a study of village regulation making process in the adat ... · dan’ volksgemeenshappen’...

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi �0.��63/�569��08-��34�000

African and Asian Studies �5 (�0�6) ��5-�4�

brill.com/aas

A F R I C A N A N DA S I A N S T U D I E S

A Study of Village Regulation Making Process in the Village of Adat Saibatin Community in Cukuh Balak Sub-district, Tanggamus District, Lampung Province, Indonesia

Noor Sulastry Yurni AhmadPh.D.; Senior Lecturer, Department of Anthropology and Sociology University of Malaya, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[email protected]

Iskandar Syukur, M.A.Raden Intan Institute of Islamic Studies Lampung, Indonesia

[email protected]

Abstract

This research studied the village regulation making process based on the Law No. 32/2004 and the relationships among head of village, administrators of Village Consultative Board (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa/BPD/BHP), and adat leaders in the village of Adat Saibatin community. The research was conducted in several villages of Cukuh Balak sub-district, Tanggamus district, Lampung province, Indonesia in 2012. The data were collected by employing interview and observation. The results of this study showed that the regulation making process in the village of Adat Saibatin community did not have clear stages to which the regulations were made unilaterally by the head of the village himself/herself. The adat leaders’ participation as community leaders in the villages almost disappeared and unstated in the regulations. Furthermore, Village Consultative Board was also in a weak position due to the absence of deliberation and agreement as the core principle known as the villages’ law in the process of making the regulations.

Keywords

village regulation – adat leaders – political law and adat customary law

216 Ahmad and Syukur

African and Asian Studies 15 (2016) 215-241

Introduction

Indonesia is the fourth-largest country and the most structural diversified in the world. Indonesia has more than 300 distinct ethnic groups with their own regulatory systems. Some of these ethnic groups are called as adat communi-ties. Generally the term of adat derived from an Arabic term, which is used throughout Indonesia. Adat refers to indigenous culture, values, and traditions (Burns 1989: 2), or the customs or customary practices of a group of people (Hooe 2012: 1). After the political reform in 1998, many adat communities have attempted to revive in Indonesian politics, especially in relation to the state or to the local politics (Bubandt 2004, Davidson and Henley 2007; Brauchler 2007; Henly and Davidson 2008; Tyson 2010; Hooe 2012; Tanasaldy 2012).

There are many definitions of adat community given by local and interna-tional scholars. According to Barend Ter Haar (1960: 16), adat community is a permanent order of community which has its own power, and has tangible and intangible wealth. In addition, none of the members of the community has mindsets to violate the bond. According to Hazairin (in Chandra 2007: 31) adat community is a customary law community (for example desa in Java, marga in South Sumatra, nagari in Minangkabau of West Sumatra, kuria in Tapanuli of North Sumatra, and wanua in South Sulawesi) with a complete form of a unity in the community which has its own union law, union ruling, union environ-ment based on mutual rights over land and water in the community. Likewise, Bushar Muhammad (2003: 22), states that adat community is a group with a permanent organization that subjects to a certain regulation system main-tained by its leaders and shared by its members with full trust. An example of tangible wealth is inheritance, a very valuable asset preserved from genera-tion to generation. Therefore, the members of the group or community will remain in the group to preserve their interests.

In short, adat community is a customary law community which becomes a permanent state of order that includes traditional rights, power, tangible and intangible wealth. In addition to that, none of the community members has any desire to dissolve the ties that have been growing robustly within the group.

Adat communities in Indonesia are recognized, protected by the state and definitely stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. Before the Constitution was amended in 2000, the recognition was stated in the Article 18 which explained that the Indonesian government recognized approximately 250 self administering units and communities such as desa in Java and Bali, nagari in Minangkabau, dusun and marga in Palembang (South Sumatra) and many more. These areas have their respective natural order and therefore can be considered as special territories. The Republic of Indonesia respects the

217Village Regulation Making Process in Indonesia


positions of the territories belonging to the adat communities and the state regulations also acknowledge their historical rights (hak asal- usul) (Antlov 2003: 194).1 After the amendment of 1945 Constitution, the recognition of adat communities in Indonesia was written in Article 18b paragraph 2 which states that “. . . the state recognizes and respects traditional unit (adat) communities along with their traditional rights and in line with the society developments and principles of the State of Republic of Indonesia and they are regulated in the Law.” (Chandra 2007: 1).2

Unfortunately, the constitutional recognition of adat communities is not supported by the legal system as the derivatives of the 1945 Constitution. This situation has caused the privileges owned by adat communities to man-age their traditional territories as mandated by the constitution started to fade away and eventually disappear from the constitution implementation. Violation of the constitutional recognition has begun, among others, the issu-ance of Law No. 5/1979 on Village Government which incorporated adat com-munities into desa (village) government system. In the context of Indonesian government, desa refers to the lowest government division led by a head of village (kepala desa). Indonesian government hierarchy starts from the central government, province, district or mayoralty, sub-district, and village (desa). Hence, through the Law No. 5/1979, New Order regime shaped the structure of the village government, which consisted of the head of village and the Village Consultative Assembly (Lembaga Musyawarah Desa or LMD). The head of village was directly elected by the villagers. The head of village was also as the

1 The original text of article 18’s elucidation of 1945 Constitution before amendment was “Dalam teritoir negara Indonesia terdapat lebih kurang 250 ‘Ze besturende Landschappen’ dan’ Volksgemeenshappen’ seperti desa di Jawa dan Bali, Nagari di Minangkabau, Dusun dan Marga di Palembang dan sebagainya. Daerah-daerah itu mempunyai susunan asli, dan oleh karenanya dapat dianggap sebagai daerah yang bersifat Istimewa. Negara Republik Indonesia menghormati kedudukan daerah-daerah istimewa tersebut dan segala peraturan negara yang mengenai daerah itu akan mengikuti hak-hak asal-usul daerah tersebut.” [In Indonesia state territory, there are approximately 250 ‘Ze besturende Landschappen’ and ‘Volksgemeenshappen’ like villages in Java and Bali, Nagari in Minangkabau, Dusun and Marga in Palembang and so on. These regions have their own genuine orders, and therefore they can be considered as regions with special privileges. The State of Republic of Indonesia respects the positions of these special regions and all state regulations for these regions will follow the origin rights of these regions].

2 The original text of Article 18b paragraph 2 of 1945 Constitution after amendmend is “Negara mengetahui dan menghormati kesatuan-kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat beserta hak-hak tradisionalnya sepanjang masih hidup dan sesuai dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan prinsip Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, yang diatur dalam undang-undang”.



head of LMD and other institutions such as the Rural Community Resilience Institute (Lembaga Ketahanan Masyarakat Desa or LKMD).

The existence of the head of village was to lead the good governance in the village and to control LMD and other institutions. In this context, the democ-racy efforts were not expected to be functioning. The decision making process was very limited and the involvement of society participation was rigid, too. This scenario had been studied by scholars on the patterns of state and soci-ety relations in Indonesia in terms of decision making process before the 1998 political reform. Some of the scholars displayed the bureaucratic authoritari-anism model (King 1982), Beamtenstaat model (McVey 1982), state-qua state model (Anderson 1983), pluralistic bureaucratic model (Emmerson 1983), bureaucratic polity and patrimonialism model (Jackson 1978; Crouch 1979), Rent Capitalism State (Tomquist 1990), Rentier military state model (Tarter and Young 1990); Bureaucratic Capitalist State model (Robinson 1990), and restricted pluralism (Liddle 1987; Maclntyre 1991). The results of the studies generally stated that the decision-making process on national policies in New Order regime was dominated by political elites at the central level and the pro-cess was the interests of the state or state actors’ reflections.

The Law No. 5/1979 is one of democracy-based forms that promotes the hegemony of New Order regime. According to William Liddle (2001: 80), hege-mony is a nationalism interpretation of the New Order regime based on Pancasila (the five principles) and the 1945 Constitution, that dominantly maintains national integration by establishing a uniform system of village gov-ernment across Indonesia.

This policy had its own impacts on the traditional institutions in the Indonesian village and traditional governance system of any adat communi-ties in various regions, such as adat communities in Bali (Warren 1990: 12-20; Nurdholt 1991: 23-32), in Ambon and Maluku (Lee 1997: 68-74; Zakaria 2000), in West Sumatra (Kato 1989), in Bengkulu, South Western Sumatra (Galizia 1996), and in South Sumatra (Adhuri 2002). Furthermore, Kongres Masyarakat Adat Nusantara or KMAN (the Congress of Traditional Community of the Archipelago), that was held in Jakarta on 17-22 March 1999 and attended by 121 traditional communities from all Indonesian islands, decided that Law No. 5/1979 had removed adat (traditional) governance system including adat leadership system in many Indonesian regions. This stemmed from the New Order regime politics that exerted adat (traditional) community into the state, and also exerted state into adat community. In addition, the congress partic-ipants also proposed to establish a manifesto that clearly mentioned “If the state does not recognize us, then we do not recognize the state” (Kertika and Chandra 1999; Chandra 2007: 10).



Political reform in 1998 considered that the political system built by the New Order regime did not meet the aspirations of democracy which led to the failure of managing relationships between the state and the society. Weak mechanism of checks and balances between state and society provided a centralized power and encouraged injustice. Thus, to develop Indonesia as a nation of a democratic state, political reform needed to take place where power system and the state structures of New Order regime had to be polished. Political reform was expected to create a good relationship between the state and the society. The change was made with the issuance of Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Government, which was later revised by Law No. 32/2004.

This study, then, disclosed the regulation making process in the village of adat community according to the Law No. 32/2004; the relationships among head of village, administrators of Village Consultative Board (BPD), and adat leaders in the village regulation making process in several villages of Adat Saibatin Community in Cukuh Balak Sub-District.

Research Methodology

This research was executed through qualitative approach. The object of the study was a social phenomenon by focusing on the participants or respon-dents. In this research, the respondents were sought to deliver their opinion, thought, and perception on research objectives. The actions of the selected persons in certain activities were observed in order to provide more informa-tion on those matters.

In the qualitative approach, this study applied three methods of data col-lection including interview, observation and documentation. In the interview, the study employed in-depth interviews which led to looking for information by meeting with the respondents directly and asked questions independently without guide of questions prepared in advance. The interview was lively and interactive. For the sake of dynamic atmosphere, the study utilized the format of open-ended questions, but controllable flow of conversation, so that the questions did not deviate from the case studied focusing on the relationships among heads of villages, administrators of Village Consultative Board (BPD), and adat leaders in the village regulation making process in several villages of Adat Saibatin Community. The respondents in this study were the heads of the villages, adat leaders and the administrators of Village Consultative Board (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa/BPD).

Furthermore, the study also used the method of observation. This method was used when the information having been obtained through interviews



seemed unconvincing. It was directly carried out to seek for further informa-tion. This method was also used to observe certain activities relating to the case above and to grasp the meaning of understanding of the respondents so that the interpretation of the research might be based on their own interpretation. The activities involved were located around the village regulation making pro-cess, responses and attitudes of the traditional leaders towards the process. In carrying out this method, the study applied unstructured observation, with-out using the observation guidelines so that the study was able to develop an observation based on the development in the field.

In addition to the two methods, the study also used the method of docu-mentation. The method helped the study to understand and analyze the his-tory of the indigenous people of Lampung, their traditions, customary law, and the governmental system of village according to the existing laws.

Moleong (2009: 330) asserts that not all of the answers from the interviews have the same position, and in this circumstance the research should conduct further tests to guarantee the information is valid and reliable. To test the valid-ity of the data, the research used the three types of triangulation techniques. The triangulation technique of method is when data derived from the inter-views are tested with data obtained from observation and vice versa. The trian-gulation technique of sources can be applied when the information or specific data from one person is used repeatedly to a different respondent. Furthermore, the triangulation technique of situation is used when data obtained from per-son/persons, for instance, in a crowded situation, the researcher will ask him again when he is alone.

The research gathered information from data collection, both from primary or secondary data. The primary sources were obtained through interviews and observation while secondary data were obtained from the documenta-tion. Both data collected were verified systematically, analyzed and presented. When there was a discordance found in the data presentation, the data were deducted or triangulated as long as there were no conflicts of data. The list of respondents of the interview is shown below:

The list of participant’s name in the interview

No Initial name Village Status in the village government

1 AW Suka Raja An Administrator of BHP/One of Adat Suku Leaders

2 KR Banjar Negeri The Village Treasurer/One of Adat Suku Leaders



3 BN Gedung The Head of Village/One of Adat Suku Leaders

4 PJ Gedung The Head of BHP5 MK Kejadian The Head of Village6 TH Suka Padang The Head of Village7 AH Suka Padang The Village Secretary 8 MZ Tanjung Jati The Head of Village9 ZR Tanjung Jati The Head of BHP/One of Adat Suku

Leader10 KN Tanjung Raja The Head of Village11 RH Tanjung Raja The Head of BHP12 ML Tanjung Raja A Village Apparatus13 MH Way Khilau The Head of Village

The Legal Framework for Village Regulation Making Process

The Law No. 22/1999 established the framework for decentralization, regional autonomy and local democracy in the reformation era; before, Indonesia had been tyrannized for three decades by centralized authoritarian system. The Law No. 22/1999, among others, was intended to set the village government, to make it more dynamic and democratic, and to establish structures of power which promote check and balance, to expect growing initiative and creativ-ity of villagers, and able to encourage their increasing participation in rural development. Thus, Law No. 22/1999 emphasized on the principles of democ-racy, community participation, equity and justice, as well as acknowledged the potential and diversity of the region.

