on pilkades. Thus, its position in legal hierarchy is stronger. The article 203 of Law No. 32/2004 clause (1) on pilkades states: village head, as mentioned in article 202 clause (1), is elected by and from village inhabitant of citizen of Republic of Indonesia, in which requirements and procedure of election is regulated by perda that complies with government regulation. The article 210 clause (1) on political room for citizens to be BPD members states that: member of BPD is representative from citizens of the said village who is determined by discussion and forum (not election). On participation in development, the long-existed musdes now has formal strengthening as it is set as the highest forum in village. It has to involve village community (community elements) as required by article 54. Musdes is expected to stimulate the growth of community involvement in more structured manner, and to create and improve discussion climate in village, which in turn makes democratization in village more dynamic. 17 On conceptual definition on political participation, development participation, and social participation, see Chapter 1. 33

34 Village Community Participation in Practice Social Participation of Village Citizens and Transformation from Rural to Urban In general, social participation practice in every village has its own characteristics. It is influenced by social and cultural condition of the village. Social participation, such as participation in village s social activities, is different from one village to another, even in the same district. For example, villages in Kebumen District. In Petanahan Village, whose main livelihood is trade, the citizens are relatively inactive. Activity of selling takes most of their time (they have no holiday, as holidays are most profitable time for selling). Participants of FGD admit that many village citizens prefer to pay other people to participate in social activities. Another way to compensate their absence is sending food for the social activities. This is carried out by those who works as food or snack seller. Village apparatus admits this low involvement of citizens, as they find it difficult to mobilize them in social activities, due to their occupation (as sellers). Low social participation of village citizens imply to low recognition among citizens, as interaction intensity among them is low. This is shown in FGD activity for small and medium enterprises. Although they live in same sub-village and do similar business (selling snacks in traditional market, which is livelihood of many Petanahan people), they do not know each other well. Consequently, they cannot share access and information. For example, one of the participants, who has relatively good educational background, has access to information and support from district government to business development. The information stops at him alone. Although Petanahan citizens share similar job, namely sellers, they do the business alone, instead of making network among them. Their current condition is worsen because of competition with new comers who have bigger capital and more professional management of business. Unlike Petanahan citizens, Pejengkolan Village citizens show relatively higher social participation. Citizens know each other well, even they know the poorest people in the village. Moreover, citizens are involved in deciding what intervention should be given by village head to the poor families (see interview result with village head of Pejengkolan on identification of poor citizens and intervention program for poor families that require citizens maximum involvement). strong relationship among citizens of Pejengkolan Village is also evident in long existence of village s ritual tradition, such as feast before harvest time, appreciation to cattle, and Ramadan-related rituals (beginning of Ramadan, nuzulul qur an, and asyrul awakhir). During the rituals, village citizens gather and do collective activities, such as cooking tumpeng (special rice for feast), have meal, do parade while chanting prayers and carrying torch, etc. The different social participation in Petanahan Village and Pejengkolan Village happens because of different characteristics of both villages. Petanahan Village, which is capital of sub-district, tends to abandon traditional habits. The people s livelihood is trade and relationship pattern has changed from gemeinschaft or community (that has strong emotional ties, informal relationship, is value-oriented, and has strong willingness to maintain togetherness, etc.) to gesselschaft or patembayan (that is pragmatic, economic-oriented, and tends to be formal relationship). It is different with Pejengkolan Village that maintains its village culture. This village is 34

