1

Decentralization and Democratization in the Post-Suharto Era: Lessons from Kota Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia1

Dr. Mudiyati Rahmatunnisa Padjadjaran University, Bandung Indonesia (mudiyati@yahoo.com)

After more than forty years under a highly centralized political system and an authoritarian state, the collapse of Suhartos New Order regime in mid 1998 marked a new beginning for Indonesia as a nation state. The collapse ushered in the so-called era reformasi (reform era) and significant political and governance reforms have seen the dismantling of the countrys authoritarian power structure and its centralized governance system. One essential change has been the implementation of a decentralization policy, commonly known in Indonesia as regional autonomy, within the country as an indispensable part of developing a more democratic political system.2 The policy was introduced initially by the stipulation of the autonomy laws of 1999 which were replaced by the autonomy laws of 2004. How far has decentralization policy in Indonesia promoted democratization in the regions?

This paper was presented to the 18th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Adelaide, 5-8 July 2010. It has been peered reviewed via a double referee process and appears on the Conference Proceedings Website by the permission of the author who retains copyright. This paper may be downloaded for fair use under the Copyright Act (1954), its later amendments and other relevant legislation. 2 The term decentralization in this paper is meant to be synonymous with regional autonomy, which is translated from the Indonesian otonomi daerah.

This paper contributes to this debate by specifically discussing the case of Kota (City of) Cirebon, a district government in West Java Province. In particular, I question whether or not these reforms have been directed toward a more democratic and inclusive local governance. Has deepening democracy become a priority at all? In answering these questions, I will limit my focus to discussing reforms that have been conducted by and within three important elements of local governance. These are the local bureaucracy, the local parliament (DPRD)3, and civil society organizations. I will then argue that the implementation of decentralization in Kota Cirebon has not effectively promoted democratization as the meaningful institutionalization of inclusive local governance has not been well founded. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, decentralization does increase the activities of civil society organizations.

Local bureaucracy in the aftermath of the Big Bang: business as usual? Radical transformation in terms of the legal framework through the enforcement of two 1999 decentralization laws in early January 2001 does not necessarily mean that it was directly followed by radical transformation in terms of the structure and the working procedures of the bureaucracy in many regions. In fact, Rohdewohld (2003: 259) argues that reform in this pivotal element has been one of the forgotten elements of the profound reforms processes that have taken place since the late 1990s. He particularly highlights the few changes in the ways in which civil servants conduct their activities and the way that public institutions deliver their services. Potentially, as Rohdewohld further argues, this can contribute to difficulties in enhancing democratization in the regions. A similar condition happened in Kota Cirebon. Up until late 2006, there have not been any significant changes in bureaucratic structures in this region. The structures are almost the same as those based on the New Orders decentralization law, Law No. 5 of 1974. Under Law No. 22 of 1999, the only changes were in the nomenclature of
3

DPRD stands for Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah.

several operational divisions (Dinas-dinas), technical agencies (Badan-badan), and technical offices (Kantor-kantor). However, their tasks and functions remained similar. The adjustment toward new bureaucratic structures based on the latest decentralization law, Law No. 32 of 2004 has not been carried out despite the fact that this law came into force in October 2004.4 In other words, old bureaucratic structures continue to exist despite the fact that there has been unprecedented devolution of authority in the post-New Order regime. In addition, little has happened in terms of the working procedures of these various local institutions. Examining policy-making is an interesting way to determine the extent to which the working procedures of bureaucratic structures have shifted (or not). It is widely known that during the pre-decentralization era, almost all decisions involving regions were made centrally by the national government, but with the devolution of unprecedented authority to local governments, they gained the power to make decisions on issues affecting their respective regions. More importantly, as democratization is among the principle objectives of Indonesias decentralization (Aspinall & Fealy 2003: 4; Rasyid 2003: 64), this implies that decisions will be made according to democratic procedures within which a participatory decision-making paradigm is applied. Here, participatory decision-making is defined as meaningful public involvement in the formulation of local government policies (Barry 1993: 80; Charlick 2001), which goes beyond ratifying decisions made elsewhere (Uphoff 1985). Notwithstanding the above ideal objective, surprisingly, little seems to have changed in the way that decision-making processes are undertaken within various bureaucracies in Kota Cirebon.
5

The processes have been conducted exclusively by

staff within the Sekda (Local Secretariat) and related Dinas, Badan, or Kantor. In other words, local stakeholders have no involvement in the democratic process
4 5

Interview with a staff at Regional Autonomy Division of Kota Cirebon, 15 May 2006. Interview with the head of Organization Division and the head of Institutional Subdivision , 23 May 2006, and also with the head of Regulation and Law Subdivision, 17 May 2006, and a staff member the at Regional Autonomy Division Kota Cirebon, 18 May 2006.

despite the fact that the outcomes are local regulations that will eventually affect local communities directly or indirectly. Unsurprisingly, these exclusionary processes often result in cases where the public reject Mayor (Walikota) decisions because they are against the publics wishes (Republika, 21 December 2004; Republika, 6 February 2004; Republika, 14 January 2005).

DPRD and its role in local governance democratization effort: a mirage? The post-decentralization era has brought significant shifts in the existence of the DPRD. Law No. 22 of 1999 endowed the DPRD with a dominant role vis--vis the head of a region (kepala daerah) in local governance. The main aim was to bring in democratic local governance in many regions through, among other things, the empowerment of the DPRD as the representative of local communities and as an institution that held the authority to hold kepala daerahs accountable for their performance. In addition, the 1999 election could also have contributed to a significant shift in the performance of the DPRD Cirebon since the election changed the long lasting composition of the DPRD which Golkar had dominated for nearly a quarter of a century.6 Has this aim been achieved? Regional officials widely admit that these fundamental shifts made the local political dynamic in Kota Cirebon significant particularly in terms of the relationship between DPRD and kepala daerah.7 The promulgation of the 1999 decentralization laws dramatically shifted this paradigm toward one where the DPRD became very powerful and accordingly, was able to carry out its control function over the kepala daerahs activities. In other words, a checks and balances mechanism was eventually
6

The 1999 resulted in the emergence of five new political parties in DPRD Cirebon: PDI-P (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia-Perjuangan, Indonesia Democratic Party-Struggle); PAN (Partai Amanat Nasional, National Mandate Party); PKB (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa, National Awakening Party); PKP (Partai Keadilan & Persatuan, Justice & Unity Party); PBB (Partai Bulan Bintang, Crescent Star Party). 7 Interview with Chair of DPRD Cirebon 2004-2009, 24 May 2006, with Agus Alwafier, Deputy Mayor of Cirebon, 25 May 2006, and with head of general subdivision at BAPPEDA (Regional Planning and Development Board) 17 May 2006

able to be implemented after being absent for more than three decades. One interesting case in the early stage of the decentralization process in Kota Cirebon which confirms this assertion regards an accountability report of the Mayor of Cirebon (LPJ Walikota) in 2002. For the first time, after nearly three decades, this session was coloured by a new phenomenon. Five fractions accepted the LPJ but commented that the Mayor needed to improve his performance in his next

incumbency (Golkar, PAN, PKB, PPP and TNI/Polri), two fractions (PDI-P and PKP) rejected the report because they found some improprieties in LPJ actions, and one fraction (PBB) abstained (Kompas, 10 April 2002).
8

Such a case could be

regarded as a significant shift in terms of establishing a pivotal democratic mechanism in local governance. The local political dynamic between the Mayor and the DPRD escalated in 2003 and 2004. In fact, in November 2003, another interesting phenomenon occurred when DPRD Cirebon for the first time in nearly a quarter century, used the interpellation rightthe right to ask the Mayor about certain local government policies or actions.9 The use of this right was triggered by the DPRDs dissatisfaction over the Mayors poor performance (Pikiran Rakyat, 19 November 2003; Kompas, 2 October 2003). In 2004, the LPJ Walikota session was distinguished by the rejection by four fractions (PDI-P, Golkar, PKP and PBB) because the performance of the Mayor considered to be very poor (Kompas, 14 April 2004). Notwithstanding the aforementioned description, to conclude that the DPRD Cirebon has contributed to the promotion of democratization in the region would be misleading. Deepening democracy does not only require strong elected legislatures for establishing horizontal accountability, but also for effectively representing and injecting the interests and concerns of their constituents into the policy process
8 9

was

Fraction is grouping in the DPRD based on political party or TNI/Polri membership. Law No. 22 of 1999 endowed DPRD with several rights in relation with its role as the executives supervisor. These rights are right to hold accountable kepala daerah, right to question kepala daerah (interpellation right), right to conduct investigation regarding the implementation of local policies (inquiry right), right to express opinion, right to propose local regulations, right to propose DPRDs budget, and right to compose DPRDs code of conduct (Article 19).

(Diamond 1999: 98). To do this, elected legislatures must have resourceful organizational structures technically and financially, and also have experienced members as well as effective means for promoting citizen access to the legislative process (Diamond 1999: 98). However, like in many other newly democratic countries, for the DPRD Cirebon, these aspects are lacking.10There has been no clear channel for the public to get involved in pivotal process such as the LPJ Walikota and local policy-making processes.11 This condition has worsened following the promulgation of Law No. 32 of 2004 on regional autonomy. A significant reduction of the DPRDs authority vis--vis the executive and the budget constraint of the DPRDs have further discouraged MPs in carrying out their tasks. Another aspect that has also contributed to the poor performance of the DPRD Cirebon in promoting democratization is the undemocratic decision-making procedures. On this matter, the DPRD Cirebon has constantly received criticism from many parties in the region, including several MPs (Fahmina Institute & Partnership for Governance Reform, 2003/2004b; Poerwanto n.d).12Up until now, Kota Cirebon has no legal stipulation in the form of a Perda that ensures that local constituents, individually or as groups, are substantively involved in the decision-making process either within bureaucracies or in the DPRD. It is interesting to note here that in January 2004, a non-profit organization called Fahmina Institute
13

in collaboration

with Partnership for Governance Reform,14 initiated a workshop attended by multiple-stakeholders to formulate a draft Perda on public participation in local

10 11

Interview with a MP from PAN, 25 June 2006. Interview with a MP from PKS, 22 May 2006, and with a MP from PD, 25 June 2006. 12 Interview with head of general subdivision Bappeda Kota Cirebon, 25 May 2006, with an activist from Fahmina Institute, 19 May 2006, with two MPs from PD (Partai Demorat, Democratic Party) and PKS, 25 May 2006. 13 Fahmina Institute is a locally-based non-profit organization which focuses on religious and social studies, and community empowerment. 14 A cooperative organization between the Indonesian government, civil society, the private sector and international society, which focuses on conducting good governance participatory appraisals.

policy-formulation.

However, according to Obeng, an activist from Fahmina

Institute, there was no positive response from either the DPRD or the executive.15 Unsurprisingly, such a lack of public involvement in decision-making processes has resulted in many local regulations in the form of Perda or DPRD Decisions that do not represent the communities interests. Most of decisions are related to tax and retribution, governance administration or internal DPRD regulations (Kota Cirebon Website). In fact, some of them are pointedly against public wishes, such as those of Perda No. 9 of 2003 on Public Order (Ketertiban Umum) which invited a wave of protest from street vendors and tricycle drivers, or entrepreneurs who refused to pay tax and retribution because they has not been involved in the regulation making process ( Fahmina Institute & Partnership for Governance Reform, 2003/2004b; Blakasuta, 02 Edition/14 January 2004; Radar Cirebon, 21 December 2004).

Public participation in development planning and the emergence of grassroots civil society organizations in local politics: the bright side? Public participation in development planning processes constitutes an interesting phenomenon in recent decentralization practices. During the pre-decentralization era, development planning in the regions was regulated in Permendagri (MoHA Regulation) No. 9 of 1982 on P5D (Formulation Guideline for Development Planning and Control in the Region) which, de facto, adopted a fairly top-down process (Usui and Alisjahbana 2003:7; Hidayat and Antlov 2004: 267-268). Since 2003 the development planning paradigm has been changed through the launching of the FKPP (Participatory Development Coordination Forum). Normatively through the FKPP local citizenry was given the opportunity to participate in formulating the annual development planning process. The process resulted in a list of development programs which then became the basis for the
15

