Abstract:
Why pro-decentralization advocacy coalition who support decentralization democracy discourse after big bang decentralization marginalized to transform their policy belief to gain influence in the governance system’ This is the central question to answer in this short paper. To find answers, there are at least two things in the background. Firstly, in the process of transformation of Indonesia from centralized to be decentralized there is a process of debates among three of transnational advocacy coalition.1 They have different bases of policy beliefs, namely administrative discourse that promotes regularity and public services, economic discourse that promotes efficiency and market economy, and political discourse that closer to democratic principles such as democratic representation through parties and elections, human rights, citizens’ democratic self-organising, etc, so that named pro-democracy decentralization. Each discourse supported by epistemic communities that have activities based on research and publications in the universities or institutions of think tanks (Haas, 1992). They also supported by institutions both domestically and internationally who have the resources and funding sources. NGO’s like SMERU, and donor organisations like SfDM (Support for Decentralisation Measures), the Ford Foundation, Asia Foundation and financial giants like the World Bank actively support decentralisation and proclaim a firm ideological belief in its success. In the SMERU report, decentralisation is seen as a big administrative operation in which possible weaknesses can be improved (Syaikhu Usman, 2002). The World Bank sees it as a huge financial operation ‘ with the ominous title “Big Bang” ‘ which can be successfully managed (Hofman and Kaiser, 2002; World Bank, 2003). The Asia Foundation and the Ford Foundation support decentralisation because it is supposed to strengthen democracy and civil society. Second, the importance of the role of pro-decentralization of democracy in the transformation of decentralization in Indonesia in 1999. This group is getting a special place because it is mandated by Presiden Habibie to design governance and post-New Order Indonesia politics through the formation of Team 7, which consists of Ryaas Rasyid, Andi Mallarangeng, Afan Gaffar, Eef Saifullah Fatah, Djohermansyah Djohan, Anas Urbaningrum and Ramlan Surbakti. According to Andi Mallarangeng, in the transformation process of decentralization there are phases that will be passed, namely administrative decentralization, democratic decentralization, and the achievement of decentralization of democracy.2 However, in the development of Indonesian decentralization practices are not as they had hoped, even proponents of decentralization of democracy tend to be marginalized. This paper will based its narrative on information based on library research and interviews that the authors do in the process of preparing a dissertation. Transformative politics framework was used to analyse the case. Although this framework ussually used for annalysing the democratization process, but efforts at crafting liberal democracy have increasingly tended to emphasize decentralization and local democracy (Haris, et al, 2004). So, decentralization can be assessed as one of feature of decentralization process. In critical assessments of democratization (dus decentralization), there are four dimensions that must be considered: the institutional means of democracy (the rule of the game), the most important actors relation to the intitutions, the actors’ political capacity (power), and the dynamics of democratic politics (Olle T?rnquist, 2013). This paper will be more focus on the actors’ role in the decentralization process in Indonesia. The key questions is how do (international and domestic) actors’ strategies and related government policies affect critical aspects of decentralization and vice versa.3 Description of this paper will be divided into several sections. Firstly, the process of fundamental change in the policy of decentralization in Indonesia. Secondly, an important role of a coalition of pro-decentralization of democracy in the transformation of decentralization. And thirdly, a turning point, marginalization discourse and decentralization pro-democracy groups along with the analysis of the cause.
Full Text: