No abstract

Leadership is essential in promoting democratic citizenship, and the village government level is not an exception. Using the experience of Panggungharjo Village, Bantul, this paper tries to understand the roles of leadership in supporting the fulfillment of citizens’ rights being related to the context of the Law 6/2014 on Village. Based on interviews conducted during October-November 2016, this paper found that transactional and transformational leadership approaches, conceptualized by Burns (1978), as Panggungharjo Head Village applies, are influential to the effectiveness of public services and welfare provisions. When used complementary and strategically, the two leadership styles determine the effectiveness of village leadership and reform initiatives. Indeed, there is an issue of power that is crucial to take into account. In comprehending this important aspect, Lukes’s (1976, 2005) concept of power dimensions is helpful. His diagram of power consists of tangible power engineering (First Dimension), a new system of procedures that create barriers for potential political opponents (Second Dimension), and the enactment of new norms (Third Dimension). In Panggungharjo the Village Head’s leadership, approach is widely recognized as one the success stories in Indonesian village governance. Nevertheless, this effective and functioning government has resulted in a leadership practice that has created “beneficiaries” rather than “shaper and maker” citizens (Gaventa 2001, 2002, 2004). This outcome may not optimally underpin active citizenship, since in order to promote democratic citizenship, active citizens are a prerequisite.

Tulisan ini mengeskplorasi relevansi gagasan transformative politics (Tornquist & Stokke, 2013) dalam praktik corporate social responsibility (CSR) di industri ekstraktif dalam konteks desa di Indonesia. Penjajakan ini penting karena pendekatan pembangunan partisipatif dalam praktik CSR belum mampu mengikis defisit kapasitas politik warga komunitas di sekitar operasi industry agar lebih berdaya secara politik. Yang jamak berbagai prosedur, mekanisme, desain program, dan piranti kelembagaan CSR belum berdampak signifikan dalam menyeimbangkan timpangnya relasi-relasi kuasa komunitas-perusahaan dan komunitas-elite lokal. Alhasil wacana dan siklus program CSR (agenda setting, formulasi program, pembuatan keputusan, implementasi, dan framing atas klaim kesuksesan) masih jauh dari kontrol warga komunitas. Gagasan transformative politics menempatkan agenda, strategi, dan aliansi untuk menggunakan berbagai kelembagaan yang sudah ada—namun minimalis dari sisi substansi demokratisasinya—untuk mengenalkan politik dan kebijakan yang bisa membuka kesempatan-kesempatan bagi warga komunitas guna mendorong pengelolaan CSR yang lebih demokratis. Sebagai upaya awal, tulisan ini menghimpun sejumlah keterbatasan dan tantangan penguatan dimensi transformative politics dalam praktik CSR.

In Participation Without Democracy, Garry Rodan argues that as a response to the dynamics and contradiction inherent in the capitalist development, the regime—representing the dominant coalition of interest, the ruling/dominant political elites—‘invent’ ways to contain conflicts with societal entities (i.e., opposition parties, civil societies, labor unions) in a way so that such conflicts do not yield politically harmful impacts.  This argument is based on two propositions. First, the development of capitalism has caused inequality to deepen. Both the ruling political-economy elites and the marginal groups found this inherent inequality and disruption in capitalism created political challenges, which, as a consequence, demand mitigation strategies. Second, the established coalition of interest's tactics handle political dissents towards the regimes move beyond the binary scenarios, not just merely opening political participation or applying coercion means such as crackdown and arrest. Instead, while the elites design the participation and representation institutions as a response to domesticating dissents and conflicts, the marginal groups also respond to those channels beyond being co-opted or merely refuse to join it. Opposition parties, radical NGOs, marginal groups seek to utilize the institutions for their transformative agenda. In short, both the ruling elites and the marginal groups have been engaged in the participating institutions with different goals in mind.