However, this law had triggered power and economy conflicts between central government, province, district or mayoralty and village. The cen-tral government was encouraged to revise the Law No. 22/1999 that was considered to deviate from the principle of the integrated state of Republic of Indonesia. District or municipal governments worried about the unlim-ited controls and interventions of the Regional House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah or DPRD). The village government (the head of village and Village Representative Board (Badan Perwakilan Desa/BPD) had strongly urged the revision of Law No. 22/1999 because there was no

No Initial name Village Status in the village government



space provided for decentralization of authority and finance to support the village economy.

In 2004, the central government along with the House of Representatives revised Law No. 22/1999 with Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Government. The new law shifts the framework of the state and society relations which have been designed by the existing law. Unlike Law No. 22/1999, Law No. 32/2004 puts the position of the village under the district/municipality government (Law No. 32/2004, Article 200). BPD has its new name from the Village Repre-sentative Board (Badan Perwakilan Desa) in Law No. 22.1999 to the Village Consultative Board (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa) in Law No. 32/2004. The head of village remains to be elected by the villagers, but the new law allows the mechanism of election based on the tradition of adat community (Article 203). On the other hand, BPD members are no longer elected, but appointed as representatives from sub-village (Government Regulation 72 of 2005, Article 30). Furthermore, the new law limits the function of BPD that is no longer to monitor and supervise the implementation of Village Governance but rather to establish village regulations together with the head of village as to accommodate the aspirations of the villagers (Law No. 32/2004, Article 209).

The decision-making process in the village, according to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs Regulations No. 29/2006 on Guides to the Formation and Mechanism of Composing Village Regulation, mostly relates to village regula-tion, head of village regulation, and decisions of head of village (Article 3). Village regulation is the legislative regulation formed by BPD and head of vil-lage. The head of village regulation is the legislative regulation provisioned by head of village to regulate and conduct the village regulation along with the higher legislative regulation. The decision of head of village is to enact and conduct the village regulation or head of village regulation (Article 1). Those regulations issued by village must not violate public interests and higher legislative regulations (Article 5). This article focuses on the village regulation, including the process of forming regulation for the village of Adat community.

According to Government Regulation No. 72/2005, village regulation has to be related to the Formation of Sub-Village (Article 3), Village Government Organization Structure and Procedure or SOTK (Article 12), Income and Expense Budget (Article 73), Middle Term Village Development Plan or RPJMD (Article 64), Village Financial Management (Article 76), Formation of Business Institutions Owned by Village or BUMD (Article 78), Formation of Cooperation Agency when the village government has formed BUMD (Article 82) and Formation of Community Agency (Article 89).

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs Regulation No. 35/2007 on the General Guide to Reporting and Responsibility Procedures of Village Gov-ernment Conduct in Article 35 gives mandate to the village to form village



regulation on the Report Mechanism of the Head of Village to BPD. Ministry of Domestic Affairs Regulation No. 37/2007 on Guides to Village Financial Management also mandates village on the Village Levy (Article 8) and on the Report of Village Income and Expense Budget or APBDes (Article 17).

In addition, village is granted discretion to make village regulation related to initiative on particular issues that have not been regulated by the higher legislative regulations, as long as the regulations do not deviate from the other higher legislations or violate the public interests. The examples of the initiative issues are prohibition of fishing with electricity in the river and village litter management.

The Minister of Domestic Affairs Regulation No. 29/2006 on Guides for Village Regulation Drafting, elaborates the process of making the vil-lage regulation. The village regulation drafts may come from the head of village or initiatives of BPD. At the stage of composing drafts, community has rights to contribute their aspirations in oral or written forms (Articles 6 and 7). The draft is then discussed together by the village government and BPD (Article 8). If the draft has been agreed by the head of village and BPD, within seven days the head of BPD submits the final draft to the head of village (Article 12). In 30 days, the head of village has to validate and enact the draft into village regulation (Article 13).

The draft of village regulation on the Village Income and Expense Budget, Village Levy, and Village Lay Out has to be firstly approved by BPD. Then, in a maximum of 3 days, the approved draft is proposed by the head of village to the head of district or mayor to be evaluated. The head of district or mayor may endorse the evaluation to the head of sub-district (camat) (Article 11). After having evaluated, the head of village has to enact the draft into village regu-lation. However, if the head of district or mayor does not evaluate the draft within 20 days, the head of village may enact the draft into village regulation (Article 10). Each village regulation enacted by the head of village in seven days should be informed to the head of district or mayor through the head of sub-district for monitoring and evaluation (Article 16). Every enacted village regulation prevails and possesses binding legal power, unless it is determined differently in the village regulation (Article 15).

The Implementation of Village Regulation Making Process in the Village of Adat Community in Tanggamus District

This study was conducted in Tanggamus district. Tanggamus district is one of the 14 districts and municipalities in Lampung province. Geographically, Tanggamus district is located in 104°-105° east longitude and 5°5’-5°56’ south



latitude. This district is 4,654.96 km2 wide and divided into 2,855.46 km2 land region and 1,799.50 km2 oceanic areas. The topography of this region varies between low and high lands, hills and mountains. Approximately 40 percent of land areas have 0 to 2,115 altitudes.

Tanggamus district has been famous with Semangka bay since Banten kingdom. Tanggamus district was also well-known as one of the biggest agri-cultural sources of pepper for the Banten kingdom economy (Kathirithamby-Wells 1990: 114; Ota 2009: 6). The border of Tanggamus district includes West Lampung and Central Lampung districts in the northern part, and Indonesian or Indian Ocean in the southern part of it. In the west, Tanggamus district shares borders with Pesisir Barat district (newly formed district in 2012), and with Pringsewu district (formed in 2008) in the east.

Map 1

SUMATERA ISLAND MAPScale 1 : 10.000.000

105° BT

N

5° LS

104° BT

South Sumatera Province

BengkuluProvince

Middle LampungNorth Lampung

Bandar Lampung

Lampung Bay

Semangka Bay

West Lampung

Way Kanan

BlambanganUmpu

Tulang Bawang

Tulang Bawang

SukadanaGn. Sugh

Kotabuena

East Lampung

South LampungKalanda

Metro

TanggamusKota Agung

TANGGAMUS DISTRICTSUNDA STRAIT

INDIAN OCEAN

4° L

6° LS

Lampung Province



Tanggamus district, in 2012, had 20 sub-districts and 278 villages with the total number of 650,625 population consisting of such ethnicities as Lam-pungnese (the majority is Saibatin Lampungnese),3 ethnic of Semende, Javanese, and Sundanese. Generally, a village inhabited by Lampungnese peo-ple has existed since the period of Banten kingdom and Dutch colonialism. Majority of the villages are scattered in the coastal areas.

