g competencies? DISCUSSION 1 The Democratic Assessment

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? Cipamokolan There are no clear rules in deliberative process. Network formed because of access to resources. Conflicts remain latent, the interests of the marginal people can’t be accommodated. There is no attempt to resolve this conflict, because the conflict has not manifested yet. Network formed to possess direct competence of actor’s program, especially for working group and LPM officials. Jamika Network occur in groups of people who have a channel to the program. Exclusive network can be latent conflict. Such as suspicion and apathy of the parties who were not involved in the network. Network formed to possess direct competence of actor’s program, especially for working group and board LPM. This netowork involving institutions at the kelurahan level that has the capacity in seven program areas. In addition, this network also invite competent individuals who are not involved in the institution to take into it Lebak Siliwangi The network process prior to the deliberative process are mainly focused on the arguments of RT RW leaders only, still cannot reach citizens outside the RT RW leader’s circle. The deliberation of RW leaders had successfully managed conflicts among RW, but most RW leaders still cannot handle the conflicts with their subordinate RT leaders. P2KB indirectly provides incentive for the citizens to create the long-term kelurahan development plan document. Through this plan, the sustainability continuity can be achieved. II.3 Critical Issues of Democracy Practice Access Program P2KB approach based community empowerment and active community participation in development at the local area. Parsons, et.al. 1994 under Suharto, 2005 stated that empowerment is a process by which people become strong enough to participate in, sharing control of the country, and the influence of events and institutions that affect their lives. Thus, participation is a strategy, process, and purpose of a community empowerment in various forms, such as programs P2KB. Therefore, the access to be able to participate in planning process is the main purpose of empowerment program. Based on studies in the three villages, the new public participation at the level of the organization at kelurahan officially mandated to three actor, they are LPM, member of the working group, and chairman of RW. Diana Conyers in Nurdin, 2000: 16 see that there are two factors that determine a persons wish to participate, that the results obtained from their participation and any special interests or benefits that may be obtained in accordance with their needs. These common interests will arise if people know clearly the benefits of the program so they could put themselves in a part of the program. Referring to Hikmat 2006, genuine participation in Kelurahan Jamika, Cipamokolan, and Lebaksiliwangi are actually hard to realized due to low ability and willingness of the community in the socio-political processes that occur in the environment. In general, people in both kelurahan are relatively low educated. They lack of understanding of the problems they face which in turn have an impact to the low of willingness and ability to solve those problems. That kind of community, according to Hikmat 2006, are less familiar with democracy procedures or processes in solving the problem. Referring to Arnstein 1969, resistance of powerholders to redistribute the power can become an obstacle to community participation. This is what happen in both areas of study that has led to the phenomena of elite captured where power only distributed in some circles: LPM, Pokja, and local leaders. These situation —low ability of communities in the sociopolitical process and the ressistance of powerholders to share the power —inhibit the community participation in all stage of the program. Hikmat 2006 noted that thing to remember is the tendency of government’s role that is too dominant at all levels of the organizational structure to the local level, which in turn will have an impact of mismatch between development programs and community needs. This occurs in both kelurahan, where government organization’s role at the kelurahan-level named LPM, dominate the overall interests of the community. In the end, benefits of the program in both kelurahan have not reached the community at the bottom level and do not meet the actual needs of the community itself. It caused by two factors. First, the closure of access to information by a group of people who intend to prevent the distribution of power and benefits of the program to the public which called ellite captured phenomena. Second, the lack of knowledge and understanding of community empowerment or community driven development at the level of the Pokja and LPM. The lack of knowledge at the level of LPM and Pokja caused their inability to function as a community organization to encourage community participation in the program. Program P2KB ini sudah berhasil mengakumulasi partisipasi dalam tahap perencanaan program dan pengambilan keputusan pada level kelompok dan pengurus kelurahan, namun belum berhasil mendorong partisipasi masyarakat pada level komunitas di bawahnya. Arnstein 1969 states the strategies to encourage public participation in the collaborative processes are equity, mutual goal setting, resource allocation, program operation, and the delivery of benefits to society. Thus, access to information is an important aspect to encourage public participation. Public Deliberation Fundamental phase of participation in this program are made through discussions at the level of RT, RW up to the city level. Deliberation process in this program is used to accommodate the aspirations, determine priority needs and to decide which program will be proposed to the municipal level. Participation in the process of deliberation in the three kelurahan are indirect participation, which occurs when actors have participation rights to legitimate