ICONEG 2016 International Conference on Ethics in Governance: Intersecting Law, Religion and Politics, 19-20th December 2016, Makassar, Indonesia
Managing Village Governance Based on Mutual Assistance (Gotong Royong)
|Kushandajani dan Puji Astuti
|Department of Politics and Government Science
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Diponegoro University
abstract—Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village constructs village authority in four areas: managing village governance, implementation of rural development, coaching rural community, and empowerment of rural community. Those are the basis of village governance, including the organizational structure of the village government. On the other hand, during this time, the government and villagers basically interpret the administration of the village is based on values prevailing in the local village. Then, how does the village government respond to the changes since the enactment of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village? The answer to the question become the focus of this study. Qualitative research method was chosen, by using perspective of emic. Data collection techniques prioritized the use of first hand data, which were obtained from several informants through in-depth interviews and focused group discussion (FGD).
The result of this study shows that managing village governance is a concept that is integrated and could not be separated from other functions, namely implementation of rural development, coaching rural community, and empowering rural community. Instead, the last function, the empowerment of rural community, animating other functions through local value called mutual assistance (gotong royong). Mutual assistance reflects strong social capital, which build mutual trust between the village government and the villagers. The village government tried hard to maintain the value of mutual assistance, because without this value, the village government would not be able to implement rural development, coaching rural community, and run services of village administration. The strengths of this value make villagers still use traditional structure in local governance, with the retention of names such as lurah (headman), carik (village secretary), bekel (head of hamlet/dusun), and modin (head of public affairs), which attached with all the traditional rights like bengkok palungguh (the right of management given to the head of village and village officials), and bengkok pangarem-arem (the right of management of the head of village and village officials who had completed his tenure).
The conclusion of this study shows that the state are being ambiguous to the village. On the one hand, villages are granted autonomy, but on the other hand, villages are treated as part of decentralization, where the villages run certain functions provided by the central government, provincial, and district levels. Nevertheless, the village government was able to maintain the value of mutual assistance in implementing village administration. The village government’s ability in accommodating the interests of the village in the rural community and the interests of the central government, has implication in the organizational structure of village government, where there are at least two structures: one is to accomodate the functions of traditional government, and the second one is to accommodate the functions of modern government administration
Keywords— village governance, social capital, local wisdom, village government functions, organizational structure of village government