INTRODUCTION I1 Need to Assess Democratic in Collaborative Planning

Bermartabat P2KB. Partly decentralizing the local government budget to every kelurahan and allowing community leaders to become the planners and decision makers in development programs were deemed to be able to lever the quality of participation and development in the grass roots level of the city. However, the introduction of a participatory development scheme was responded differently by communities as the citizen’s capacity for planning and deliberating also vary. Using Agger and Lofgren’s 2008 framework of democratic assessment, this paper elaborates a multiple-case studies upon the planning and deliberation process inside communities of three kelurahan in Bandung City, namely Cipamokolan, Jamika, and Lebak Siliwangi. The study found that there were disparities between the vision and the practice of P2KB, mostly due to the incapability of the community to practice democracy. This paper also elaborates the unique forms of community’s networks and style for democracy that should be counted for the improvement of future democracy practices. Keywords : Assesment, Community, Democratic, Participatory I. INTRODUCTION II.1 Need to Assess Democratic in Collaborative Planning The development approach in Bandung City changed from top-down to bottom- up approach. The existence of a reform in the development approach is implementing community-oriented development to create a more effective development process. Before entering the reform era in 1998, Indonesia conducted a top-down planning practice with the norms and standards, so many policies aren’t able to answer the problem of local interest context. This situation changed dramatically after the start of the reform era when democratization and decentralization occurred in urban policy and governance processes. The planning ideas become more pluralistic, dynamic and discursive. From a rational choice perspective, an individual constantly searches for more efficient means to achieve her or his ends. Where cooperation can lead to more efficient means, cooperation becomes the more rational strategy. But this requires some degree of certainty in the cooperation. Each agent must have a sense that the other agents’ self- interest also requires their continued cooperation. Ostrom 1998 has shown empirically that building conditions of reciprocity, reputation, and trust can help to overcome strong temptations for individuals to work only toward their short-term self-interest. The results of working collaboratively on problems are more beneficial to participants than action based on non collaborative choice methods Ostrom, 1998. There was an effort to involve the community in the development process done by assigning a major role to the community not only as objects but as subjects in development. This is in accordance with the principles of participatory development that confirms that the people should be the main actors in development. The role of local organizations, social organizations, NGOs and other community groups more encouraged as an implementing agent of change and implementing social services to vulnerable groups and the general public. In such a position, then the social issues addressed by the community for the facilitation of the government. Its implementation was made in City Legislature number 6 of 2005 that concerning the establishment of LPM Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat that serves to contain and channel the aspirations of the people, so that they can participate in all aspects of planning, coordination and monitoring of community-based development as well as a medium of communication and information between governments at the local people with the community and among fellow community. Regulation on the establishment of a community development was formed in an effort to accommodate and channel the aspirations of the people in the development process at the local level. In the process of implementation is expected the process of increasing the capacity of communities so that communities can actively engage in it. In addition, community participation is certainly expected to be a solution or development plans produced to answer the issues raised in the local environment. The main target in the establishment of institutional LPM is seeking active participation in the implementation of the development process at the local level. Development is also an effort to generate ideas of progress, connotes forward or a higher level.From the characteristic of governance model in LPM policy is called corporatist style. Collaborative planning style is that occurs primarily in the distributive sectors of local governance. Although the emphasis in on safe guarding and promoting the interest of the institution’s members, there is also a strong commitment to participatory democracy in a broader sense. Institution tends to propel counterorganization Coser, 1956, which need high levels of collective participation. Collaborative planning potrays local goverment as a political and democratic system for the inclusion of social groups and organized interests in the urban political process. Policy deliberation is seen as bargaining processes between these interests Hernes and Selvik 1983;Villadsen 1986, and local government is seen as an instrument to create consensus. The key criterion of assessment this model is participatory local democracy. The main objective of collaborative planning is distributive, ensuring that the interests of the organization’s membership. Collaborative planning serves to coordinate the programs and actions by the local goverment and organized interest because both types of actors are involved in urban politics and public service delivery. Generally the instrument for participatory and community-driven development programs in Bandung consists of the program scheme and the institutions in charge of the program. institutions, which is the city government itself and the community institution called Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Community Empowerment Institution or LPM in the sub-district kelurahan level. District kecamatan and sub-district kelurahan government plays the major role to administer community-level developments. They mainly serve to provide data and development proposals from citizens for the city government so that the city government may have a broader consideration when planning for development. Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan Development Planning Deliberation Forum or Musrenbang is the instrument in which the kecamatan and kelurahan government may administer community-level developments. LPM in the other hand, is a community-based independent organization although its standards for the organization design is regulated by the city legislature peraturan daerah number 6 of year 2005. Based on the legislature, LPM is based on every kelurahan and its main role is to facilitate the participation of citizens in the development process. In the overview, the legal rights to fund and execute programs remain in the hands of the city government, but citizens have the opportunity to adjust how the programs will be done by participating in LPM. In the context of Bandung, LPM plays a significant role in the P2KB program that would be explained later in this article. There are two main development programs which reflect the provision of citizen participation in determining the city development. The first program is a national standard scheme that obliges local government to hold Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan Development Planning Deliberation Forum or Musrenbang until the kelurahan level. The second program is the city’ innovative scheme namely Percepatan Pembangunan Kelurahan Bermartabat Kelurahan Development Acceleration Program or P2KB which decentralizes some of the city budget APBD Kota to the communities in every kelurahan. Both programs have different mechanism and degree on citizen participation. Musrenbang facilitates the voices of citizens in form of development proposals to be considered by the city government resulting on the government’s allowance to carry out the elected proposals within the year. P2KB have a different kind of approach since its basic idea is to allocate a fixed amount of the local government’s funds to every kelurahan in the city resulting in the execution of programs desired by the community. According to Undang-undang State Legislature number 25 of year 2004, Musrenbang is a forum meant to facilitate actors to design the national and local development plans, and the obligation to hold these forums are assigned to the national, province, and cit y government. However, in the Government’s Regulation Peraturan Pemerintah number 8 of year 2008 and the Ministry of Internal Affair’s Regulation Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri number 20 of year 2010, Musrenbang should be held in kecamatan and kelurahan level to focalize, synergize, clarify, and legitimatize the community level development which is integrated with the local government’s development priorities. Musrenbang is held every year respective to the annual local government planning and budgeting process. The planning process under the Musrenbang scheme starts with the planning and deliberation forum of citizens on each kelurahan. Assisted by LPM, the kelurahan officials hold the forum and legalize the result of the discussion as the formal development proposal of the kelurahan. Kecamatan officials would hold another forum to collect and discuss the proposals from every kelurahan under the corresponding kecamatan. At this point, the substances of the proposals are reduced due to the priority setting by the kecamatan government. Prioritized proposals would then get legalized by the kecamatan government and it soon would serve as the formal development proposal of the kecamatan. Finally, the city government would collect all the proposals from all kecamatan and hold the final forum to determine which proposal or program should be prioritized and be executed. The budget constrain implies in the limited amount of programs to be funded and executed by the government. The execution itself is assigned to the government, in other terms, citizens only need to watch and see the development program being carried out by the government. Different than Musrenbang, the development process under the P2KB scheme puts the community in each kelurahan as the key decision makers. In the P2KB scheme, both kelurahan government and LPM work together. Lurah kelurahan chief acts as the supervisor while LPM acts as the coordinator of P2KB effectuation team TPK-P2KB which consist of various elements of the community PKK, RTRW, Karang Taruna, etc. The result of TPK-P2KB forum is the creation of 7 Working Groups Pokja which constitutes citizens who are ready to engage in P2KB to facilitate the development inside the community. Basically these Pokja will be the instrument of citizen participation, where ordinary citizens may take part in the processes ranging from the process of planning, implementation, and evaluation. Under the supervision of kecamatan-level facilitator officials selected by the city government to assist and supervise Pokja in every kelurahan of one kecamatan, Pokja creates the development program proposals. LPM will then facilitate a deliberation forum between Pokja, the kelurahan government, and citizens to finalize and legitimize the development proposal. The proposal would be examined and revised by the kecamatan facilitator. After the approval of the facilitator, LPM may forward the proposals to the city government and ask for the approval for funding. In 2011, the funding for every kelurahan reaches the amount of Rp.200.000.000,00 while in 2012 the amount has doubled. However, LPM and Pokjas may only access the funds after they have finished working on their development programs, so basically the city government doesn’t give a grant based on proposals but based on bills. However, not only programs carried by the local city government, the communities of Bandung City also experience the indulgence of the provincial government and national government participatory development programs. Some of these programs actually precede the local programs like P2KB. Community institutions such as Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat Community’s Organ for Self-Sustaining or BKM have been popular in some districts in Bandung due to the community development program its assigned to namely Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri National Program on Community Empowerment. Though such programs are not under the jurisprudence of the city government, the existence of community level development and institutions also influence the performance and assessment of the local community-level developments. The initial thoughts on collaborative planning considered the implication of these proccesses for democratic governance in wider context only to a limited extent. Collaborative planning is mediating proccess between conflicting social interest and creating common visions of the future of a particular geographical area Healey, 2003. Collaborative planning is put in the same category of new democratic instruments as, for example, ‘deliberative polls’, where the planning processes, as well as possessing value in mediating between social actors, serve as vehicles for establishing new avenues of more deliberative and participatory modes of democratic governance in addition to liberal representative institutions Collaborative Democracy Network, 2005. There is an overlap concept between theoritical planning approaches and political science frameworks for new modes of democracy, where ideas on ‘collaborative policymaking’ Innes and Booher, 2003 and ‘collaborative public management’ Blomgren Bingham and O’Leary, 2006, for examples, are shared across various disciplinary boundaries. Consequently, it can be said that the collaborative planning tradition is forced to re flect on the procedural outcomes of the processes in a wider democratic perspective. Second, collaborative planning is a public policy-making process by default, and as such, part of the democratic governance of a certain territory albeit on a micro-level. Even though collaborative planning processes are normally based on delegated actors from traditional representative democratic institutions within a limited geographical area, and usually include only those ‘stakeholders’ who are directly involved in a planning decision, they do not take place outside the framework of a political system. Since collaborative planning activities have become institutionalized policy-making processes across many democratic systems, they should also be subject to democratic scrutiny in line with other political institutions and processes in society. Third, while evaluation per se is a well-established aspect of planning practice in general, the focus within planning research has been mainly on technical and physical achievements Khakee, 1998, rather than on the normative democratic foundations. Both among scholars and in the community of planning practitioners, there seems to be substantial uncertainty about how to assess the democratic effects of collaborative planning processes Abelson and Gauvin, 2006, while at the same time, there is a demand for methods on how to appraise the democratic performance in collaborative planning projects. I.2 Democratic Assesment Democracy inevitably implies a normative point of reference. There are five criterias for evaluating democratic processes have been widely accepted, at least among students of democracy Dahl, 1979, 1998; see Habermas, 1996b; Saward, 2001. The five criteria to assess democratic are 1 effective participation, 2 voting equality, 3 enlightened understanding, 4 control of the agenda and 5 inclusion of all adults Dahl, 1998. These unify traditional democratic norms supplemented from the rich literature on communicative and collaborative planning especially where it relates to criteria for collaborative processes and potential outcomes. There are following norms as a point of departure for developing evaluation criteria which used in this paper they are 1 access, inclusion and participation, 2 public deliberation, 3 democratic adaptiveness, 4 accountability and 5 the development of democratic identities Agger, 2008. The method used for the selection of research studies in the entire region is a case study. Case study research is used to answer the types of research questions how or why, when the researcher has little possibility or power to control the events that will be examined, and the events that will be examined is a contemporary phenomenon within a real life context Yin, 1994. Criteria for case study according to Yin was fulfilled by this evaluation study because the study aims to answer how the programs effectiveness in achieving the berswadaya P2KB Bandung. Researchers also did not have the control to affect P2KB program impact, and community empowerment programs with the participation of the approach is still a contemporary phenomenon. The scope of the research study is the Bandung with a unit of analysis at the kelurahan level, they are Kelurahan Cipamokolan, Kelurahan Jamika and Kelurahan Lebak Siliwangi. This research uses multiple case study method. According to Yin 1994, multiple case study conducted in an expected would happen logic replication replication logic to support the truth of a theory. Logic replication can occur in the presence of the same or identical or contrasting results for predictable reasons. Theoretical framework should clearly identify the conditions that existed when certain phenomena are easily found, and when it was not easy to find Yin, 1994. Yin explained that the number of cases replication depends on certainty to be achieved and the richness of the underlying theoretical propositions. I.3 Percepatan Pembangunan Kelurahan Bermartabat P2KB The institutional design of city-level development in Bandung is reflected on two institutions, which is the city government itself and the community institution called Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Community Empowerment Institution or LPM in the sub-district kelurahan level. District kecamatan and sub-district kelurahan government plays the major role to administer community-level developments. They mainly serve to provide data and development proposals from citizens for the city government so that the city government may have a broader consideration when planning for development. LPM