Interview with Obeng, 19 May 2006.

making of the APBD. However, a study conducted by the Fahmina Institute revealed that participation by the local citizenry during the FKPP process was no more than supplying information regarding their needs and aspirations (Blakasuta, 03 Edition/14 February 2004: 12). The local citizenry had no opportunity to participate further, particularly in the making of local budget (APBD).16 Thus, the FKPP forum was not considered to be an effective participatory forum since it was de facto dominated by both the executive and the DPRD. Their total domination also occurred during the formulation of the APBD, a process which only involved the Budget Team from the executive and the Budget Committee from the DPRD. The public was totally excluded. 17 Furthermore, a public opinion survey conducted by the Fahmina Institute revealed that, the DPRD has never been able to perform effectively in representing the publics interests during the formulation of the APBD. Instead, MPs have been inclined to strive for their own narrow-interests as proven in huge budget allocation for DPRD outlays within the APBD compared to public outlays (Blakasuta, 03 Edition/14 February 2004: 12). Unsurprisingly, budget allocations were often perceived as poorly representing public interests. Accordingly, the FKPP forum left the public disappointed and skeptical about the whole process (Blakasuta, 03 Edition/14 February 2004:17).

The emergence of grassroots civil society organizations More than one hundred NGOs have been established in this region since early 2000 as a consequence of the opening up of political spaces following the fall of the authoritarian-New Order regime and the launching of the decentralization policy.18 Among the more active and influential grassroots civil society organizations is Fahmina Institute, founded in November 2000 by a group of young intellectual
16 17

APBD stands for Anggran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah Similarly, interview with one MP and head of general subdivision at BAPPEDA, 25 May 2006, confirms that FKPP was a pseudo-bottom up planning process. 18 Interview with LSM activist, 18 May 2006 and with a staff member at Kantor Kesatuan Bangsa dan Politik (National Unity and Politics Office), 26 May 2006.

Islamic school students (Pesantren) in Cirebon. According to Ottaways classification, the Fahmina Institute falls into the category of an advocate organization without a mass base, which focuses its activities on religion and social studies, and most importantly, on community empowerment (Ottaway 2000: 83-85).19 Among its voluminous works, the Fahmina Institute has successfully facilitated the establishment of various grassroots community groups such as pedicab and local transport drivers groups, street musicians groups, a street vendors forum and a fishermen community. By and large, Fahmina Institute tries to improve the bargaining position of these groups vis--vis the local government so that they are not treated as the object of various arrangements and regulations made by the local government, but more able to exert influence over the policy-making processes that will affect their lives. 20 No less important, the Fahmina Institute is also active in conducting various workshops, trainings and seminars attended by multiple-stakeholders, which are basically oriented toward forming democratic and just local governance. In addition, the Fahmina Institute also actively disseminates many local government policies including APBD to local communities through routine discussion activities or through bulletins and newsletter publications. Besides working with various grassroots community groups, the Fahmina Institute also works in cooperation (kerjasama) with local government institutions, such as Bappeda and LPM as well as with entrepreneur groups in order to promote participatory local government reform.21 Without a doubt, its voluminous works have brought a significant shift in the revival of grassroots political life and, at the same time, have contributed to the promotion of local good governance.
19

Advocate organization is divided into two sub-categories: mass-based groups with clear membership- and constituency-based, and trustee groups which is without mass bases. See for further explanation in Ottaway, M. 2000, 'Social movements, professionalism of reform, and democracy in Africa', in Funding virtue: civil society aid and democracy promotion, eds M. Ottaway & T. Carothers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C, pp. 77-104, Blair, H. 2004, 'Assessing civil society impact for democracy programmes: using an advocacy scale in Indonesia and the Philippines', Democratization, vol. 11, no. 1, February, pp. 77-103. 20 Interview with Fahmina Institute activist, 18 May 2006. 21 Interview with a head of general subdivision of Bappeda Cirebon, 17 May 2006.