35 quite far from subdistrict center (even closer to neighboring subdistrict of Prembun), has poor quality of roads (made of soil and rocks, or has holes) in some areas, and little access to public transportation. That is why people from outer village rarely stay to settle in Pejengkolan Vilage. With main livelihood of farming plants and cattles, Pejengkolan is not destination for migration. Those who live in Pejengkolan are mostly native inhabitants. Migrants are usually people who marry Pejengkolan inhabitants. That is why local values are relatively maintained in Pejengkolan Village until today. Similar but less extreme difference is found in Panggungharjo and Tirtonirmolo. Panggungharjo Village, whose location is near Yogyakarta City, has relatively lost its village characters marked by low social participation of its citizens. The village s social activities are mostly joined by village activists, such as PKK cadres, RT and RW (neighborhood units) officials, and LKD members. Unlike Petanahan Village, the livelihood of most Panggungharjo citizens are employees (of public and private sectors), including teachers or administrators of education institutions (public and private), including pesantren. The famous Pesantren of Krapyak with lots of students is one of education institution in Panggungharjo Village. Only small percentage of population works as farmers, and the number is keep decreasing every year. It is indicated by small portion of farming land in Panggungharjo Village. Like in many other places, farming is now regarded as less profitable activity and the available land for farming is getting fewer. It is different from people of Tirtonirmolo Village, whose livelihood is farming land and cattles. The chosen livelihood is because Tirtonirmolo Village is shaped as destination village for its craft industry, as well as food industry, in which many citizens run business of producing and selling featured food-related products, such as herbs and emping crackers. To maintain village citizens communication, Panggungharjo Village uses information technology (namely SMS Gateway), because the citizens are IT literate, and bulletin distributed during Friday prayer events. While Tirtonirmolo Village prefers direct communication, such as village head and apparatus visits to citizens in religious ceremony or citizens celebration events. On LKD: in general, LKD exists in all villages of this study. LKD includes RT, RW, PKK, posyandu, and LKMD. In some villages whose livelihood is agriculture, such as Pejengkolan, Panggungharjo, and Tirtonirmolo, there is LKD form called gapoktan (farmer association). Pejengkolan, whose population s main activity is farming, has association of cattle farmer, farmer women, and cattle farmer women. They may have different names, but all of them are formed by Ministry of Agriculture. The different names is due to different intervention. LKD formed by Ministry of Agriculture, because it is a result of the Ministry s intervention through aid programs (such as 100 million rupiah aid to farmers who form gapoktan), has dominant motivation of getting aid, instead of citizens own initiative. Consequently, when the intervention period is over, some of the organizations stop developing, except villages that really needs the organization existence, such as Pejengkolan Village. Slightly different LKD exists in Panggungharjo, namely PAKARTI (Paguyuban RT or association of RT) and SAJADAH (association of TPA and TPQ teachers). PAKARTI is 35

36 formed because of RT s needs, that is to replace the role of dukuh (sub-village) which no longer exists in the area. The institution is quite exclusive, because it represents village elites interests in supporting their coordination and communication, instead of representing citizens interests. SAJADAH, on the other hand, is formed to support interest and development of citizens profession in Panggungharjo, namely TPA and TPQ teachers. Various LKDs exist in Pejengkolan Village. There are derived organizations of gapoktan, namely KTT (cattle farmer association), KWTT (cattle farmer women association), and KWT (farmer women association), as well as agribusiness association, TKP2KDes (village poverty alleviation acceleration coordination team), KPAD (village children-concerned group). The last mentioned LKD is formed by Save The Children program few years ago. It still exists and is well-managed until today. TKP2KDes is unique LKD exists in Kebumen District, because TKP2KD of Kebumen District actively forms and develops the derived organizations at village level in the district. One of village head s duties is empowering LKD, as stated in article 26 clause 4 point n. in general, the work is still focused on old LKDs like PKK, LKMD, RT, RW, and Gapoktan and its derived organizations. Empowerment of LKD that is formed by citizens initiative is lacking and need to be developed in all villages. LKD s role in influencing government policy is varied. Some old LKDs play the role quite well, although they merely work as government s partner (disseminating activities to citizens, implementing government activities), instead of working for citizens initiative (collecting and channeling citizens aspirations). Newly formed LKDs, particularly those are formed by citizens initiative, start to play the role of influencing policy, although it is not optimum yet. For instance, SAJADAH gives input on budget increase for religious activities in Panggungharjo village. Village Citizen Participation in Development: Old Song in New Era Citizen involvement in development planning activity runs well in almost all villages. Citizen involvement is not only at village level, but also at lower levels, such as RT, RW, and dusun (subvillage). However, the involved citizens are mostly village activists (LKD officials). The involvement does not reach the whole village citizens yet. For instance, the Tirtonirmolo Village case. Musrenbang activity in the village has never been participated by emping cracker makers group in Telaga Kenongo Dukuh, although they need to participate to express their aspirations for strengthening their business. Long distance of the dukuh to the village s center is assumed to be the main reason of why Telaga Kenongo people are not aware of village activities and information of available aids they can acquire (including not aware of their rights as village citizens). Another alternative (cooperative at the dukuh) is another reason, because citizens do not have the urge to request aid to village and even to participate village programs. For example, they can request aid from UED as fully-supported financial aid institution formed by village. Also, direct access to district makes village citizens relation with village government loose, in which village government existence seems to be unnecessary (case of Telaga Kenongo Dukuh, Tirtonirmolo Village). Similar case occurs in Petanahan Village. Involvement in musrenbang activity is dominated by LKD and lacking citizen involvement in general. Small and Medium 36