their position Dusseldrop in Prawesti, 2006. Working groups in three kelurahan are not elected by the people but by the LPM, RW and community leaders. LPM is an institution which encourage working group of actors involved in the planning and decision making. The decisions supposed to represent the communitys decision. But the fact is the decision was made by only several actors. It caused suspicion and apathy of the parties who were not involved in the network. Therefore, the awareness to participate in program becomes low because people do not have access to the program. Interests of society can not be represented in the working group. Furthermore, the selection mechanism of working group is not derived from the peoples aspirations P2KB still dominated by interests of some groups. Kelurahan Jamika selection process is determined by the board working group LPM, particularly chairman LPM, Kelurahan Cipamokolan already involve RW and several community leaders, but the process is not going well because of the role of the LPM still relatively dominate by several actors Nurhayati, 2012. Meanwhile, studies of Bijaksana 2012 suggests that the Kelurahan Lebaksiliwangi is more democratic in involving the heads of RW. LPM no longer dominate this process but done in consultation with the chairman of RW. So even in the process of decision making and priority setting requirements always involves RW, RW is through forums. The process of deliberation is a process in which the parties are conducting transactions and compromises the interests to result in a good decision for all parties. Compromise the interests in the Kelurahan Jamika occured between LPM and working group, in the Kelurahan Cipamokolan occurred between pegurus LPM, working group, and some community leaders, while in the Kelurahan Lebaksiliwangi occurred between RW by RW forums. However, the three style democracy produces something similar, which is a compromise decision yet fully accepted by society. There are many people who feel their interests have not been accommodated in the compromise. The process of compromise in generating debate and deliberation bargaining among actors. The process is capable of producing knowledge through learning between actors. However, the limitations of the actors in the absence of knowledge and experience as well as a facilitator in the district is not able to lead the process of generating knowledge or learning the optimal. Improved knowledge of construction management at the local level can be seen at the level of government organizations at the village, but it is not significant. This increase was still at the level of willingness to participate has not been on stage with the ability to participate in knowledge-base and understanding of the socio- political system is good. Because of this deliberation is a process of compromise between the actors involved, the characteristics of reciprocity and tolerance prevail among them. Adaptiveness In the context of planning in the public domain there are many actors involved. Actors are differentiated based on level of power. Therefore, in the planning process, including community empowerment programs such as P2KB, network process becomes very important. As explained earlier, decision-making through deliberation is essentially a compromise between actors in it. Network will determine from who actors involved and how they role the program. There are no clear rules regarding network processes in the deliberative process. Network formed by itself because of the access to resources in the program. In Kelurahan Jamika where LPM have built a network through an election working group called Pokja and selected other actors involved, LPM play dominant role in the overall process of program. Meanwhile, Kelurahan Cipamokolan have a good network among institutions at the kelurahan level such as LPM, PKK, and the local government so that the member of these institutions take on the role. As in Kelurahan Jamika through forum RW where RW and RT leaders also already have a good network, they became main actors in the program. This is as what Stoker 1994 noted in his theory of the urban regyme that characteristics of the plural in the public planning that caused political power plays a major role in the decision-making process. The community capacity to manage the programs is not merely reflected in the community institution such as LPM, but also the interaction between LPM, other institution at the kelurahan level, and the people. Hague 2000 argues that planning does not belong to planners only but also collectively belong to the stakeholders involved and affected by planning. The study by Nurhayati 2012 in Jamika and Cipamokolan reveals distrust from citizens to LPM and Pokja on account of the lack of transparency shown by LPM. The process to gain consensus becomes a lot more difficult and it might possibly generate a new problem within the society. On the other hand, Bijaksana 2012 found that a strong network between RW leaders leads to public rejection to the decission that been taken because it does not meet the needs of the community. Thus, the consensus that must be achieved is not only between actors that have legitimacy to represent the public aspirations, but also the community itself. Conflicts that arise from the different styles of democracy in these three kelurahan can not be handled by existing network. Conflicts relating to the public atgrassroot levels still latent conflict that threatens the success of the program objectives. In some cases, formed network also ignores the competencies required, but emphasizes competence in the actors that exist in these network. this happened in the Kelurahan Cipamokolan where most of the activities following the competence of the LPM officials, Pokja, and actors who directly involved in the deliberation process. Study by Nurhayati 2012 showed that benefit of these activities enjoyed only by those actors, not answered the need of society at large.

III. CONCLUSIONS