After the Law No. 32/2004 was enacted, Tanggamus district determined its provisions of some regional regulations on villages. Amongst them includes Regional Regulation No. 04/2006 on Procedures of Election, Appointing/Inauguration and Terminating Head of Village (kepala pekon or kepala desa), Regional Regulation No. 13/2006 on Village Consultative Board (Badan Hippun pemekonan or Badan Permusyawaratan Desa), Regional Regulation No. 06/2006 on Village Community Institution (Lembaga Kemasyarakatan Pekon), Regional Regulation No. 07/2007 on Guides to Formation and Mechanism of Regulation Drafting in Village Level, Regional Regulation No. 08/2007 on Formation, Termination, Integration and Changing of Village (Pekon) Status into Administrative Village (Kelurahan).

Since Law No. 22/1999 was implemented, Tanggamus district has trans-formed the term of village from “desa” to “pekon”. Pekon refers to adat as a region and it is an integral life in maintaining kinship system, social, politi-cal, and economic systems led by adat leaders namely Punyimbang Saibatin (Arifin 2000: 2). Saibatin term comes from two words; sai means “being able” or “single” and batin means “heart”. Thus, Saibatin is a community that has a particular territory and is able to unite with oneness of heart in establishing and running a life together in accordance with the terms specified by customs of their ancestors (Arifin 2000: 2).

However, Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 04/2006 defined pekon as sim-ilar as desa which is written in Law No. 32/2004 and Government Regulation No. 72/2005 as follows:

. . . kesatuan masyarakat hukum yang memiliki batas-batas wilayah yang berwenang untuk mengatur dan mengurus kepentingan masyarakat setempat, berdasarkan asal usul dan adat istiadat setempat yang diakui dan dihormati dalam sistem Pemerintahan Negara Kesatuan Republik

3 Adat Lampung communities have two custom systems, pepadun and Saibatin. Lampung pepadun community settles along the river that empties into the Java Ocean while Lampung Saibatin community lives on the coast and along the river that empties into the Indonesian ocean. Based on these two custom systems, the province of Lampung is called Sai Bumi Khua Jurai, which means “the land/territory with two custom systems”.



Indonesia. [. . . a unity of legal community having regional borders with authorities to regulate and administer local community interests, based on the local origin and custom recognized and respected by system of State Government of Republic of Indonesia] (Article 1).

Other than Tanggamus district, West Lampung, Pesisir Barat, and Pringsewu districts also prefer to use the term of pekon to substitute the word desa.

Tanggamus district also substituted the term of Badan Permusyawaratan Desa or BPD into Badan Hippun Pemekonan or BHP that has the same mean-ing of Village Consultative Board term. According to Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 13/2006, BHP is a consultative board of traditional public fig-ures in pekon (Article 1). According to Article 30 of Government Regulation No. 72/2005, the traditional public figures are the heads of sub-villages, tradi-tional leaders (pemangku adat), professional group representatives, religious figures, other public figures, and representatives of each related sub-village. They are appointed as members of BHP by deliberation for decision making conducted by them. According to Article 9 and 10, it is prohibited to appoint members other than participants of deliberation. According to Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 13/2006, the functions of BHP are to establish village regulations along with the head of village, and to accommodate and channel public aspirations as stated in the Article 3. These functions are similar to the functions of BPD according to Law No. 32/2004 and Government Regulation No. 72/2005.

To develop village regulation, the Tanggamus district government has provisioned Regional Regulation No. 07/2007 on Guides to Formation and Mechanism of Regulation Drafting in Village Level. This regulation referred to Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29/2006, on Guides for Village Regulations Drafting. Based on Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007, village regulation draft may come from head of village or from initiative of BHP. At the level of village regulation draft, public has the rights to provide criticisms and inputs orally or in written form (Article 8). At the first stage, if the draft comes from the head of village, the draft is discussed in the meeting which is attended by the head of village (kepala pekon), all village apparatuses, village community institutions and public figures. After that, the draft is pro-posed to BHP for further discussion (Article 9). If the draft comes from initia-tive of BHP (minimum from 3 BHP administrators), the draft is discussed in BHP meeting. Then, the draft is proposed to the head of village (Article 10).

The second stage involves further discussion on the process of developing village regulation drafts. The head of BHP invites members of meeting: BHP



administrators, head of village with his apparatuses, village community insti-tutions and public figures to attend the discussion (Articles 9 and 10). Then, if the village regulation draft gets the approval from the members of deliberation in the meeting, the head of BHP gives the approved draft to the head of village within seven days to be enacted as village regulation (Article 15). Finally, within 30 days, this village regulation will be provisioned and implemented as village regulation by the head of village (Article 16).

The Regulation Making Process in the Village of Adat Community in Cukuh Balak Sub-district, Tanggamus District

This study was focused on villages of Saibatin adat communities in Cukuh Balak sub-district, Tanggamus district in 2012. The sub-district includes Putih and Pertiwi regions. In 2012, Putih and Pertiwi regions consisted of 26,405 populations of 13,806 men and 12,599 women (List of Demography Aggregate for each sub-district or DAK2 in Lampung province). During Banten kingdom, the two regions were known as Kebandaran Putih and Kebandaran Pertiwi. According to Jeffrey Kingstone (1991: 34-35), after 1927, all kebandaran regions were changed into marga regions by Dutch colonial government, so that these two regions were known as Marga Putih and Marga Pertiwi. Now, Putih region consists of eight villages (pekons). They are pekon Putih, pekon Doh, pekon Tanjung Betuah, pekon Banjar manis, pekon Pampangan, pekon Kacamarga, pekon Sawang Balak, and pekon Karang Buah. Meanwhile, Pertiwi region con-sists of ten villages (pekons): pekon Tengor, pekon Way Khilau, pekon Tanjung Raja, pekon Tanjung Jati, pekon Suka Padang, pekon Gedung, pekon Kejadian Lom, pekon Sukaraja, pekon Banjar Negeri, and pekon Kubulangka.

The study was focused on villages in Pertiwi region because it had more villages than Putih region – 10 compared to 8. Unlike villages in Putih region, those in Pertiwi region are located closely to the coastal areas and are also sur-rounded by rivers that become borders between one village to another. The riv-ers often cause flood disasters to the villages because they do not have higher dikes in the village.

In 2003, Tanggamus district government built a wire bridge in Pertiwi region connecting Tanjung Raja village to Tanjung Jati village and accessible for motor bikes only. Cars had to cross the river when the river was in its normal lower water flow. At the time of this study was conducted, the bridge condition was worsening. In 2011, National Community Empowerment Program (or PNPM) built another similar bridge to connect sub-villages in Banjar Negeri village.



Every village in Pertiwi region has three or four sub villages, and roads from a sub village to another are in bad conditions. Surprisingly, every village in this region does not have village office and BHP office.

