Citizen Participation & Development State Debate

Citizen Position: The "Development State" vs. "Rational Choice Model" Debate To understand government behavior in achieving the essence of good governance, many theories can be used. One of them is the development state. There are at least two major issues surrounding the concept of developmental state, which can be used as an analysis, namely democratization and the future of the developmental state itself. Like it or not, democracy actually weakens state power that was previously very large. Democracy has not only deprived stodgy regimes of longstanding positions of power and political dominance. The transition of the ruling regime from authoritarian to democratic has also unraveled the "complexity" so far in which the institutional foundations of the developmental state are hampered and damaged by political and constitutional games (Suwarno, 2006). With the development state analysis tool, it can be understood the government's behavior that prioritizes capital owners over the role of citizens. However, this is contrary to the principles to be achieved by the conception of governance. Developmental state is a paradigm that influences the direction and speed of economic development by directly intervening in the development process. This paradigm establishes substantive social and economic goals that guide the process of development and social mobilization. The characteristics of this paradigm are a strong state, the dominant role of government, technocratic rationality in economic policymaking, an autonomous and competent bureaucracy and independent of the influence of political interests. At the core of this paradigm is the dominant role of executive agencies. What is meant by executive agency here is administrative authority and political power. So this paradigm is intended to affirm the role of government in a market economy. Economic performance is built through strong institutional structuring carried out by the government. This is commonly known as the process of planned economic development. The government organizes this planned economy through specially appointed agencies responsible for the task of directing development itself, and implements a variety of policy tools to ensure business activities remain maintained and managed within the framework of the national interest. It is considered an important prerequisite in managing the development process. Beeson (2002) explained that the key to running an effective development state is state capacity, which is the ability to formulate and implement development policies. In addition to a competent bureaucracy, effective relations with the business world are also needed as an important point in successful development initiatives. In Schmitter's perspective, quoted by Hill (1993), such state behavior is a mirror of state monopoly as a corporatist actor (state corporatism) that is more tolerant of the interests of capital owners than citizens. Thus, giving the private sector the authority to control the economy in many ways will actually weaken the country's political bargaining. The practice of collusion between the government and business groups gave rise to the rent-seeking bureaucracy of capital entrepreneurs. Where the unification of this group ultimately harms the people (Sujarwoto, 2007). Kunio (1990) said, those who benefit in such conditions are the owners of capital at the sacrifice of the community. In political studies, the government finally submits more to the demands of capital owners. According to Bur et al. (1999), citizens' initiatives to increase their participation in local government may be co-opted, or manipulated, if the motivations of the government apparatus always want to control. That is why it is necessary to design democratic institutions that are more inclusive and meaningful. Alvarez (1993) calls on political analysts and activists to pay great attention to "channels and strategies that increase non-elite access to policymaking and implementation." For participation techniques to work as they should, the 'three legs of the bench' must be in place. That is, (1) the purpose of governance must be clear (do we want efficiency, effectiveness, or accountability?); (2) knowledge of locality itself (what resources or constraints are there?); and (3) understand existing participation techniques (are they effective or workable?). With regard to the above, there are three strong reasons for the study of political participation to be put forward. First, political participation is believed to be an essential part of building democracy. In the democratic agenda, political participation is required as a necessary and highly prioritized part. This can be understood, the essence of democracy is the political participation of the community In the context of politics in Indonesia, the spirit of Law 22/1999 which was later updated to Law 32/2004 became a milestone in the renewal of democracy in Indonesia. Theoretically, decentralization, which includes political (devolution) and administrative (deconcentration) concepts, contained in the law, provides a wider space for local governments and local communities to express their political rights. Second, in political system analysis, participation is an integral part of the input of a political system. In systems analysis, Easton views the political system as a process of conversion or change, that is, changing in-put to out-put. There are two types of in-put of a political system, namely demands and support. The emergence of both types of in-put can only work if people understand and realize, if their demands or support give meaning to the political system that is running. Third, a paradigm shift to decentralized requires community involvement. Decentralization and autonomy are efforts to expand and deepen community participation. Implicitly, decentralization provides more space for people to exercise their political rights. This concept is related to the purpose of decentralization, as expressed (Byrne and Schnyder, 2005) "Political decentralisation aims at improving the active participation of the population in political decision-making processes. It implies that locally elected authorities must bear more responsibility towards those who elected them and that they must better represent local interests in political decision-making processes. " The concept of political participation can only be understood if: (1) The involvement of individuals in political activities; (2) The approach used; or (3) Factors affecting political participation. From individual involvement, there are two different points of view in understanding political participation, (a) That political participation is based on the individual's inner-will (outonomus participation). This means that political participation is only limited to voluntary activities, which are activities carried out without coercion or pressure from anyone. Included in this group are Sidney Verba and Norman H Nie, Gabriel A Almond (1974).