10

Another impressive sign of the revival of local politics in Kota Cirebon is the existence of the so-called Presidium Dewan Kota (City Council Presidium, hereafter Dewan Kota), a multiple-stakeholders forum founded in November 2002 under the auspices of the Fahmina Institute in collaboration with Partnership for Governance Reform. Dewan Kota, originally named Governance Improvement Forum (FPTK), was set out to promote good governance practices in Kota Cirebon. Its main agenda is advocacy activities in matters of local budget, gender relations and education. There are many other forums in Kota Cirebon, each with a different membership base and organizational focus. These include: the Moslem Community Forum (FUI), the Cirebon Student Forum (FMC), the Street Vendors Forum (F-PKL) and the NGOs Forum (F-LSM). Needless to say, their existence provides opportunities for local communities to participate in local affairs, and a conducive environment for promoting democratization in the region.

Concluding remarks

Recapping the dynamic of decentralization and democratization as reflected in the case of Kota Cirebon above, I would argue, is reflective of the argument that decentralization does not automatically produce local democracy (Hidayat & Antlov 2004; Nordholt 2004a; Pratchett 2004). Needless to say, the sources of the problem are manifold. In line with Legowos argument, one important reason for the ongoin g exclusive nature of local governance in Indonesia is that decentralization has been merely perceived as an issue limited to the relationship between the central and regional governments, not between both levels of governments and the people (Legowo 2002). Accordingly, redistribution of power has mostly only occurred between the central and local governments, and not between local governments and the local citizenry.

11

One obvious manifestation of this line of argument is that fundamental shifts in the structures and authority of both bureaucracies and the DPRD have not been accompanied by an opening up of local governance processes to local communities. Secondly, I believe that the ongoing exclusive nature of local governance is the natural consequence of adopting a form of decentralization that emphasizes a pragmatic rather than a political approach. Within the former, decentralization is often associated with the promotion of increasing government efficiency in delivering public services. A pragmatic approach, which underpins most international donor assistance, emphasizes the importance of improving local governments technical as well as administrative capacity in designing and implementing a decentralization program (See for example, Nzouankeu 1994; Schonwalder 1997; Malley 2003). Thus, it situates decentralization within a technocratic realm of promoting administrative efficiency. Within the latter, decentralization is considered to be an indispensable strategy to broaden opportunities for public participation. Specifically, as Hickey and Mohan (2005: 243) assert, within this political logic, decentralization is promoted as a political project aimed at transforming state legitimacy and forging a new contract between citizens and the local state. The experiences of other countries, such as West Bengal and the state of Kerala in India, as well as the Rio Grande do Sul state of Brazil, confirm that decentralization would have a greater chance of achieving its pragmatic goals as well as promoting democratization if participation of subordinate groups or other ordinary people were tied to the broader reform process (Hickey and Mohan 2005: 242-244). This aspect has not been instituted in Kota Cirebon. Third, I believe that mere administrative and structural reform of bureaucratic institutions is because of a lack of strong political commitment to democracy from local leaders, in this case, Mayor of Cirebon. As Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1990: 15) argue, structures and institutions, especially political ones, are shaped by the actions and options of political leaders. Until 2004, Kota Cirebon was under the leadership of Mayor Lasmana, a retired army officer, a Golkar cadre, who had been

12

brought up under New Orders authoritarian system of governance. The reform and decentralization era should have opened up an opportunity for him to carry out fundamental transformation within bureaucratic institutions; however, he did not do so. Under the new Mayor, the structures and working procedures of the bureaucracy remain the same. In other words, he produced no reform agenda. Fourth, the poor performance of the DPRD Kota Cirebon in promoting democratization is particularly rooted in the absence reformist MPs with a strong commitment to develop democracy in the region. Similar to Hadizs argument, instead of having the intention to bring fresh ideas and strategies to improve the performance of the DPRD, the main driving logic of many MPs remains the quest for rent-seeking opportunities for the purposes of individual or group gains (Hadiz 2003c). This condition cannot be separated from the fact that the recruitment processes conducted by many new political parties in Indonesia have not been based on unambiguous and objective criteria which is essential for producing competent MPs (Kompas, 31 May 2002; Kompas, 31 March 2003; Usman 2003; CSIS, 7 May 2005). Moreover, elections cannot be expected to be effective events for recruiting competent MPs since many of the constituents have not been able to choose their representatives based on objective criteria (Legowo 2004). Fifth, both normatively and empirically, the recent mode of the development planning process has not been able to promote meaningful public participation. To a great extent, the participation of local communities in recent development planning processes is considered to be pseudo-participation since it is just an activity of information gathering from local communities without giving them a decisive role in the final decision and budget making processes. Thus, development planning in Indonesia is significantly different from similar processes carried out in, for example, Porto Alegre in Brazil, the Indian state of Kerala, or Bolivia where local communities are also meaningfully involved in the budget making process (Slater & Watson 1989; Ardaya & Thevoz 2001; Heller 2001; Hammond 2003).

