Kapasitas Lembaga Representasi Politik Surakarta:(Studi tentang Tingkat Kapasitas dan Pola Relasi Institusi Representasi di Kota Surakarta dalam Pengelolaan Urusan Publik oleh PDI-P dan KOMPIP Solo)

Aris Setiawan Yodi, Mada Sukmajati

2016 | Skripsi | Politik dan Pemerintahan (dh. Ilmu Pemerintahan)

Abstract The dynamics of democratization in Indonesia has grown in the long times since the falling of Soeharto’s Regime and now remaining in the stagnation conditions, if we would not say it’s deteriorating. The democratic institutions which have the fundamental roles to represents the people’s interest, ironically there are in the risky conditions. Political parties and NGO tend to be hijacked by the political and economical elits for their interests without pay attention about common people interests. The things that make it worst is peoples begin fell more distrust in the representation institutions because their bad performances in representating the common peoples interest. PDI-P and Kompip Solo in Surakarta are the two representations institutions which are the one we can categorize as formal representation institution and the another one as informal institution. They have good enough reputations in Surakarta. PDI-P is the most dominating parties in Surakarta. PDI-P dominate in the DPRD (Local’s House Of Representative) and in the executive because the mayor and the deputy are the members of PDI-P. And so do Kompip Solo, the NGO which has the good reputation about it’s capacity. Recently many members of Kompip Solo have migrated to the government official, SAA, even politician can be their best evidence. Furthermore, that is interesting to assess the democratic capacities of PDI-P and Kompip Solo as the representation institutions through the Olle Tornquist frameworks about assessing the quality of democratization in Indonesia. Furthermore, the research question is How about the capacities of political representation institutions at PDI-P and Kompip Solo in Surakarta on the process of managing the public affairs? Depart from the David Beetham’s definition about democracy which said that the point of democracy is about the popular control of public affairs on the basis of political quality, Olle Tornquist proposes the thirteen institutions which can be the instrument to see the quality of democration in Indonesia. To optimize that thirteen institutions, at least there are need five variables from the democratic actors which in the next phase can also be the tools in this research to assess the capacity of that democratic institutions in the proccess of managing the public affairs. These variables are 1) Capacity of Political Inclusion (How democratic institutions overcome exclusion), 2) Capacity to get authority and legitimacy, 3) Capacity Of Making Politicization and agenda – setting, 4) Capacity of mobilization and developing organization, 5) Capacity to increase political participation and representation Using the qualitative methods and the case studies design, the evidence based the field study show that two institions have the different specialities and limitation in every capacities that we had measured. Moreover, this study gives the answer that both of the formal and informal political representation institutions have the capacities in the diverse levels in their function as the institutions of political representation. Hence, the collaboration between them is the possible things which aim to overcome their problems about representation. Likewise, the interactions that developed among them have the complementary characters.

Kata Kunci : Demokratisasi - Indonesia