37 Enterprise group that long exists in Petanahan, for instance, does not know anything about musrenbang thus never participate. Consequently, their aspirations have never reached discussion room of village policy-making and their interests are never accommodated in village policy. Quite broad (and varied) participation is found in Pejengkolan Village, in which it can make various community elements to participate. The participants include as farmer associations, poor groups (coordinated by TKPK2Des), and KPAD (which even directly involve children during initial process of musrenbang, namely in identification of citizens needs on development). Role of TKPK2Des in Pejengkolan is closely related to role of TKPKD of Kebumen District that actively does intervention and assistance programs on poverty. KPAD of village level is closely related to existence of KPAD of Kebumen District that has national-level achievement of winning appreciation as Children-Friendly City. It is also result of active role of NGO (FORMASI) that assists Pejengkolan Village. Other village that can bring up involvement of new and varied actors from community elements is Panggungharjo Village, although their involvement is not as merry as that of Pejengkolan Village. One of the participants is SAJADAH, namely association of toddler teachers, that urges their program proposal in musrenbang. Like in Pejengkolan Village, push factor that bring up new actors through bottom-up mechanism is knowledge and commitment of village head towards change. In Pejengkolan case, it is caused by the village head s active involvement in Sekolah Desa activity, organized by FORMASI. The activity allows her to communicate and discuss on various issues on village. Quite similar to that, village head of Panggungharjo is pursuing graduate-level education on administration mayor, as well as actively communicating with various NGOs that concern governance and village issues (such as IRE). Citizen active participation in development implementation, particularly in development evaluation phase, is dominated by involvement of LKD (traditional LKD, such as PKK, RT, RW, and LKMD) and does not involve community yet. It is not excessive if it is said that citizen participation in development, despite that participation rooms are wide open, is still dominated by old players. Citizens unawareness is the cause, therefore it needs dissemination of participation rooms for community in development. The dissemination should be carried out continuously and cannot rely on village government alone. Citizens unawareness is a crucial problem in participation in development. It needs to be addressed. Although Law on Village makes public information as citizens right in big portion, the practice of fulfilling it is not easy. Village citizens are not ready to actively try to fulfill their rights. Dissemination of Law on Village needs to be conducted intensively to address village citizens unawareness issue. But, who should be responsible of doing it? Village government, central government, or who? If dissemination is not conducted, such big portion of right given to citizens to participate would not result anything, and particularly, would not be able to create active citizenship. On musdes: its implementation agenda is mostly the routines, such as development planning (formulating Village Budget), and is not yet utilized as discussion and real assemblies forum. People who are involved in musdes are mostly old actors, and 37

38 presence of village citizens is not significant yet. This is closely related to the young age of this regulation, namely a year, which makes substance of musdes is not understood enough and in turn, influence to the limited use of implementation practice. There are efforts of village head and government to encourage and open room for village citizen participation in development. For example, efforts in Pejengkolan Village that brought it to win Model Village in national competition in Community involvement is not only in musrenbang process, but also in strategic decision-making, such as determining poor families. In addition to conducting process assigned by TKPKD of Kebumen District, that is visiting citizens homes to collect data of poor families, Pejengkolan Village government invites bigger involvement of citizens by giving them opportunity to give feedback (making clarification or argument) on result of data collection made by village government. This method makes data of poor families in Pejengkolan Village more accurate, as well as stronger commitment of citizens to make collective efforts of alleviate the poor families, considering that they make the list of poverty alleviation program. Their efforts include volunteerism in sharing aids they receive from central government (such as raskin, BSM, PKH, BLT, etc.) to the poor families. Citizens readiness to participate does not happen automatically, neither happen due to administrative process alone. It takes persistent effort of village head, who regularly greets and educates citizens through many approaches, such as using SMS (sent to all citizens), intensive communication in various meeting forums (such as religious forum or regular citizen meeting forum) at evening (because day time is used for working in field and farm), and communication in village s cultural activities, such as parade of cattle feast, rituals during Ramadan, and rituals before planting and harvest time. Communication in village s ritual activities uses village s unique symbols. Village head considers the communication very effective, because rituals are sacred moments and citizens make special preparation for getting instructions and assistance. Also, good practices happen due to assistance process from NGO (FORMASI). This is an important factor in improving village. Formal assistance often prefers formal approach that cannot bring about good practices, moreover best practices. In other words, combination of idealism and appropriate assistance technique is proven effective to bring about good practices. Although good practices is conducted using cultural approach, government also introduces and practices new values to citizens (transparency, accountability, children s rights, professionalism, IT utilization, etc.), so that citizens are prepared to adapt to various changes that occur. Political Participation of Village Citizens: Democratizing Village or Making Democracy Village? Political participation of citizens, which means equal opportunity for citizens to be voted fairly and transparently as stated in article 68 clause 1, generally develops towards positive direction. For example, there is wide open room for women to be elected as village head (village heads of Petanahan and Pejengkolan are women). Also, citizen orientation to vote candidates that represent change (for example, free from coruption, collusion, and nepotism), giving room to new comers who are previously inactive in village activities to be elected as village head and to win over incumbent 38