13

On the positive side, however, decentralization has brought active movements at the grassroots level. A number of community groups and organization have been actively engaged with local politics in various ways. However, it must be admitted that these organizations have been the only entities that are concerned with community empowerment and who consistently attempt to instill democratic values into local governance. The work of these grassroots organization is a ray of hope for the future. In sum, there are considerable institutional and political challenges in making democratic decentralization a reality. The Kota Cirebon case reveals a number of different factors that challenge the success of decentralization in promoting democratization compared to other studies reviewed in the early section of this paper. Notwithstanding such differences, this case study confirms the argument that there is no one process which will bridge the gap between the conceptual advantages o decentralization and what occurs in practice.

References Blakasuta, 02 Edition/14 January 2004, 'Perda 09 keluar, paguyuban pengamen dibentuk [Perda 09 issued, street musicians organization established], p. 17. Blakasuta, 03 Edition/14 February 2004, 'Penyusunan APBD Kota Cirebon 2004: sudahkah partisipatif? [The formulation of APBD Kota Cirebon 2004: Has it been participative?]'. CSIS, 7 May 2005, 'Demokratisasi partai politik: krisis identitas dan ideologi yang hilang [Democraization of political party: identity crisis and the lost of ideology]'. Available from: http://www.csis.or.id/feature_view.asp?id=119&tab= [4 September 2007]. Fahmina Institute & Partnership for Governance Reform, 2003/2004b, 'Semiloka partisipasi publik dalam penyusunan kebijakan daerah [Seminar public participation in local policy-making]'. Kompas, 2 October 2003, 'Wali Kota Cirebon terancam mendapat mosi tidak percaya [Mayor is threaten by vote of no confidence]'. Kompas, 10 April 2002, 'Kinerja pemerintah Provinsi Jabar buruk [The performance of government of West Java province was bad]'. Kompas, 14 April 2004, 'Rapor Wali Kota Cirebon merah: tetapi tetap diterima [Red report of Walikoa Cirebon: but still accepted]'.

14

Kompas, 31 March 2003, 'Rekrutment caleg diperbaiki [Recruitment of MPs candidates improved] '. Kompas, 31 May 2002, 'Arogansi DPRD akibat rendahnya tingkat kepedulian masyarakat [Arrogance of DPRD due to the lack of people's awareness]'. Kota Cirebon Website. Available from: www.cirebonkota.go.id. Pikiran Rakyat, 19 November 2003, 'Walkot Cirebon dinilai 'ngawur' [Cirebon Mayor is considered bewildered]'. Radar Cirebon, 21 December 2004, 'PKL Cirebon berunjuk rasa tuntut penertiban dihentikan [Cirebon street vendors protest demanding curbing to be stop]'. Republika, 6 February 2004, 'Lempar tanggung jawab di balik rusaknya Argasunya [Passing the buck behind Argasunya devastation]'. Republika, 14 January 2005, 'Mahasiswa Cirebon blokir gerbang utama PDAM [Cirebon Students blockade PDAM main gate] '. Republika, 21 December 2004, 'PKL Se-Kota Cirebon duduki Kantor Wali Kota [Street vendors occupy Walikota's office]'. Ardaya, S. R. & Thevoz, L. 2001, 'Promoting popular participation: lessons to be learned from the Bolivian decentralization process', Mountain Research and Development, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 215-220. Aspinall, E. & Fealy, G. 2003, 'Introduction: decentralization, democratization and the rise of the local', in Local power and politics in Indonesia, eds E. Aspinall & G. Fealy, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 1-11. Blair, H. 2004, 'Assessing civil society impact for democracy programmes: using an advocacy scale in Indonesia and the Philippines', Democratization, vol. 11, no. 1, February, pp. 77-103. Diamond, L. 1999, Developing democracy toward consolidation, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Diamond, L., Linz, J. & Lipset, S. M. 1990, 'Introduction: comparing experience with democracy', in Politics in developing countries, eds L. Diamond, J. Linz & S. M. Lipset, Lynne Reinner Publishers, Boulder and London, pp. 1-37. Hadiz, V. R. 2003c, 'Power and politics in North Sumatra: the uncompleted reformasi', in Local power and politics in Indonesia, eds E. Aspinall & G. Fealy, Instituteof Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 119-131. Hammond, J. L. 2003, 'Another World Is Possible: Report from Porto Alegre', Latin American Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 3, Popular Participation against Neoliberalism, pp. 3-11. Heller, P. 2001, 'Moving the state: the politicss of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa and Porto Alegre', Politics & Society, vol. 29, pp. 131163. Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. 2005, 'Relocating participation within a radical politics of development', Development and Change, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 237-262. Hidayat, S. & Antlov, H. 2004, 'Decentralization and regional autonomy in Indonesia', in Decentralization, democratic governance, and civil society in comparative perspective, eds P. Oxhorn, J. S. Tulchin & A. A. Selee, Wodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, D.C, pp. 266-291.

