Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKDisertasi ini merupakan studi tentang peran organisasi Barisan Merah Putih dalam memperjuangkan salah satu kebijakan afirmasi, yang diamanatkan dalam Undang-Undang Otonomi Khusus Papua. Pembahasan terutama difokuskan pada perjuangan Barisan Merah Putih terhadap kuota tambahan satu perempat anggota DPR-Papua bagi orang asli Papua pada pemilu 2009 dan 2014. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengkaji: 1 kepentingan Barisan Merah Putih dalam memperjuangkan kuota anggota DPRP bagi orang asli Papua; 2 strategi Barisan Merah Putih dalam memperjuangkan kuota anggota DPRP bagi orang asli Papua, baik pada pemilu 2009 maupun pemilu 2014; 3 faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan kuota anggota DPRP bagi orang asli Papua sulit direalisasikan.Teori utama yang digunakan sebagai kerangka analisis adalah: teori kelompok kepentingan dari Gabriel A. Almond, Janda, Berry dan Golman. Teori negara korporatis dari Malloy dan Anna Batta serta teori negara neopatrimonial dari James C. Scot. Sedangkan teori pendukung adalah: 1 teori hubungan pusat ndash;daerah desentralisasi dari Brian C. Smith; 2 teori etnisitas dari Dwight Vick, Max Weber dan Fredik Barth; 3 teori konflik politik dari Maswadi Rauf.Metode penelitian terdiri dari: pendekatan kualitatif, dan studi kasus. Data primer yang digunakan diperoleh dari wawancara mendalam in-depth interview kepada sejumlah narasumber. Sedangkan data sekunder diperoleh dari kajian pustaka dan dokumen.Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan, bahwa: 1 peran organisasi BMP, dilatarbelakangi oleh kepentingan: masyarakat adat Papua, kepentingan negara, dan kekuasaan. 2 lobi lobby , menjadi cara utama yang digunakan BMP; 3 hambatan direalisasikan kursi afirmasi ini, disebabkan rendahnya political will dari elit politik serta adanya pro-kontra antara aktor.Temuan studi ini, menunjukkan bahwa perjuangan yang dilakukan BMP Papua tidak semata mempengaruhi keputusan politik, tapi juga ingin memperoleh kekuasaan. Di sisi lain, dalam mempengaruhi direalisasinya kursi afirmasi ini, BMP Papua cukup menghindari tindakan mobilisasi massa dan kekerasan.Implikasi dari teori utama, yaitu: teori kelompok kepentingan yang menjelaskan, bahwa kelompok kepentingan, hanya mempengaruhi kebijakan politik tanpa berkehendak memperoleh jabatan politik, perlu dilihat kembali, sebab studi ini menemukan bahwa BMP selaku kelompok kepentingan memiliki tendensi kuat untuk berkuasa. Sedangkan teori negara korporatis dan neopatrimonial, meskipun lebih tepat menjelaskan politik di negara otoriter, namun dalam kasus tertentu, bagi negara demokrasi, teori ini masih relevan digunakan sebagai kerangka analisis.

---

ABSTRACTThis dissertation is a study on the organizational role of Barisan Merah Putih BMP in defending one of the affirmative policies that is mandated in the Special Autonomy Law in Papua. Accentuated in this study is BMP rsquo s fight for theaddition of one fourth of the indigenous Papuans rsquo quota, or number of seats, in the legislative body during the 2009 and 2014 elections. This research discusses three important matters 1 the role of BMP in defending the quota for indigenous Papuans in the legislative body 2 BMP rsquo s strategy in defending the quota during both the 2009 and 2014 elections and 3 the factors that causedthe addition of one fourth of the indigenous Papuans difficult to be realized. The main theories that are used as the analytical framework of this dissertation are the theory of advocacy groups by Gabriel A. Almond, Janda, Berry dan Golman, the theory of corporate state by Malloy and Anna Batta, and the theory of state neopatrimonialism by James C. Scott. In addition, the theory of decentralization by Brian C. Smith, the theory of ethnicity by Dwight Vick, Max Weber, and Fredik Barth, as well as the theory of political conflict by MaswadiRauf are used as the supporting theories. This research uses a qualitative approach and case study. The primary data is collected through in depth interviews with several sources, while the secondary data is attained through various literary sources and documents. The result of this research leads to three conclusions. First, the organizational role of BMP is based on the interest of the indigenous people of Papua, the state, and power. Second, lobbying became BMP rsquo s main strategy. Third, low political will of the political elite and pro contra between the actors results in the obstacle to realize the addition of the indigenous people rsquo s number of seats in the People rsquo s Representative Council. The principal findings of this research show that BMP rsquo s fight for Papua is not only for the purpose of gaining a voice in political decisions, but also for the purpose of gaining power. On the other hand, BMP avoids mass mobilization and conflict in its fight for the addition of the number of seats. The theoretical implication of the main theory, which is the theory of advocacy groups that explains advocacy groups only influence political policies without the desire to gain political standing, while BMP has a tendency to gain authority and power. The theory of corporate state and the theory of state neopatrimonialism as supporting theories, explains the political in authoritarian countries, but in this case, in democratic countries. This theory is still relevant to be used as an analytical framework for this dissertation. "