39 official (for example, Panggungharjo, Pejengkolan, and Petanahan case). Because of that, village heads may be those from youth group, and are not necessarily those from village head/apparatus dynasty. Citizen enthusiasm in participating election is a thrilling phenomenon. Voter data collection is improved because committee visits homes and gives migrants to participate in election. On the other hand, some citizens register themselves as voters. This is an impact of merry event of elections of the upper level of government (district/city or province). Organization of pilkades event tends to follow mechanism of pilkada (regional head election). On one hand, it is a positive development of village politic. On the other hand, there is fear that it could eliminate the nature of village politic that is, relationship of village head and citizens then tends to be political relation and social relations of citizens and village leaders fade. Democratic practice in village should not merely copy-and-paste democratic practice of the upper level (election at district, province, or moreover, central level), considering that uniqueness of village democratic practices should be maintained. For example, relation that orients social motive, instead of political motive, such as volunteerism, collective work, trust, and obedience. This is different from political relation in democratization process that orients to thee matters: competition, participation, and freedom (Dahl, 1971). Although not entirely negative, those three values hold negative sides that are not entirely suitable to village culture. Another aspect to ponder is how to maintain relation that orients more to group s interests instead of individual s interests. As suggested by Peter Bachrach (1980:24-98), the highest goal of democracy is a government system that maximize individual development, in which absolute freedom is guaranteed. Village life, with its communal or group-oriented values and relatively less room for freedom, needs careful consideration; so that democratization process does not make villages lose their rural nature. On this matter, our main problem is not just democratizing village, but also how to make democratic practice respect village Indigenous Village Determining and organization of indigenous village is stated in article 97 clause 1 of Law No. 6/2014. It can be carried out when these three requirements are met: a) Entity of community of custom law and its traditional rights is actually living in terms of territorial, genealogic, and functional; b) Entity of community of custom law and its traditional rights is considered in accordance with progress of community; and c) Entity of community of custom law and its traditional rights is in accordance with principles of The Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia. These three requirements become reference for district/city government in doing identification and feasibility study on custom law community or village and then to organize custom/indigenous village. However, deadline for organizing indigenous village is tight, as there is only one year for conducting this task since Law on Village was issued on 15 th January On January 15, 2015, Siak District government, through Perda of Siak District No. 2/ 2015, enacted eight villages as indigenous villages. One of them is Penyengat Village. Deciding Penyengat as indigenous village seems a hastily decision, considering Siak 39