People in Pertiwi region villages are mostly farmers of paddy field and work in the plantation. The villages have wide paddy fields, and plantations located in the mountains. The school buildings in Pertiwi region are as many as 12 state-owned elementary schools, 1 Islamic elementary school, 2 state-owned junior high schools (located in Kejadian and Kubulangka villages), 3 Islamic junior high schools (located in Suka Padang, Banjar Negeri, and Kubulangka villages), and 1 Islamic senior high school (located in Tanjung Raja village).

Actors in Village Regulation Making Process

According to Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007, as a further provi-sion of Regulation No. 29/2006, actors involved in the village regulation mak-ing process are head of village, village apparatuses, BHP administrators, village

Map 2

WEST LAMPUNG DISTRICT MAP

WEST LAMPUNGDISTRICT

MIDDLE LAMPUNGDISTRICT

ADILUYAHPAGELARAN

AIR NANINGANPULAUPANGGUNG

ULUBELU

KOTA AGUNGBARAT GISTING

KOTA AGUNG

WOSONOBO

SEMAKA

BANJARNEGERI SEMOUNG

RAWA

PARDASUKA

KELUMBAYANBAWAT

KELUMBAYAN

LIMAUKOTA AGUNGTIMUR

BULOKGUNUNG ALIP

PUGUNG

TALANGPADANG

SUMBEREJO

AMBA

GADING REJOPRINGSEWU

SUKOHARJOBANYUMAS

SEMANGKABAY

PESAWARANDISTRICT

CUKUK BAILAKSUB-DISTRICT

CUKUH BALAK

TABUAN ISLAND

PEMATANG



community institutions, public figures, including adat leaders. However, this study only discusses the role of the head of village, BHP administrators, and adat leaders in Pertiwi region villages.

The Heads of Villages

The election of heads of villages in the Pertiwi region which is based on Law 32/2004 began in 2007 and 2008. At that time, the elected heads of villages were relatively young, at the age of 35 to 45 years old, and mostly graduates of junior high school or senior high school. The head of village elections were almost simultaneously held in Pertiwi region in May 2007, but this did not include the head of village election in Tanjung Jati and Suka Padang villages, which were held later in 2008.

Elected heads of villages in 2007 and 2008 were mostly the former heads of the villages. It could happen because they had political experiences for five years (based on Law No. 22/1999) in organizing village governance. However, before becoming the head of village for the first time, some of them got involved in political parties while others were not sufficiently equipped with political experiences.

Their professions, though they were in charge, remained as farmers. Their economic levels were relatively above other people in the village, even above the adat leaders. At the village level, a person cannot become a head of vil-lage if he does not possess strong economic capital as mentioned by Michael Buehler (2010: 273) that candidates need a large cost, among other things, to fulfill the administration requirements and to introduce themselves to the vot-ers, so they need media which means high political cost.

About the aspect of influence, not all heads of villages have strong influ-ences in their respective villages, even some of them have no influence or their leadership is not recognized at all. How can a person without influence be elected as the head of village? Success in the election does not merely depend on his/her good leadership skill, but more on the relentless work of the suc-cess team, effective campaign strategy, and economic strength. The influence of the heads of villages may gradually decline after being elected as heads of villages. This can be caused by their political behaviors that show lack of per-sonal competence as a leader. The political behaviors are apparently shown as they run the power in selecting and appointing village apparatuses and BHP administrators.

The head of village runs village government with the assistance of the vil-lage apparatuses as units of task executors, and they are also helped by heads



of sub-villages. There are six units of task executors in each village: village secretary, village treasurer, head of village development affairs, head of gov-ernment affairs, head of public wealth affairs, and head of general affairs. After inaugurated by the head of Tanggamus district in 2007 and 2008, all heads of villages selected new village apparatuses, and sometimes they still employed the previous village apparatuses.

The head of village generally selected village apparatuses based on some reasons. Some of them are: First, they were members of the success team to win the head of village during the election campaign of head of village; Second, they supported and voted for the head of village in the election; Third, they have blood relationships (close family relationships) with the related head of village; Finally, they are able to manage and cooperate with the head of village in all matters. The position of village secretary is usually occupied by close rela-tives (such as younger or elder brother, uncle, brother in law) because the head of village considers that the employment status of the village secretary can be uplifted to be a civil servant. There are some adat leaders appointed by the head of village as village apparatuses as long as they are included in the loop. Such governance pattern of village government indirectly reduces the influ-ence of the head of village.

Based on the aforementioned political behaviors, the governance of vil-lage government is inevitable from oligarchy model. This model is dominantly influencing political systems in Indonesia both in national and regional levels (Winters 2011; Winters 2013; Fukuoka 2013). Thus, statement by Sidney Tarrow (1994) is true when he suggests that political dynamic (political behavior) occurring in macro level (national) will influence political behavior in the micro level (regional).

In addition, the relationships between the head of village and his people as well as some of adat leaders are in disharmony, and this occurs mostly in many villages in Pertiwi region. According to the observations and inter-views with some adat leaders and public figures, the direct head of village election system causes the disharmonious relationship. Villagers who pre-viously did not vote for the now elected head of village, because they sup-ported another candidate, faced difficulties to get village administrative services from the village government; such as official letter for incapables, referral letter to obtain health service from public hospital ( Jamkesmas/health insurance), and being excluded in the receiver list of rice distribu-tion program for the poor (raskin) and Cash Fuel Compensation Program or BLT. It has resulted to a migration of its resident to another village for facing such difficulties.



In the Pertiwi region, every village has three or four sub-villages. The same discrimination may happen to particular residents of sub-villages when they previously did not vote for the current elected head of village. These difficul-ties might be in forms of discrimination of development or improvement of infrastructure programs such as road development in the sub-villages, or other public services. The political behaviors of head of village usually hypothecate their personal competence as good leaders.

The Village Consultative Board (BHP) Administrators in Villages

The next actor related to village regulation decision making is BHP admin-istrators. BHP stands for Badan Hippun Pekon as Village Consultative Board. According to Government Regulation No. 72/2005 and Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 13/2006, the BHP administrators consist of 5 to 11 public figures appointed based on their deliberation for agreement. Their service term is six years and can be reelected for another occupational period only and it is simi-lar to head of village’s occupational period.

In accordance with the Government Regulation and Tanggamus Regional Regulation, head and vice head of BHP are appointed by members of delib-eration for agreement. Practically, from 2007 to 2012 in Pertiwi region, the head of village appointed BHP administrators and determined the head and vice head of BHP. Such practices were similar to the categories of oligarchy by appointing close relatives in the system. The BHP administrators averagely had educational backgrounds from elementary school to senior high school. They were mostly farmers, and belonged to middle economy level. Their politi-cal experiences relatively varied. Some of them possessed political experience before becoming BHP administrators such as elected as administrators in the political parties in village branches, and occupied experiences of becoming village apparatuses. However, the majority of them were relatively equipped with minimal political experiences.

