Budget Rp. 25.800.000,00
Rp. 30.000.000,00 Rp. 28.500.000,00
Sports
Budget Rp. 34.950.000,00
Rp. 22.300.000,00 Rp. 22.450.000,00
Health
Budget Rp. 20.000.000,00
Rp. 20.400.000,00 Rp. 38.825.000,00
Arts Culture
Budget Rp. 38.300.000,00
Rp. 24.000.000,00 Rp. 24.700.000,00
SOURCE: BIJAKSANA 2012 AND NURHAYATI 2012
II.2 The Democratic Assessment of P2KB
Using Agger and Lofgrens framework of democratic assessment, we managed to explore the realities within the practice of democracy in the three kelurahans. As mentioned
in the previous section, the smallest unit of community assumed by the government in the P2KB scheme is the workgroups or Pokja, so that participation is considered to be fulfilled
as long as Pokja has managed to fulfill its duty. Pokja is also the core of participation since it is the only channel of participation for ordinary citizens inside a kelurahan. Therefore we
assessed the democratic process relevant to the performance and work of Pokja to determine and explore the extent of participation held by Pokja. Agger and Lofgrens
framework consists of questions concerning few criterias for democracy in 3 phase of planning, which are input, process, and outcomes. We used these questions and our study
on the three kelurahan provided the answers. How democratic the planning process in P2KB had been going is potrayed by the answers of every question. The explanation of
how the democratic process occured is explained in Table below.
Table 5. Indicator of democratic assessment : access
ACCESS Who Are Invited to
Participate?
Which Channels
for Participation Exist?
Do the institutional settings for the processes favour
some types of participants? Are
the processes
transparent? Are
the Outcomes
biased in
terms of
fulfilling the wishes of only certain groups of
participants?
Cipamokolan
According to the rules of P2KB, all of the public
are invited to participate, but in fact those who
have the channel to participate are just a
group of people who are members of Working
Group and those who have direct connection
with the program, such as LPM and RW leader
Istitutional settings of P2KB allows various groups of people
to get involved because it consists of seven different
fields. Beside, decision making process conducted through
deliberation starting from the grassroots level, RT and RW
level. However, this process at the RW level or lower does not
work properly. In addition, the lack of transparency in the
deliberation process at the kelurahan level inhibits wider
public participation.
Program outcomes are driven by the interests of
the Pokja member and board of LPM because
they play an important role in the decision making
process.
Jamika
According to the rules of P2KB, all of the public
are invited to participate, but in fact those who
have the channel to participate are just a
group of people who are members of Pokja and
those who have direct connection
with the
program, such as LPM officials
and
representatives RW.
Istitutional settings of P2KB allows various groups of people
to get involved because it consists of seven different
fields. Beside, decision making process conducted through
deliberation starting from the grassroots level, RT and RW
level. However, in practice, decision-making process only
involves Working Group, LPM officials, and representatives
RW.
This process
is coordinated with the RW
forums. In addition, the lack of transparency of the decision-
making process has resulted suspicion of various groups
whose
interests are
not accommodated in the process.
Program outcomes are driven by the interests of
the Pokja member and board of LPM because
they play an important role in the decision making
process.
ACCESS Who Are Invited to
Participate?
Which Channels
for Participation Exist?
Do the institutional settings for the processes favour
some types of participants? Are
the processes
transparent? Are
the Outcomes
biased in
terms of
fulfilling the wishes of only certain groups of
participants?
Lebak Siliwangi
Pokja P2KB members consists of the chiefs of
RT RW, and members of
PKK Karang
Taruna. The institutional settings tends
to invite participation from people who are active in RT,
RW, and PKK organization. The original development
plan was to provide aid to a
specific scope
of citizens the poor, but
some citizens demand the aid to be given to
everyone regardless the economic condition
Table 6. Indicator of democratic assessment : Public Deliberation
PUBLIC DELIBERATION
Are different types of knowledge included in the
deliberations?
Are the deliberation processes
characterized
by reciprocity
and tolerance?
To what extent do the debates
produce something which is
perceived,
by the
participants, as
essential for
the decision-making
process?
Cipamokolan
Deliberation process
involves only certain groups that are directly related to
the program.
The discussion in the process is
technical issues
so knowledge sharing process
does not seem to be occured optimally.
The principle
of reciprocity
and tolerance
prevail among
groups involved in the process
of deliberation, the Working Group and
LPM officials. The
process of
deliberation does not generate a lot of debate
that led to the creation of knowledge or learning
process. Technical and administrative matters
dominate this process.
Jamika
Learning process occurs only
between Working
Group and LPM officials. Other than that, matters that
are discussed largely in the form of administrative and
technical matters so the process
of knowledge
sharing is not optimal. There
is no
deliberation process in decision-making
process because it conducted through a
closed meeting by the LPM officials and the
Working Group. This process is based on
data collected from community leaders.
Since there
is no
deliberation process,
there was no debate in the forum which able to
produce an essential learning
for the
participants.
Lebak Siliwangi
Pokja members
rarely include non-members in
discussion forums, while the kelurahan level deliberation
mostly discuss the matters considered important by
RW leaders. Representatives
of every RT and RW
already have mutual respect and trust so
that the deliberation at the kelurahan level
LPM
with RW
leaders is considered satisfying
by the
participants The
debates at
kelurahan level provided a mutual understanding
between RW leaders so that they can agree on
the
priorities for
development
Table 7. Indicator of democratic assessment : Adaptiveness
ADAPTIVENESS Are
there clear
rules for
the network
process prior
to the
deliberative process?
Is the
network capable of handling
conflicts?
Is the network’s work secured sustainability and continuity
in
terms of
e.g competencies?