40 District government only had one year to make decision after issuance of Law on Village. Impression of meeting deadline is clearly appear in recommendation of indigenous village given by team of establishment of custom leadership to Siak regent. The recommendation contains proposal to postpone decision of designating two kelurahan (urban-villages), namely Kampung Dalam and Mempura, as indigenous villages. The postponement is recommended because designation indigenous village must go through process of changing kelurahan into village first, which shall take long time. According to PP No. 7/2015, organization of indigenous village should be regulated in permendagri (regulation of minister of home affairs). However, such regulation is not issued yet by ministry of home affairs until Therefore, to anticipate void of regulation of changing village to indigenous village status, government of Siak District used Permendagri No. 52/2014 on guideline of acknowledgement and protection of custom law, in which acknowledgement and protection of custom law is under province and district/city government. If the available time is short and regulation basis is vague, why is Siak District government persistent to pursue the organization of indigenous village? Siak District government s hastily measure in organization of indigenous village is encouraged by two things: First, Siak Regent viewed regulation of organization of indigenous village is in accordance with agenda in his vision and mission, namely making Siak District a tourism destination. With tagline "Siak: The Truly Malay", the tourism strategy presents Malay culture as the main attraction, including indigenous village. Organization of indigenous village that is based on the agenda shows that Regent of Siak interprets culture in narrow sense of merely traditional performance and art, traditional clothes, and traditional-related things. In fact, organization of indigenous village brings direct impacts to structure of organization and government of the village. Second, the indigenous village establishment team headed by chief of BPMPD and consists of members from various regional work units, together with Local Legislatives and LAM of Siak District, agree that the main objective of establishment of indigenous village, as stated in Perda of Siak District No. 2/2015, is to revive the role of custom leaders in village governance and to revive local customs that are faded away by urbanization impacts. Objective of organization of indigenous village as mentioned above is substantially contradictory to mandate of Law on Village. In Law on Village, organization of indigenous village prioritizes recognition, which means acknowledging entity of custom law and its traditional rights that is still living and fit to progress of society, instead of revitalization. However, understanding of establishment of indigenous village as an effort of revitalization of custom and role of custom leaders in village government is then transmitted to Penyengat Village citizens to dissemination of pre-establishment of Penyengat Village as indigenous village. This is carried out by local government. Custom Revitalization Custom revitalization is no doubt a form of empowerment (Henley and Davidson. 40

41 2008). Indigenous people s rights that are uprooted because of national scale of village government structure uniformization in New Order era, all of sudden are restored, plus possibility of ability to manage village government system based on original composition and current customary law. However, custom revitalization often tends to strengthen political position of the elites only (838: 2008). In Penyengat Village case, since beginning of 2015, village government is almost entirely under command of village secretary, following establishment of its indigenous village status. District government cannot decide village head election mechanism yet, due to unavailability of derived regulation from Minisry of Rural Affairs. Acting Village Head, assigned by subdistrict government, hardly ever visit the village and perform the duty. According to Village Treasurer, the village secretary role is only at administrative tasks, while anything about establishing status of the village is assigned to leader of customary institution and custom elders in village. Although being officially stated in local regulation of Siak District, establishment of indigenous village is only at village status, because the current government system still refers to administrative village system currently implemented. It is because Penyengat Village and other indigenous villages in Siak District have not received specific codes of indigenous villages from Ministry of Home Affairs. Until the beginning of 2016, there is no clear reason or barriers of why it happens. Even so, BPMPD of Siak takes initiative of instructing Penyengat Village to meet administrative requirements, such as recording inventory of current customary laws. Recording inventory of customary laws in Penyengat Village itself is basically difficult to do, because the community does not live under such customary laws constraints. The custom elders themselves do not know customary laws that are and were in effect, and boundaries of communal land of Penyengat Village, because the people do not live under constraints of customary laws structure anymore. Chief of customary institutions, who are assigned by village secretary and custom elders, resign because he finds it difficult to make inventory of customary laws. This is because custom elders do not know customary laws that are and were in effect, except the wedding procedure of Anak Rawa tribe. Also, the custom elders do not help him compiling customary laws, which makes him feel unsupported by custom elders. Inventory work of customary laws of Penyengat Village, which is supposed to be submitted to BPMPD in mid 2016, is eventually abandoned. However, it motivates custom elders to dig their memories on customary laws that once were implemented in Penyengat Village. The memory retrieval efforts end at two invented traditions still implemented by indigenous people of Penyengat until today. These include wedding ceremony and celebration in 27 th day of fasting, as it is regarded the day of ancestors spirit coming to visit their grandchildren. Inventing tradition itself is a process of formalization and ritualization, characterized by reference to the past, although it is merely effort of presenting certain repetitions (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1987). Our interviews show indication of custom elders intention to write artificial customary laws, in order to meet the administrative requirements. Practice of establishing Penyengat Village status as indigenous village, as part of implementation of Law on Village in Siak District, is debatable for the community. The debate is triggered by various factors, such as different understandings of religious 41