"Revisi Otonomi Khusus Papua dilakukan setelah 20 tahun berjalannya otonomi khusus. Hal ini selain karena masa berlaku Otonomi Khusus Papua yang berakhir pada 2021, juga disebabkan karena berbagai pihak menilai implementasi Otonomi Khusus Papua belum berhasil mengejar ketertinggalan Papua dari provinsi lainya. Namun, dalam revisi terdapat perbedaan kepentingan antara pemerintah pusat yang ingin memperbaiki tata kelola pemerintah daerah dengan masyarakat Papua yang menginginkan penguatan perlindungan HAM. Pada akhirnya, kepentingan pemerintah pusat justru mendominasi revisi Otonomi Khusus Papua meskipun ditolak masyarakat Papua. Penelitian ini membahas proses perumusan revisi UU Otonomi Khusus Papua dan bagaimana kepentingan pemerintah pusat dapat dominan dalam revisi UU Otonomi Khusus Papua. Penelitian dilakukan secara kualitatif dengan pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui wawancara dan studi literatur. Dengan teori Konsultasi dengan Kelompok Kepentingan dan Pemberdayaan Eksekutif yang dikembangkan oleh Bunea, A., & Thomson, R, penelitian ini menemukan kepentingan pemerintah pusat dapat menjadi dominan karena menggunakan penelitian dan aspirasi dari beberapa kelompok kepentingan, seperti penelitian dari LIPI, KOMPAK, dan aspirasi dari pemerintah daerah Papua itu sendiri sebagai dasar legitimasi, sehingga DPR tidak memiliki dasar data untuk menentang kepentingan itu. Hal ini berimplikasi pada posisi dan kepentingan pemerintah pusat semakin kuat dalam proses perumusan revisi Undang-undang Otonomi Khusus Papua pada tahun 2021.

---

The revision of Special Autonomy for Papua was carried out after 20 years of special autonomy. This is apart from the fact that the validity period of Special Autonomy for Papua ends in 2021, it is also because various parties assess that the implementation of Special Autonomy for Papua has not succeeded in catching up with Papua from other provinces. However, in the revision, there are differences in interests between the central government which wants to improve regional government governance and the Papuan people who want to strengthen human rights protection. In the end, the interests of the central government dominated the revision of Papua's Special Autonomy even though the Papuan people rejected it. This research discusses the process of formulating the revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law and how the interests of the central government can be dominant in the revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. The research was conducted qualitatively with data collection carried out through interviews and literature studies. Using the theory of Consultation with Interest Groups and Executive Empowerment developed by Bunea, A., & Thomson, R., this research finds that the interests of the central government can become dominant because it uses research and aspirations from several interest groups, such as research from LIPI, KOMPAK, and aspirations from the Papuan regional government itself as a basis for legitimacy, so that the DPR has no data basis to oppose that interest. This has implications for the position and interests of the central government becoming stronger in the process of formulating the revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law in 2021."

"As one of Indonesia?s provinces located in the most eastern part of the country, Papua?s tumultuous history has resulted in the granting of a special autonomy under Law Number 21 Year 2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua Province. The special autonomy u is a social contract between the Republic of Indonesia (Republic of Indonesia) to Papua since the 1960s. Conflict in Papua has existed at the time of Papua became part of the Republic of Indonesia in 1963. The conflict in Papua is an intrastate conflict and need to be resolved so that no large material losses and social cohesion. Good understanding of national security in particular to address the threat, in this case is also related to economic security is imperative."

