Penerapan Good Governance di tingkat daerah :: Studi kasus di Kabupaten Bengkulu Selatan, Propinsi Bengkulu
ANUAR, Parizal, Dr. Warsito Utomo
2004 | Tesis | Magister Administrasi PublikStudi ini mempunyai dua tujuan utama. Pertama, melakukan eksplorasi praktik-praktik otonomi daerah dan governance di Bengkulu Selatan (BS). Kedua, melacak potensi dan kendala tumbuhnya good governance (GG) di BS. Ada dua pertanyaan yang hendak dijawab: pertama, sejauh mana potensi dan kelemahan penerapan GG di BS, dan kedua, apa saja faktor pendukung dan kendala penerapan GG di BS? Untuk mencapai tujuan dan menjawab pertanyaan itu, studi ini menggunakan metode deskriptif-kualitatif. Secara empirik, GG sudah menjadi wacana di lingkungan Pemda BS selama 2-3 tahun terakhir. Tetapi bad governance (BG) di BS masih bertahan, dan jalan menuju GG masih sulit. BG di BS ditandai oleh beberapa kondisi. Pertama, lemahnya akuntabilitas, transparansi, dan responsivitas kebijakan, anggaran, dan pelayanan publik oleh Pemda, DPRD dan birokrasi. Praktik KKN tetap masih menonjol dilakukan dalam pengelolaan anggaran, pelaksanaan proyek, dan pelayanan. Kedua, lemahnya partisipasi masyarakat terhadap proses pemerintahan dan pembangunan. Pemda cenderung menerapkan model pembuatan kebijakan teknokratis yang tidak melibatkan partisipasi masyarakat. Aktor-aktor masyarakat sipil (LSM, pers, kampus, mahasiswa, dan lain-lain) terfragmentasi menurut kepentingan, lemah dalam advokasi, kurang kohesif, dan jaringan sosial masih lemah, sehingga belum mampu menjadi basis partisipasi masyarakat. Ketiga, Pemda BS kurang bersahabat dan responsif dengan dunia usaha dan pasar. Sebaliknya, pasar tetap berlangsung kurang kompetitif. Monopoli tetap terjadi, sehingga akses UKM menuju kebijakan, pasar dan modal sangat terbatas. Pemda kurang mempunyai komitmen memberikan proteksi dan pemberdayaan UKM, melainkan hanya mempunyai kepentingan jangka pendek mengejar target PAD. Bangun BG di BS disebabkan oleh tiga faktor utama. Pertama, kemapanan struktur-kultur birokrasi lama. Birokrasi dikelola secara tidak rasional, inefisien, hirarkhis-sentralistik, klientelistik, anti perubahan, dan lain-lain. Birokrasi semacam ini memperlemah akuntabilitas, transparansi dan responsivitas. Kedua, kepemimpinan yang lemah dan mengalami krisis di hadapan masyarakat. BS miskin kepemimpinan visioner-inovatif. BS dipimpin oleh para birokrat yang bekerja apa adanya menjalankan tugas-tugas administratif rutin sesuai dengan peraturan. Ketiga, Pemda BS menjalankan deregulasi secara tidak konsisten dan tidak optimal. Pemda BS malah melancarkan regulasi untuk keperluan pungutan bagi PAD. Dengan regulasi yang bertentangan dengan deregulasi, Pemda BS sebenarnya tidak empati dan peka terhadap terhadap aspirasi dunia bisnis, terutama sektor UKM. Untuk membangun GG di BS, penulis mengusulkan sejumlah rekomendasi: (1) rasionalisasi birokrasi; (2) kepastian dan pelaksanaan visi-misi baru yang bersemangat GG dan reinventing government; (3) Pemda perlu memanfaatkan “forum warga†secara proaktif dan responsif sebagai media transparansi, akuntabilitas dan responsivitas; (4) Pemda harus menciptakan dan melaksanakan deregulasi secara konsisten; (5) masyarakat harus memanfaatkan pemilu 2004 sebagai arena kontrak sosial untuk menghasilkan pemimpin baru yang lebih baik; (6) elemen-elemen masyarakat sipil harus memperkuat jaringan sosial sebagai basis partisipasi (voice, akses dan kontrol) masyarakat terhadap pemda dan DPRD.
This study has a couple of major objectives. Firstly is to explore the practices of regional autonomy and governance in South Bengkulu (SB). Secondly is to discover the potential and constraints of the development of good governance in SB. There are two questions would be dealt with. Firstly, what are the potential and the weakness of the application of good governance (GG) concept in SB? Secondly, what are the sustaining factors and the constraints in applying the concept of good governance in SB? To accomplish the objectives as well as answer the above questions, this study would exercise a descriptivequalitative method. Actually, GG has been the discourse among the personnel of local government (LG) over the last two or three years. Bad governance (BG) in SB, however, still carries on. The path to realize GG remains difficult. We can identify some conditions that may generate bad governance in SB. The first is the weakness of accountability, transparence, and responsiveness of policies, budgeting, and public services of the local government, the local parliament, and the bureaucracy. Practices of collusion, corruption, and nepotism are still prevailing in managing the budget as well as in carrying out some projects and services. The second is the weakness of public participation in the process of governance and development. LG tends to operate a technocratic model of policy-making that is sterile from public participation. Actors of civil society, such as NGOs, the press, campuses, students, etc., are fragmented along the lines of their own interests, incapable of carrying out advocacy, lacking cohesiveness, and unable to develop a durable social network that they are unqualified to be the basis of public participation. The third is that the LG is unfriendly and inadequately responsive to the business activities. Meanwhile, the market tends to operate uncompetitive. Monopoly is still going on that little and middle businesses get only limited access to influence policy-making as well as to get advantage of the market and capital opportunities. LG lacks commitment to protect and empower little and middle businesses. The government’s interest is no more than a short-term one, which is to fulfill the target of local revenue. The structure of BG in SB consists of three main factors. The first is the structure and culture of old bureaucracy that remains established. The bureaucracy runs irrationally and inefficiently. It is hierarchical and centralistic, clientelistic and anti-transformation, and so on. Such a kind of bureaucracy tends to weaken accountability, transparence, and responsiveness. The second factor is the weakness of leadership, which today is also in crisis in the eyes of the public. SB lacks a visionary and innovative leadership. SB runs under a group of bureaucrats who simply work routinely to perform administrative tasks consistent with formal rules. The third is that LG executes deregulation minimally and inconsistently. LG of SB, on the contrary, operates regulation to increase local revenue. By such a regulation that disagrees with deregulation policy, the local government of SB does not empathize with, and not sensible of, the aspiration of the business world, especially the little and middle business sectors. In order to develop GG in SB, the writer would recommend the following solutions: (1) rationalization of bureaucracy; (2) defining and carrying out new visions and missions under the spirit of GG as well as reinventing government; (3) LG should use ‘people forum’ proactively and responsively as a medium of transparence, accountability and responsiveness; (4) LG should design and operate deregulation policy consistently; (5) public needs to take advantage of the 2004 election as an arena of social contract to select new and better leaders; (6) elements of civil society should build up social network as a basis for public participation (voice, access, and control) in the workings of LG and local parliament.
Kata Kunci : Pemda TkII,Penerapan Good Governance