42 elites in the village on customary rules of wedding procedure, status establishment which is carried out top-down by supra village which seems to ignore complexity of social and political situation of the village-, and sentiments of inhabitants and migrants that is rooted in history of Penyengat Village. Such sentiments among inhabitants and migrants may not be significant if Penyengat Village already has government system that follows the original composition. The elders are not officially in position of village officials due to change of village governance that still has to wait for the code of indigenous village from central government, however, they start to make village governance plan for the future when Penyengat Village can decide their own governance that is, the governance of full inhabitants, without any intervention from migrants. The measure taken by custom elders is their effort to compensate injustice that Penyetan Village received in the past, as well as to get advantageous position in village-scale competition for power. Also, this is a kind of rationalization on ethnic exclusion and justification for ethnic violence that is allowed by, as Li (2008) suggests, custom as basis for political and organizational legitimation to tend to give privilege for the elites, particularly men, who are considered to have power to speak on behalf of population. Measures taken by the village elites in procedure series of establishment of indigenous village can be said as good practices in Penyengat Village, because there are efforts of making smooth process of establishing status of indigenous village, such as making inventory of customary laws (conducted by custom elders because the assigned official resigns), and making village governance plan while waiting for indigenous village code is given by Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the good practices may not produce good output, because establishment of Penyengat Village as indigenous village itself is contradictory to recognition and pluralism principles brought by Law on Village. 42

43 43

44 CHAPTER III CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1. Conclusion Village has been given high amount of authority to manage their own affairs through Law on Village. In practice, however, most of the villages in this research project still tend to depend on district government. On democratic practice, room for village citizens to articulate is not optimized yet. As representation body of citizens, BPD does not play its role optimally, moreover, there are no efforts from BPD itself and community to strengthen its role. Village authority in making village regulation (Perdes) is not used fully. Not many perdes are made, other than main perdes like APBDes (Village Budget). Having full authority, villages should have been made more perdes because they need regulations to manage their own affairs. Mindset of village leaders tend to move toward positive direction already, that is toward opening room for democracy. Yet, it still needs courage to do that without fear of facing intervention from district government. Low quality of democracy brings impacts to performance of village government. Performance is considered merely as physical development works. Voices of citizens on non-physical development needs are not accommodated enough yet. In Panggungharjo case, development is run mostly because of village head s initiative. Although development refers to citizens aspiration expressed in Musdes, but the portion of such aspiration to be accommodated is relatively small. In Panggungharjo, democracy is implemented through village government performance. Good performance is expected to gain citizens trust, from which citizens awareness on village democracy shall grow. Village becomes strong topic in media coverage and people s discussions, particularly topic of village readiness in receiving and managing village fund from central government. Village Fund did not exist until Law on Village is effective. The fund is needed for financing activities of village. In practice, process of receiving the fund faces challenges because delegated task from district to sub-district government is not accompanied by guideline and details on how to do the task. The absence of such guideline makes camat (head of sub-district) domination in making village development direction, while village development is pilar of progress for district/city development. Identification and documentation on village assets is a must. When village assets are identified, development policies can refer to and start from the assets. Without assets, village is powerless. Without clarity on assets, village will likely to keep wondering what assets it has. Management and utilization of assets will be absence in village s framework and development plan. Therefore, it is time for district/city government to facilitate and assist village governments in finding and identifying, and then documenting villages assets, in order to achieve welfare. Law on Village gives attributive authority, in which village can establish BUM Desa, as stated in Article 87 clause (1). As village s economic drive, BUM Desa is expected to contribute in improving village citizens welfare. Objective of BUM Desa 44