In addition to that, their existence in BHP did not reflect the representatives of local public figures but they mostly reflected representatives of sub villages. As such, the majority of BHP administrators had limited influence in their vil-lages. The internal relationships amongst them were not running well, either. This could be seen from the intensity of meetings they conducted. Meetings were rarely conducted, even not once in a year. Even worse, BHP did not have an office in villages. There were no responses suggested by BHP administrators regarding to the village political, social, or economic dynamics. Furthermore,



there is no effort on behalf of BHP administrators to seek for explana-tions and clarifications regarding any particular program run by the head of village.

Adat Leaders in Villages

Adat Saibatin community is divided into groups called as suku. There are four big components of a suku; (1) suku kanan I (pampang balak) which is known as suku, (2) suku kiri I (pengepik) known as jakhu suku, (3) suku kanan II/hulu bal-ang (panetop embokh) known as paku sakha, (4) suku kiri II (pengepik) known as suku pandia. Each suku has approximately 50 to 80 suku members, and each suku has a leader called as punyimbang suku. Other than suku leaders, there are other adat leaders that do not lead suku but obliged to leading a particu-lar task. They are known as (5) punyimbang lamban lunik and (6) panggobok/penggewok. The highest position leader among the six adat leaders is a main leader called (7) punyimbang Saibatin. Thus, each village in Pertiwi region gen-erally has seven adat leaders.

Usually, Saibatin leader and other adat leaders have kinship ties through patrilineal (male line) pattern. Their powers also are acquired patrilineally by hereditary (Arifin 2000: 16-23). The adat leaders and their followers inhibit a region that currently included in one sub-village which becomes a main sub-village in each village, while other sub-villages are usually inhibited by other ethnics such as Javanese and Sundanese. The village name is usually derived from the name of the adat main sub-village.

The educational levels of adat leaders in villages of Pertiwi region averagely from elementary school to senior high school background, even some of them were drop out from elementary schools because of economic difficulties. Since 1982, after a long dry season in Pertiwi region, clove plantations have been unproductive because of pest problems and bad weather. At that time, the chil-dren of adat leaders who were attending schools either in Lampung province or in Java Island had to be drop out due to these problems. In order to earn for their living, adat leaders had to change their profession in agriculture sectors of planting vegetables, chili, chocolate, and many more. Due to the changing profession phenomena, they needed longer time to learn the new agricultural abilities. However, to this date most of them belong to middle economy level of income society.

Other than that, up to now the adat leaders have played a very important role in social activities. The relationships between one-adat leader and the oth-ers in the adat affairs seem relatively intensive. They are active in regulating



adat activities such as marriage, handling the death, arrangement of land bor-ders, and others.

The Relationship between Heads of Villages, BHP Administrators and Adat Leaders in the Village Regulation Making Process: An Analysis

According to the Government Regulation No. 72/2005, the process of making village regulation is related to many matters, including initiative that is not regulated by higher legislation. Tanggamus district also issued Regional Regu-lation No. 07/2007 on Guides to Formation and Mechanism of Village Regula-tion Drafting as a further realization of Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29/2006.

From the existing village regulations, this study found that villages in Pertiwi region had a maximum of three village regulations. They were the regulations of Organization Structure and Procedure or SOTK, Budget of Village Income and Expense or APBDes, and the Village Middle Term Development Plan or RPJDes.

This study also found that village regulation making process in each vil-lage in Pertiwi regions did not have a clear procedure or stage based on the Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29/2006 and Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007. The village regulations were mostly made unilaterally by the head of village. The participation from adat leaders as pub-lic figures to display public aspirations generally did not happen. Even, the position of BHP as a party to lead the discussion on village regulations was in a weak position. This was because the village regulation making process did not follow the principle of deliberation for agreement as suggested by the Minister of Domestic Affairs Regulation No. 29/2006 and Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007.

The unilateral action of the head of village also existed in planning village development, especially in drafting Village Fund Budget (anggaran dana pekon or ADP) as a part of Middle Term Village Development Plan (or RPJMDes), and drafting development plans funded by higher government levels (dis-trict, province, or central governments). The examples of the development plans included “Gerbang Helau” (Tanggamus district government program), Village Infrastructure Development Project or PPIP (a program from Ministry of Public Work), National Community Empowerment Program or PNPM (a program from central government), and some agricultural programs. These programs granted fund for the purpose of developing infrastructures.



One of the requirements to propose and use the fund aid was the formation of small committee of local community. The committee for Gerbang Helau and PPIP, for example, was known as “Group of Community or Pokmas” or “Mass Organization or Ormas”. The committee for PNPM program was known as “Executor Team in Village Level or TPK.” The committee for some agricul-tural programs was known as “Coalition of Farmer Groups or Gapoktan”. These committees had one year term of service.

The committee, however, consisted of persons appointed and inaugurated by the head of village alone in which the consideration was likely because of kinship. The appointment did not reflect representation of community and public figures including the appointment of the adat leaders. Some com-mittees (for some different programs) consisted of the same persons. In fact, according to the regulation, the administrator in one committee could not become an administrator in another committee. These committees were considered as corporate organizations formed by the village government and became apparatus of the head of village, not as a community organization running the community empowerment agenda. Community empowerment should be taken as a process of learning by and for the respective commu-nity to obtain autonomy in managing its own affairs that are related to social, economic, and cultural affairs. It is not, on the opposite, to be understood as fund aid given freely by the government to community to be used for their own benefit.

The formidable domination of the heads of villages in one side, and the absence of participation of adat leaders in another side in the village regula-tion making process in the Pertiwi region villages are caused by the following reasons.

1. The disharmonious political relationship between adat leaders and heads of village is likely to occur. This is primarily caused by political behaviors of the heads of village in appointing village apparatuses and BHP administra-tors based on personal and family ties, supports instead of considering the equal treatment for all of the existing sukus. In some villages even the village apparatuses and BHP administrators are from the same suku as the heads of the village, so that all of the village government officials are from the same suku ignoring other existing sukus. Another case, a certain suku that did not vote for the elected head of village in the election will get difficulties from the elected head of village to acquire administrative services from village government on the grounds that the head of village’s program during the campaign period were not granted by this suku. Thus, adat leaders of this



particular suku who are marginalized will inevitably show resistance against the elected head of village.

2. The head of village and village apparatuses look down on adat, including to the roles of adat leaders. Their paradigms show that adat affairs as well as roles of adat leaders have nothing to do with the village government. This argument is based on the statements of some heads of villages that village government is based on legislation established by the state while adat gov-ernment is based on customs with hereditary power system. Hence, the contrastive paradigms trigger the political frictions between the head of vil-lage and adat leaders. It can be seen from the community cooperation activ-ities (gotong royong). In villages of Pertiwi region, this kind of activity is almost extinct, especially in conducting village programs. For adat leaders, the village program belongs to the village government where its success has nothing to do with them. Consequently, they are reluctant to get involved in the village program. On the other hand, the head of village has the same attitude towards the adat affairs. As a matter of fact, the community coop-eration activities (gotong royong) are still practiced in the Pertiwi region vil-lages for such activities as marriage, religion, agriculture, funeral procession, and other social activities, except village programs.