in the other hand, is a community-based independent organization although its standards for the organization design is regulated by the city legislature peraturan daerah number 6 of year 2005. Based on the legislature, LPM is based on every kelurahan and its main role is to facilitate the participation of citizens in the development process. In the context of Bandung, LPM plays a significant role in the P2KB. P2KB have a different kind of approach since its basic idea is to allocate a fixed amount of the local government’s funds to every kelurahan in the city resulting in the execution of programs desired by the community. The regulation and arrangements for P2KB 2011 itself is based in the Mayor Regulation number 380 of year 2011. The development process under the P2KB scheme puts the community in each kelurahan as the key decision makers. In the P2KB scheme, both kelurahan government and LPM work together. Lurah kelurahan chief acts as the supervisor while LPM acts as the coordinator of P2KB effectuation team TPK-P2KB which consist of various elements of the community PKK, RTRW, Karang Taruna, etc. The result of TPK-P2KB forum is the creation of 7 Working Groups Pokja which constitutes citizens who are ready to engage in P2KB to facilitate the development inside the community. The establishment of Pokja is the core of the P2KB implementation at the kelurahan level. Under the scheme of P2KB, Pokja is considered as the smallest citizen unit, therefore the optimum participation is assumed to be achieved when every Pokja in all kelurahan performed effectively. This perspective ignored the participation degree or access to participation of an ordinary citizen inside a community. This perspective does not imply that the government is not willing to empower the whole society by setting Pokja as the representatives of citizen’s participation, but enabling the participation of every single citizen in the city is something unrealistic. Therefore, basically these Pokja will be the instrument of citizen participation, where ordinary citizens may take part in the processes ranging from the process of planning, implementation, and evaluation. This implies that to measure a deeper comprehension on the participation process to a broader range of citizens inside a community, the assessment should take place in the democratic processes inside Pokjas. There are several actors involved in the P2KB process. The government, the community, and the third-party - the consultants and facilitators - play different roles in P2KB in order to accomplish a synergized program. The roles and instruments of each actor in P2KB is described in the following table. Table 1. Instrument of the program and their role in the program Instrument Role City Government City level P2KB Coordination Team TK-P2KB, Kecamatan and Kelurahan Government. Establishing the climate for citizen participation and empowerment, Encouraging the improvement of institutional capacity between the government and citizens, Auditing actors of P2KB shifting the role of government from executor to enabler and from bureaucracy to facilitation, Regulating the process of P2KB. Community LPM, Working Groups Kelompok KerjaPokja Establishment of Pokja, Identification of community issues and problems, Preparing the development plan proposal, Executing P2KB development programs, Reporting the execution of P2KB in community Third-Party Consultants on Management, Kecamatan Facilitator Establish and Supervise the institutional and managerial arrangements to bridge the gap between citizens and government an to support the implementation of P2KB, Assisting the communities to develop P2KB plans respect to the instructions and regulations enacted by the City Government SOURCE: PERATURAN WALIKOTA BANDUNG NOMOR 380 TAHUN 2011 Under the supervision of kecamatan-level facilitator officials selected by the city government to assist and supervise Pokja in every kelurahan of one kecamatan, Pokja creates the development program proposals. LPM will then facilitate a deliberation forum between Pokja, the kelurahan government, and citizens to finalize and legitimize the development proposal. The proposal would be examined and revised by the kecamatan facilitator. After the approval of the facilitator, LPM may forward the proposals to the city government and ask for the approval for funding. In 2011, the funding for every kelurahan reaches the amount of Rp.200.000.000,00 while in 2012 the amount has doubled. However, LPM and Pokjas may only access the funds after they have finished working on their development programs, so basically the city government doesn’t give a grant based on proposals but based on bills. FIGURE 1. PHASE OF THE P2KB SOURCE: PERATURAN WALIKOTA BANDUNG NOMOR 380 TAHUN 2011 The creation of working groups Pokja are respect to the seven priority agendas for development established by the city government for the current period of administration. The seven agendas are education, health, prosperity, environment, arts culture, sports, and religion. The focus of development in these agendas are as mentioned in table 2. Table 2. Seven agenda of P2KB Development Agenda Focus of development Education Center of Community Learning Pusat Kegiatan Belajar Masyarakat, Community Children Playgroup PAUD, Community Reading Centers, Assistance for children with lack access to formal education. Health Maintenance and Facilities for Posyandu and Clean Water, Training for PosyanduPKK cadres, Free Medication for the poor, Campaign on Health, AIDS, and Narcotics. Prosperity Entrepreneurship development, Establishment of Community Micro- Finance Institution, Assistance for Community SMEs Environment Provision of Community Green Spaces, Vegetation plantings, Provision of water catchment facilities, waste management facilities, and public sanitary facilities Arts Culture Provision of Arts Equipment, Conservation of Arts Culture, Arts Culture activities and training. Sports Community Sports Events, Provision of Sports Equipment Religion Religious Education, Improvement of Religious Tolerance, Development of Islamic Centers SOURCE: PERATURAN WALIKOTA BANDUNG NOMOR 380 TAHUN 2011 II. DISCUSSION II.1 The Democratic Assessment