45 establishment is expected to be from village itself, so as to be able to address its own problems and use its own potential. When the objective comes from village itself, it should be guarantee for BUM Desa sustainability in the future. Establishing BUM Desa on certain business core should also consider environmental impacts. Efforts of improving village welfare through running BUM Desa should not cost village s environment; the environment should be kept clean and unpolluted. In establishing BUM Desa, selecting business core should consider type of business that may bring welfare and benefits to community. Developing of BUM Desa should be gradual and in accordance to its business progress, particularly when the BUM Desa is initially cooperative or UED. Changes that BUM Desa experience should be detailed and consistent, so that it can be independent in running the business and be synergized to regulation of BUM Desa (Minister Regulation and Law on Village). Some villages have village heads playing central role technically and politically in BUM Desa, while some others have village heads that do not pay attention to it. The change should also consider sustainability of business run by BUM Desa. In Petanahan, the change to BUM Desa is followed by production amount decrease significantly, which eventually makes it to be able to supply only 3 households. Village government, as owner of BUM Desa capital, should try to increase production of its business unit and make strategy to allow the business to grow. Existence of UED-SP, regulated by Permendagri No. 6/1998, is excluded of business unit cancelled by Permendesa No. 4/2015 article 34. It can be understood that change of UED to BUM Desa in Tirtonirmolo waits for district regulation (perda) because there is no regulation on making clear of the status change. In Tualang Siak, the change occurs due to instruction from district government. Change of UED to BUM Desa status has not changed/added business units managed by BUM Desa; the business is still savings and loans. As a legal community entity that has authority of regulating and governing the administration affairs and community interests, village as the smallest unit of government- directly faces the life of community. Community existence is asset of implementing village development. Efforts of developing active citizenship in village to be more progressive still take a long way. Through Law on Village, participation rooms are wide open for village citizens to strengthen their roles. The implementation is, however, not easy. It needs some supporting interventions to make spirit of the policy bring about the expected results. The main problem lies in policy dissemination domain. Many village heads, moreover village citizens, do not know (let alone understand) the new spirit endorsed by the Law. It makes substantive aspect on active citizenship development in village fail to be understood by village heads and apparatus, moreover village citizens. Good practices in active citizenship issue happen because of central role of village head as the main actor of change. The practice happens and grows because of combination of various factors, namely strong commitment of village head towards change (and willingness to improve village), village head s and apparatus s readiness to receive and develop new values in village governance (transparency, IT utilization, professionalism, accountability, etc.), exemplary attitude of village head as central leadership in village, 45

46 village head s ability of developing good team work in village administration, and utilization of approaches that fit to locality values. It can maintain originality of local values while driving change towards improvement. The Chapter XIII of Law on Village explains special stipulations on indigenous village. The article 98 states that government and local government are given authority to do organization and establishment of indigenous village status. The PP No. 47/2015 article 28 clause (2) authorized province government and district/city government to change status of village to indigenous village. The authorization shows that decentralization process in Indonesia runs well. However, the decentralization process in establishing indigenous village status is not accompanied by clear instruction and guideline from central government. It causes unexpected consequences from implementation of regulations from central government. Unexpected consequences from establishment of village to indigenous village status include: a) misinterpretation of local government on basis of establishment of indigenous village, in which recognition concept misinterpreted as revitalization, b) void of regulation is not immediately anticipated by central government, thus local government seeks to find other regulation in order to meet deadline of establishing indigenous village status, that is one year after the issuance of Law on Village, 18 c) establishment process is top down, despite that proposal of changing village status to indigenous village must come from initiative of the said community, in form of decision of village forum, d) identification process is simplified to merely administrative one, thus it cannot represent social and political complexity that happens in society. The simplification may lead to potential of ethnic violence in the future Recommendations We conduct analysis of the 5 clusters of issues, thus we organize the recommendations in 5 clusters as well, in order to make easier concentration and to bring into discussions and advocacy. Governance 1. District government should give large room for citizens to run their own administration. The local self government function should be understood as sign for village not to violate regulation of higher level of government, instead of opportunity for central/district governments to make many regulations that restrain village s authority. 2. Central and district governments should give endorsement to villages that do good performance, so that their successful performance can inspire and be model for other villages in Indonesia. 3. On village government side, village head should have initiative in village development process by keep relying his/her political interest on village citizens, instead of on district government. Quoting Tania Li, village head as community s 18 The PP No 43 jo No.47 article 28 explains that stipulations on procedure of changing village to indigenous village status will be regulated by minister regulation on home affairs. Until today, the regulation is not made yet 46