3. The principle of the success in organizing village government is not based on the participation of public figures and achievements of village govern-ment program, but it is more based on the unilateral judgment of district government. This can be seen from Government Regulation No. 72/2005 confirming that the head of village’s accountability is not to community as the constituent, but to the head of district or mayor, via head of sub-district as the government above the village (Article 15). The head of village’s accountability as such reduces the local democracy learning at the village level. Local democracy emphasizes on the accountability of every political official that has to be delivered to the voters, not to the higher ranking offi-cials. In fact, vertical accountability makes head of village less accountable and less responsive to the community because he/she is only obliged to the superiors. Thus, the head of village does not necessarily need to gain and keep people’s trust and fulfill their demands for the sake of public account-abilities because he/she thinks that by delivering the accountability to the superior is sufficient. Therefore, the regulation making, the exercise of authorities, as well as problem solving are not carried properly at village level.

4. There is a gap between the normative format of BPD/BHP institution which is formed by Law No. 32/2004 to increase active participation among the



village community in the development process and the political practices. The existence of BHP administrators should stimulate and improve public participation among the villagers especially involving the village develop-ments and village regulation making process, but BHP roles are clearly less active and often trapped into the head of village overwhelming domination. Since the monitoring authority was terminated and replaced by the Law No. 32/2004, the relationship of BHP administrators and head of village seems very asymmetrical. Practically, they are not equal partners in the village gov-ernment; BHP administrators are only complement in administering the vil-lage government. Even the BHP administrators are under the supervision of the head of village and undeniably agree with the head of village’s policies by signing letters proposed by the head of village without any prior delib-eration for agreement process. The BHP’s stamp which is used as a symbol of authoritative legality is quite often held and kept by the head of village. In addition to that, there was a case in which a head of village substituted one of the BHP administrators in his village due to violating and disobeying his wills. According to the rule, the substitution of one of BHP administrators should be under the approval of the head of district. This indicates that the BHP position is very weak and controlled by the head of village. It is obvious that the head of village expects the BHP administrator’s function is to serve his/her interests while its real function is as an agent to deliver public aspi-rations which goes beyond expectation. In short, BHP administrators have failed to accommodate public interests.

5. The last reason, there is no effort from Tanggamus district government, through Tanggamus regional regulation, to integrate village government system with local adat system. The duty and responsibility of the adat lead-ers and the head of villages are very important especially in the process of development. According to Hans Antlov and Sutoro Eko (2012: 15), the insti-tutions (village government) are set to regulate, be rooted and connected to the society. In addition, decentralization must align with democracy and empowerment, allowing active involvements of people outside the formal state structure. Tanggamus government has made some regional regula-tions on villages and established term “pekon” to substitute term “desa” for village. In fact, pekon in the regional regulations is only a substitute term used for desa (village). Thus, the villages of adat Saibatin community are similar to the non-adat Saibatin villages elsewhere. Even the Tanggamus regional regulations on village are unable to foster the responsiveness and accountability of local government to community-level needs, and do not support the villagers to exert their voices in the regulation making process.



Conclusion

In summary, Law No. 32/2004, Government Regulation No. 72/2005, the Regula-tion of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29/2006, and the Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007 have given space to the participation of the commu-nity leaders in the process of making regulation in the village. However, the regulations tend to put the head of village position as a sole ruler in the village. As far as the process is concerned and practiced in the village of adat Saiba-tin community, mostly the head of village made many regulations unilaterally. Thus, the participation of adat leaders as community leaders in the village was almost invisible. Even the Village Consultative Board was also in the weak position. The regulation making process in the village of adat community did not have clear procedures, as it was regulated in the Government Regu-lation No. 29/2006 and it has been formulated in the Tanggamus Regional Regulation No. 07/2007. In contrast, the implementation of the regulations is disappointingly neglecting the process of deliberation for agreement as the very fundamental principle recognized by both regulations.

References

Adhuri, Dedi Supriadi. 2002. “Between Village and Marga, A Choice of Structure: The Local Elites’ Behaviors in Lahat Regency, South Sumatera.” Antropologi Indonesia, Special Volume: 44-55.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. “Old State, New Society: Indonesia’s New Order in Comparative Historical Perspective.” Journal of Asian Studies 42 (3): 477-96.

Antlov, Hans and Sutoro Eko. 2012. “Village and Sub-District Functions in Decentralized Indonesia.” Paper to DSF’s Closing Workshop, March 12-13. Available online at http://VillageandSubdistrictGovernanceAntloveandSutoro.ndf.

Antlov, Hans. 2003. “Village Government and Rural Development in Indonesia: The New Democratic Framework.” Bulletin of Indonesia Economic Studies 39 (2): 193-214.

Arifin, Said. 2000. Sekilas Cakak Saibatin Khik Cempala 12 [The Overview of Becoming Saibatin and 12 Rules of Adat]. Lampung: Without Publisher.

Brauchler, Birgit. 2007. “A Comeback of Tradition? The Revitalisation of Adat in Eastern Indonesia.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 132(1): 37-57.

Bubandt, Nils. 2004. “Towards a New Politics of Tradition? Decentralization, Conflict, and Adat in Eastern Indonesia.” Antropologi Indonesia, Special Volume: 11-30.

Buehler, Michael. 2010. “Decentralisation and Local Democracy in Indonesia: The Marginalization of the Public Sphere.” In Problems of Democratization in Indonesia:



Elections, Institutions and Society, ed. Edward Aspinall and Marcus Mietzner. Singapore: ISEAS, 267-85.

Burns, Peter. 1989. “The Myth of Adat.” Journal of Legal Pluralism 28:1-127.Chandra, Afdilah Ismi. 2007. Dekonstruksi Pengertian Kesatuan Masyarakat Hukum

Adat dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 [The Deconstruction of Understanding toward Unity of Indigenous People in the Constitution of 1945 of the Republic of Indonesia]. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Brawijaya.

Crouch, Harold. 1979. “Patrimonialism and Military Rule in Indonesia.” World Politics 31 (4): 571-87.

Davidson, Jamie S. and David Henley (eds). 2007. The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics: The Deployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism. New York and London: Routledge Press.

Emmerson, Donald K. 1983. “Understanding the New Order: Bureaucratic Pluralism in Indonesia.” Asian Survey 23 (11): 1220-1241.

Fukuoka, Yuki. 2013. “Oligarchy and Democracy in Post-Suharto Indonesia.” Political Studies Review 11:52-64.

