Desa Pasca Negara Otoriter :: Studi Proses Liberalisasi politik dan kapitalisasi Desa era Transisi Otonomi dan Desentralisasi

SUJITO, Arie, Dr. Heru Nugroho

2004 | Tesis | S2 Sosiologi

Pergantian kekuasaan di Indonesia melalui gerakan reformasi, telah berimplikasi pada perombakan sistem politik secara mendasar. Pola hubungan kekuasaan yang dulunya beroperasi secara sentralistik, beralur top down serta berwatak otoriter, mulai bergeser ke arah desentralisasi, otonomisasi dan demokratisasi. Lokus pergerakan politik berpindah dari sentra kekuasaan (pemerintahan pusat-Jakarta) masuk ke tingkat daerah atau lokal, merembes pada wilayah desa. Sejak diberlakukan UU No. 22/99, mulai berlangsung perubahan struktural dan kelembagaan. Baik sifatnya penyesuaian struktural, pergeseran kultural maupun sejumlah gejolak resistensi di dalamnya. Persoalan liberalisasi politik, otonomi dan desentralisasi di pedesaan ini penting dikaji, terutama bukan hanya dari sisi prosesnya, tetapi bagaimana dampak atas perubahan kebijakan baru itu. Lalu, bagaimana kaitannya dengan demokratisasi? Penelitian ini sesungguhnya memfokuskan pada pertanyaan; bagaimana proses dan resiko liberalisasi politik dan kapitalisasi desa pada era transisi otonomi dan desentralisasi? Secara metodologis, mempertautkan kajian pustaka dan analisis temuan empiris berupa studi kasus. Pengalaman kerja sosial di pedesaan menjadi basis awal, mendialogkan dengan bacaan, referensi dari buku, hasil riset dan kerangka perspektif yang relevan dengan tema, kesemuanya dipakai sebagai rangkaian cara meneliti, menganalisis dan menuliskannya. Kebijakan atas desa dalam struktur politik pasca otoriterisme, yang diintrodusir dalam disain otonomi, desentralisasi dan demokratisasi, banyak menghasilkan perubahan penting yang positif. Partisipasi meningkat, institusi secara formal telah direkonstruksi, dan budaya makin bergeser ke arah egaliter. Namun, adakah perubahan itu mengarah ke demokratisasi desa? Belajar dari temuan di Wukirsari, dimana riset ini dilakukan, mendorong desa ke arah demokrasi, bukan pekerjaan mudah oleh stakeholders di dalamnya. Setidaknya ditemukan beberapa hal penting. Pergeseran struktur sosial dan politik pasca orde baru, pemberdayaan desa ternyata tidak cukup hanya diukur dari praktik liberalisasi prosedural, melalui jurus partisipasi, transparan, kontrol dan pertanggungjawaban. Seperti isyarat-isyarat teori-teori berhaluan liberal. Karena dibalik itu, perangkat tersebut masih menghasilkan resiko-resiko struktural. Di satu sisi, demokrasi politik melalui liberalisasi ternyata berhenti pada formalisme. Liberalisasi ekonomi masuk pada perangkap kapitalisasi desa, di sisi lain. Proses mengadaptasi cara-cara liberal dalam kerangka good governance, nampaknya, tidak mampu mendorong perwujudan demokrasi substantifis, erat kaitannya etika politik demokrasi, dan kesejahteraan. Pendekatan formalisasi itu, di Wukirsari, beresiko munculnya resistensi baru masyarakat desa. Bahkan, dianggapnya sebagai ancaman baru pasca otoriterisme. Kendatipun telah keluar dari cengkeraman otoriterisme negara, desa pada era transisi otonomi dan desentralisasi dihadapkan pada ketidakpastian baru, yakni problem kemiskinan, marginalisasi, kelangkaan dan kapitalisasi sumberdaya desa. Terkait dengan pendekatan makro, maka otonomi, desentralisasi dan demokratisasi yang pada mulanya didesain sebagai formula jawaban atas problem sentralisasi, ternyata gagal. Ketika desa menghadapi perubahan struktural pasca otoritarianisme, justru terabsorbsi dalam marketisasi. Mobilisasi sumberdaya lokal, dengan demikian, menjadi bagian disain neo-liberalisme. Hasilnya, bukan kesejahteraan warga dan menjawab marginalisasi desa, tetapi mensistematisasi penguasaan aset oleh para pemodal atas sumberdaya desa.

The Indonesian political power change through reform movement has implicated on basically political-system-change. The former power relation pattern which runs centralistic, top down, and authoritarian, begins to turn toward decentralistic, autonomic, and democratic one. Political Movement locus has been shifting from power centre (central government-Jakarta) into local level, ooze out to villages. The structural and institutional change process in village has started to take place since the applying of the regulation UU No. 22 / 99. Whether in character of structural adjustment, cultural strength and also a number of resistance fluctuations in it. Political liberalization, autonomy and decentralization in rural area are important thing to study about, especially not merely from its process side, but how is the impact to the new policy change. Last, how its bearing with democratization? This research in fact focused on a question; how are the process and the risk of political liberalization and village capitalization in autonomous transition and decentralization era? Methodologically, clinging book study and analyses the empirical finding in the form of case study. Social work experience in rural becomes the beginning base, to dialogue with the reading context, reference of the book, research result and perspective framework that is in relevant with the theme, all are applied to conduct research, to analyze, and to write down it. The policy for village in pasca authoritarianism political structure that is introduced in autonomy design, decentralization and democratization, result in a lot of positive important changes. Participation increases, formally institution has been reconstructed, and cultural more and more to be equal. But, is the change move toward village democratization? Learning from a fact finding in Wukirsari, where this research is conducted, pushing village up toward democracy, is not an easy work to perform by stakeholders within it. At least, it is found some important things. The social structure and political shift pasca new order, villages empowerment can not be sufficiently measured only by procedural liberalization practice, through strategy participation, transparency, control and responsibility. Like liberal theory signals. Because, inside of it, they still yield the structural risks. In one side, political democracy through liberalization, in the reality, is desisting at formalism. Economic liberalization is trapped in village capitalization, on the other side. Liberal-ways-adaptation process of in the framework of good governance, likely, is unable to push the materialization of a substantive democratization, highly related to democratic political ethics, and prosperity. The formalization approach, in Wukirsari, risks the appearance of a new resistance of village people. Even, it is considered as new threat pasca authoritarianism. Villages, in decentralization and autonomy transition are facing against a new uncertainty, namely poverty, marginalization, scarcity and capitalization of village resources, eventhough it has been considered free from the clutch of state authoritarianism. In the context of macro approach, hence autonomy, decentralization and democratization which are initially designed as solving formula of centralization problem, in the reality, has failed. When the villages are facing structural change pasca authoritarianism, they are exactly absorbed by market process. Local resources mobilization, thereby, is becoming a part of neo-liberalism design. The result is, not a citizen prosperity and replying the village marginalization, however, systematizing of assets absorption by capitalists upon village resources.

Kata Kunci : Sosiologi Pedesaan,Liberalisasi Politik,Otonomi dan Desentralisasi