47 guardian- should be able to implement development through two ways, namely problematization and technicalization of problem. Problematization is defined as recognition step on various weaknesses that need correction. Technicalisation of problem means series of practices that shall present issue to be address as a domain that is easy to understand, has clear scope and characteristics, and shall define boundaries so that the internal elements are visible, collect information on the elements, and develop technique to motivate strength and elements that are presented earlier. 19 Unlike technicalization of development, technicalization of problem still considers political elements of village citizens, namely their aspirations and will. Referring to the concept, we think that Panggungharjo has conducted problematization and technicalization of problem in the development of Panggungharjo Village. On problematization, the Village Head can identify problems that need correction. In his opinion, Panggungharjo does not have much natural resources, thus the important thing to do is improving quality of human resources. 20 Village Head also spots the problem of inaccuracy of social aid programs from government, due to data clutter. 21 From the problematization, village government then pays attention to education, health, and social security as the problems to address. Necessary information to support organization of the matters are collected through data collection of information system they develop. The problematization becomes basis for Panggungharjo Village Head to run some programs through technicalization in various sectors. 4. As strategic element in improving village democracy, BPD members need capacity improvement. The capacity improvement can be carried out by district government through workshops and trainings on village-level democracy implementation practices. Therefore, district role in conducting assistance is not only at village government, but also to BPD. The assistance is not only on technical aspect of development implementation, but also on more substantial aspect, such as village democratization. District government intervention in strengthening BPD capacity needs to be done, considering that village community does in fact depend on district government role. Village Financial and Assets Recommendations on Village Financial and Assets issue cluster are: 1. District/city government needs to synergize distribution of fund, namely ADD and DD, to villages, so that villages are not occupied by submission of budget proposal in different times, and village government should be facilitated intensively in managing village administration. 2. Participative development is development that accommodates the needs of village citizens without dissociating the already made development plan, the needs of central government and district/city government to make technical guidance in organizing village forum that synergize community s needs and village development plan targets. 3. Involvement of camat in village governance includes in selection of village apparatus, evaluation of Village Budget, assistance and monitoring of village 19 Tania Murray Li, The Will to Improve: Perencanaan, Kekuasaan, dan Pembangunan di Indonesia (translated by Hery Santoso and Pujo Semedi. Jakarta: Marjin Kiri, 2012) warga/ diakses 31 Mei Delivered in limited discussion organized by PATTIRO, 19 th May 2016 in Jakarta. 47

48 government and management of village asset, as extension of district/city government s arm, meaning that district government does: a Strengthening of human resources in subdistrict level in implementing the delegated tasks b Assistance given by camat should be output-based, so as to avoid problem of administrative issues that are not implemented by village, particularly in village budget reception. c In carrying out his/her tasks, camat must be equipped by job description and guideline, including in doing evaluation tasks. In conducting evaluation on Village Regulation, Village Budget, etc., camat needs to have guideline, in order to minimize the power of subdistrict in implementing delegated tasks from district/city government. 4. District/city government should accelerate inventory of village asset, so that village can utilize available potentials for creating collective welfare of village community. BUM Desa (Village-Owned Enterprise) Recommendations on BUM Desa issue cluster are: 1. As coach, supervisor, and evaluator of BUM Desa, district/city government should do: a. Give gradual but continuous assistance to develop BUM Desa and strengthen management s understanding on the BUM Desa itself. b. Have roadmap of BUM Desa development in their area, and make BUM Desa mainstream issue for their work units, hence inter-sector cooperation in developing and strengthening BUM Desa is built c. Periodic appraisal to BUM Desa that is able to achieve objectives of establishment of BUM Desa 2. Building BUM Desa must be born from potential and situation faced by village, instead of motivated by external factor. This is because the motivation guarantees sustainability of BUM Desa as business unit that prioritize benefits and welfare of village community. Also, in building BUM Desa, village government must consider environmental impacts that may incurred by the business. 3. Village government should not hastily change business unit that is run by BUM Desa, because village government needs to think of consequences from the business change to community who are members of the business, as well as other consequences. Active Citizenship Recommendations on active citizenship issue cluster are: It needs more efforts to improve intensiveness of dissemination of Law on Village, namely by involving multi parties and multi approaches, so that spirit (idealism) and substance of Law on Village can be understood well by all relevant parties in village, including village citizens as the important target. This is important, as knowledge and understanding are fundamental for improvement of awareness and commitment, which in turn can encourage transformation process towards progressive direction. Active Citizenship development efforts include, among other things, strengthening of political roles of village citizens and BPD. Although it is a progressive action, it should stay within the framework of maintaining village s unique characteristics. In this case, 48

49 it is important to maintain village values, so that they are not washed away by democratization wave, whose many aspects may not be fit to local values. Adjustment of democratization process to village s custom values therefore is a must; as an effort of maintaining democratization process as a new value that does not eliminate goodness of local values. Indigenous Village Based on consequences exposed earlier, we suggest the following recommendations on this issue cluster: 1. In organizing indigenous village, province and district/city government should make identification first. The identification process should involve scholars to find comprehensive picture of social and political dynamic of society and to fulfill some requirements, so that identification process is not merely administrative. 2. Monitoring and evaluation from province or central governments on processes of establishment of indigenous village status. 3. Central government should compose derived regulations on guidance of organizing indigenous villages soon. 49

50 50