Galizia, Michele. 1996. “Village Institutions After the Law No. 5/1979 on Village Administration. The Case of Rejang-Lebong in South-Western Sumatra.” Archipel 51: 135 -160.

Henley, David and Jamie S. Davidson. 2008. “In the Name of Adat: Regional Perspectives on Reform, Tradition, and Democracy in Indonesia.” Modern Asian Studies 42, 4 (July): 815 -852.

Hooe, Todd Ryan. 2012. “Little Kingdoms”: Adat and Inequality in the Kei Islands, East ern Indonesia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

Jackson, Karl D. 1978. “Bureaucratic Polity: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Power and Communications in Indonesia.” In Political Power and Communications in Indonesia, ed. Karl D. Jackson and Lucian W. Pye. Berkeley: University of California, 3-22.

Kartika, Sandra and Chandra Gautama (eds). 1999. Menggugat Posisi Masyarakat Adat Terhadap Negara [Suiting Adat Community Positions to the State]. Yogjakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Kathirithamby-Wells. 1990. “Banten: A West Indonesian Port and Polity during the 16th and 17th Centuries.” In The Southeast Asian Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, ed. J. Kathirithamby- Wells and John Villiers. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 107-125.

Kato, Tsuyoshi. 1989. “Different Fields, Similar Locusts: Adat Communities and the Village Law of 1979 in Indonesia.” Indonesia 47 (April): 89-114.



King, Dwight Y. 1982. “Indonesia’s New Order as a Bureaucratic Polity, a Neopatrimonial Regime or a Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regime: What Difference Does It Make?” In Interpreting Indonesian Politics: Thirteen Contributions to the Debate, ed. Benedict Anderson and Audrey Kahin. Ithaca: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, 104-116.

Kingstone, Jeffrey B. 1991. “Manipulating Tradition: The State, Adat, Popular Protest, and Class Conflict in Colonial Lampung.” Indonesia 51 (April): 21-46.

Koentjaraningrat. 1990. Beberapa Pokok Antropologi Sosial [Some Principles of Social Anthropology]. Jakarta: PT Dian Rakyat.

Lee, Juliet. 1997. “The Changing Face of the Village in Ambon.” Cakalele 8: 59-77.Liddle, R. William. 1987. “The Politics of Shared Growth: Some Indonesian Cases.”

Comparative Politics 19 (2): 127-146.Liddle, R. William. 2001. “Rezim: Orde Baru [Regime: New Order].” In Indonesia Beyond

Soeharto, ed. Donald K. Emmerson. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 65-121.Macintyre, Andrew. 1992. Business and Politics in Indonesia, New South Wales: Asian

Studies Association of Australia in association with Allen & Unwin.McVey, Ruth. 1982. “The Beamtenstaat in Indonesia.” In Interpreting Indonesian Politics:

Thirteen Contributions to Debate, ed. Benedict Anderson and Audrey Kahin. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, 84-91.

Muhammad, Bushar. 2003. Asas-Asas Hukum Adat [The Principles of Customary Law]. Jakarta: Penerbit Pradnya Paramitha.

Nurdholt, Henk Schulte. 1991. State, Village, and Ritual in Bali: A Historical Perspective. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Ota, Atsushi. 2009. “ ‘Illicit Trade’ in South Sumatra: Local Society’s Response to Trade Expansion, C. 1760-1800.” Taiwan Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 6 (2): 3-42.

Robinson, Richard. 1990. Power and Economic in Soeharto’s Indonesia. Manila, Philippines: Journal of Contemporary Asia.

Tanasaldy, Taufiq. 2012. Regime Change and Ethnic Politics in Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV Press.

Tanter, Richard and Kenneth Young. 1990. The Politics of Middle Class Indonesia. Clayton: Monash University Press.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: University Press.

Ter Haar, Barend. 1960. Asas-Asas dan Susunan Hukum Adat [The Principles and Structure of Customary Law]. Jakarta: Penerbit Pradnya Paramitha.

Tornquist, Olle. 1990. “Rent Capitalism, State and Democracy.” In State and Civil Society in Indonesia, ed. Arief Budiman. Monash University: Center of Southeast Asian Studies, 29-50.

Tyson, Adam. 2010. Decentralization and Adat Revivalism in Indonesia: The Politics of Becoming Indigenous. Abingdon: Routledge.



Warren, Carol. 1990. The bureaucratization of local government in Indonesia. Working Paper 66. Clayton: Monash University Centre of Southeast Asian Studies.

Winters, Jeffrey A. 2011. Oligarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Winters, Jeffrey A. 2013. “Oligarchy and Democracy in Indonesia.” Indonesia 96

(October): 11-33.Zakaria, R. Yando. 2000. Masyarakat Desa di Bawah Rejim Orde Baru [Village

Community Under New Order Regime]. Jakarta: ELSAM.

Government Documents

Undang-Undang No. 5/1979 tentang Pemerintahan Desa [Law 5/1979 on Village Government].

Undang-Undang No. 22/1999 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah [Law 22/1999 on Regional Government].

Undang-Undang No. 32/2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah [Law 32/2004 on Regional Goverment].

Peraturan Pemerintah No. 72/2005 tentang Desa [Government Regulation 72/2005 on Village].

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri No 29 Tahun 2006 Pedoman Pembentukan dan Mekanisme Penyusunan Peraturan Desa [Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs on Guides for Village Regulations Drafting].

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri No. 35/2007 tentang Pedoman Umum Tata Cara Pelaporan dan Pertanggungjawaban Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan Desa [Guides to Procedures of Reporting and Responsibility of Village Government Conduct].

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri No. 37/2007 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Keuangan Desa [Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affair 37/2007 on Gudies to Village Financial Management].

Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Tanggamus No. 4/2006 tentang Tata Cara Pemilihan, Pengangkatan/Pelantikan dan Pemberhentian Kepala Pekon (Kepala Desa) [Tanggamus Regional Regulation 4/2006 on Procedures of Electing, Appointing/inaugurating and Terminating head of village].

Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Tanggamus No. 13/2006 tentang Badan Hippun Pemekonan (Badan Permusyawaratan Desa) [Tanggamus Regional Regulation 4/2006 on Village Consultative Board].

Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Tanggamus No. 06/2007 tentang Lembaga Kemasyaratan Pekon [Tanggamus Regional Regulation 06/2007 on Village Community Institution].

Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Tanggamus No. 07/2007 tentang Pedoman Pembentukan dan Mekanisme Penyusunan Peraturan di Tingkat Pekon [Tanggamus Regional



Regulation 07/2007 on Guides to Formation and Mechanism of Regulation Drafting in Village Level].

Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Tanggamus No. 08/2007 tentang Pembentukan, Pengahapusan, Penggabungan dan Perubahan Status Pekon Menjadi Keluruhan [Tanggamus Regional Regulation 07/2007 on Formation, Termination, Integration and Changing of Village (Pekon) Status into Administrative Village (Kelurahan)].