"Analisis Kebijakan Otonomi Khusus Papua 2001-2016 dalam Perspektif Deliberative Public Policy Penelitian ini menganalisis kebijakan Otonomi Khusus Otsus di Provinsi Papua dan Provinsi Papua Barat. Berbeda dengan penelitian sebelumnya, yang hanya melihat kebijakan Otsus Papua pada tahap implementasi, penelitian ini menganalisis kebijakan Otsus sebagai sebuah proses kebijakan, mulai dari tahap formulasi hingga implementasi, dengan menggunakan perspektif deliberative public policy dari teori Dryzek 1990 mengenai deliberative democracy. Data dikumpulkan melalui studi kepustakaan dan wawancara mendalam dengan informan beragam, baik yang mendukung maupun yang mengritisi kebijakan Otsus. Para informan adalah para pembuat kebijakan Otsus Papua di DPR RI dan Pemerintah, serta di Provinsi Papua dan Provinsi Papua Barat. Kegiatan observasi dilakukan di Jayapura, Wamena, Manokwari, Sorong, dan Kaimana, yang merepresentasikan wilayah kota dan kabupaten, serta wilayah pantai dan pegunungan. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif, dan sesuai dengan tujuannya, untuk menganalisis kebijakan Otsus di Provinsi Papua dan Provinsi Papua Barat, penelitian ini menggunakan tipe eksplanatori kualitatif. Triangulasi dilakukan melalui kegiatan focus group discussions, yang melibatkan para pemangku kepentingan. Berbeda dengan penelitian LIPI 2004 , yang mengungkap bahwa kebijakan Otsus Papua sudah dilakukan secara partisipatif, penelitian ini menemukan partisipasi yang dilakukan dalam tahap formulasi bersifat semu pseudo-participation . Penelitian ini selanjutnya mengungkap bahwa dalam tahap implementasi, orang asli Papua sebagai target penerima manfaat cenderung diabaikan partisipasinya. Menurut hasil penelitian ini, formulasi dan implementasi kebijakan Otsus Papua harus memperhatikan prinsip-prinsip deliberatif. Penelitian menemukan bahwa perspektif deliberative public policy telah membuka cara pandang baru dalam menganalisis kebijakan Otsus Papua. Penelitian ini mengemukakan kebaruan novelty bahwa dalam perspektif deliberative public policy, pembatasan waktu dalam proses formulasi kebijakan akan menimbulkan masalah dalam implementasinya. Penekanan pada substansi deliberasi lebih penting dari pada sekadar pemenuhan formalitas, karena ia akan menimbulkan pseudo-deliberative, yang menciptakan situasi konflik akibat distrust yang terus tumbuh dan memperkuat tuntutan separatisme. Kata kunci: deliberative public policy, pseudo-deliberative policy, Dryzek 1990, otonomi khusus, Papua, Papua Barat.

---

Papua Special Autonomy Policy Analysis 2001 2016 A Deliberative Public Policy Perspective This research analyzed special autonomy policy in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. Different from previous researches which only discussed the special autonomy during its implementation, this research examined it as a process since its formulation until its implementation by employing the 1990 Dryzek rsquo s deliberative democracy perspective. Data collection was conducted with library studies, continued with in depth interviews with various informants. The informants consisted of those who supported the special autonomy policy and those who criticized it inside the national parliament and the government, as well as different parties in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. In addition to this, observation works have been conducted in cities and municipalities, as well as coastal and mountainous areas, e.g. Jayapura, Wamena, Manokwari, Sorong, and Kaimana. Data was analyzed by employing a qualitative method. In accordance with the objective of this research, namely to clearly examine both the formulation and implementation of special autonomy policy in the Papua and the West Papua, an explanatory qualitative type was applied. Triangulation of data was, furthermore, conducted with focus group discussions, involving relevant stakeholders. Unlike the 2004 LIPI rsquo s research, which concluded that the Papua special autonomy policy has been deliberatively discussed and created, this research argued and found that the public participation organized during its formulation was actually pseudo, by which the researcher has identified it as pseudo participation. This research has also revealed that since its implementation, the participation of native Papuan, presumably should have gained the benefits of the policy, have been, in reality, ignored. This research further found that the deliberative public policy has introduced a new perspective for analyzing the Papua special autonomy policy. From such perspective, therefore, its formulation and implementation must consequently rely on deliberative principles. As its novelty, this research has revealed that time limitation during the formulation process will bring about problem in its implementation. The researcher accordingly concluded that emphasizing to have a real deliberative process is much more substantial rather than attempting to make it artificially that led to a pseudodeliberative policy. A pseudo one has, in fact, produced conflict caused by the growing distrust of the Papuan to the government, which strengthened aspiration for separatism. Keywords deliberative public policy, pseudo deliberative policy, Dryzek 1990, special autonomy, Papua, West Papua."