15

Legowo, T. A. 2002, 'Otonomi daerah dan akomodasi politik lokal [Regional autonomy and accommodation of local politics]', in Merumuskan kembali kebangsaan Indonesia [Re-defining Indonesia's nationality] , eds I. J. Piliang, E. Prasetyo & H. Soesastro, CSIS, Jakarta, pp. 187-2002. Legowo, T. A. 2004, 'Hasil Pemilu 2004: perubahan atau "status quo"? [2004 Election result: shift or status quo?]', Kompas, 5 April Available from: http://www.kompas.com/kompas-cetak/0404/05/opini/951906.htm [4 September 2007]. Malley, M. S. 2003, 'New Rules, Old Structures and the Limits of Democratic Decentralisation', in Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation and Democratisation, eds E. Aspinall & G. Fealy, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 102-116. Nordholt , H. S. 2004a, 'Decentralisation in Indonesia: Less State, More Democracy?', in Politicising Democracy: The New Local Politics of Democratisation, eds J. Harriss, K. Stokke & O. Tornquist, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp. 2950. Nzouankeu, J. M. 1994, 'Decentralization and democracy in Africa', International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 213-227. Ottaway, M. 2000, 'Social movements, professionalism of reform, and democracy in Africa', in Funding virtue: civil society aid and democracy promotion, eds M. Ottaway & T. Carothers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C, pp. 77-104. Poerwanto, N. D. n.d, Perda tentang partisipasi masyarakat yang dirindukan [Perda on public participation that we yearn for] . Pratchett, L. 2004, 'Local autonomy, local democracy and the New Localism', Political Studies, vol. 52, pp. 358-375. Rasyid, R. M. 2003, 'Regional autonomy and local politics in Indonesia', in Local Power and politics in Indonesia eds E. Aspinall & G. Fealy, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 63-71. Rohdewohld, R. 2003, 'Decentralisation and the Indonesia bureaucracy: major changes, minor impact?', in Local power and politics in Indonesia, eds E. Aspinall & G. Fealy, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, pp. 259274. Schonwalder, G. 1997, 'New democratic spaces at the grassroots? Popular participation in Latin American local governments', Development and Change, vol. 28, pp. 753-770. Slater, R. & Watson, J. 1989, 'Democratic decentralization or political consolidation: the case of local government reform in Karnataka', Public Administration and Development, vol. 9, pp. 147-157. Usman, S. 2003, 'Politik lokal di era desentralisasi: menuju otonomi rakyat [Local politics in decentralization era: towards people's autonomy]', International Seminar IV "Dinamika politik lokal di Indonesia: Partisipasi dan demokrasi" [Dynamics of local politics in Indonesia: participation and democracy] .