Microsoft Word - I Wayan Gede Suacana


1 

DEMOCRACY AND AUTONOMY TRANSFORMATION   
IN THE GOVERNANCE OF MENGWI VILLAGE  

IN THE TRANSITION ERA:  
A CULTURAL STUDIES PERSPECTIVE 

 
 

I Wayan Gede Suacana1 , I Gde Paramartha2,  
Ida Bagus Gde Yudha Triguna3, Made Pasek Diantha4 

 
1School for Graduate Study, Udayana University 

2Faculty of Letters, Udayana University 
3Hindu University of Indonesia 

4Faculty of Law, Udayana University 
E-mail: iwayangedesuacana@gmail.com 

 
 

ABSTRACT 
 
 This study discusses “Democra cy and Autonomy Transformation in the 
Governance of Mengwi Village in the Transition Era: A Cultural Studies 
Perspective”. The problem investigated was the shift in the nation’s approach to the 
policy of villages after the reign of New Order.  In this era, the policy of 
democratization and decentralization appeared till the village level. However, the 
policy was not totally implemented in the villages. The aims of this study are: to 
describe democracy transformation in the village governance in the transition era, to 
clarify autonomy transformation in the village governance in the transition era, and to 
analyze the implication and the sense of democracy and autonomy transfor mation to 
the development of village governance.  
 This study was conducted employing qualitative method. Various forms of 
democracy and autonomy transformation in the village governance took place during 
the transition era. In the first stage, the primary and secondary data were collected. In 
the second stage, the theory applied for examining the data was chosen, and in the 
third stage, the collected and classified data were analyzed and interpreted. In the 
fourth stage the results of the study were reported and constructed. The theories 
applied in this study include; democracy, political democracy, substantial democracy, 
decentrali zation and political culture. The approaches applied were Tranpolitic and 
post-structuralism.  
 The results of the study showed that; first, the village democracy in the first 
transition era (1998-1999) was mostly still uniform, and there were not many choices 
in the implementation of the village democracy. The village autonomy was still 
blocked in centralistic pattern, homogeneous with hierarchical structure. Second, in 
the second transition era (2000-2004) the role of the village representatives became so 
democratic accompanied by the extended village autonomy. Third, in the third 
transition era (2005-2008) democracy became retransformed to the procedural pattern 
accompanied by the strengthening of supra village government power  decreasing the 
autonomy of the villages. Fourth, democracy and autonomy transformation 
contributed to the demand for the strengthening of democracy institutions, better 
community participation and more accountable public services, transparence and 



 2

responsiveness to what was needed by the people. Fifth, democracy and village 
autonomy transformation, in addition to having the sense of involving the active 
participation of the society in the village governance, also had the sense of 
strengthening the civil and political society in every village social organization which 
actualized what was needed by the society. This condition at the same time 
functioned as the responses to nation’s hegemony through the supra village 
government which took place until the first transition era. 
 
Key word: democracy and autonomy transformation, supra village power relation, 

dynamic of village governance, cultural studies.   
 
 
 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
  This study discusses “Democra 

cy and Autonomy Transformation in 

the Governance of Mengwi Village in 

the Transition Era: A Cultural Studies 

Perspective”. To understand this 

matter, the forms of village governan 

ce starting from the end of the reign of 

New Order were investigated. During 

the transition era which started from 

1998, there was a shift in government 

from the one oriented toward the 

nation to that oriented toward the 

society, from the authoritarian to 

egalitarian and from government to 

governance. This condition was 

accompanied by the policy of 

implementing democratization and 

decentralization up to the village level 

which shifted the pattern of power 

relationship between the central-

regional government and the village 

government.  

 However, some problems 

emerged in the implementation of the 

policy especially that in the village 

level. There were some gaps among 

realities (das sollen), and there were 

some problems in regard to the 

relationship of the dual village system 

and what was expected  (das sein), that 

is, the realization of  governance in the 

village level, and it is these which have 

encouraged me to  carry out this study.  

The particular problem investigated 

was democracy and autonomy 

transformation in the village level 

which took place during the transition 

era – the era after the reign of New 

Order collapsed (1998-2008). There 

are three main research problems in 

this study. First, how democracy was 

transformed in the village governance 

in the transition era; Second, how the 

autonomy transition took place in the 

village governance in the transition 



 2

era; and third, what was the 

implication and sense of the 

democracy and autonomy 

transformation to the development of 

village governance.  

 Generally, the aims of this 

study are; to describe the democracy 

and autonomy transformation  in the 

governance of Mengwi village in the 

transition era; to clarify the extended 

management process of the village 

governance through the involvement 

of the stakeholders in the social and 

political aspects as well as the utility of 

the natural resources and the finance of 

the villages; and to analyze the 

application of transparency principles, 

accountability, and participation in the 

implementation of the village 

governance directed to what is needed 

by  the society. Specifically, this study 

aims at:  describing the democracy 

transformation and the village 

governance in the transition era; 

second, clarifying the autonomy 

transformation in the village 

governance in the transition era; and 

third, analyzing the implication and the 

sense of democracy transformation and 

village autonomy to the development 

of governance.  

 Academically,  this study has 

some benefits: first, it is able to  

discover a broader thinking frame 

work concerning the village 

governance with its democracy and 

autonomy transformation  directed to 

the implementation of transparency 

principles, accountability and 

participation; second, to contribute a 

new way of thinking  in the 

management of  good and democratic 

village governance, and to contribute 

to  the development of cultural studies; 

and third, to build the basis for  further 

researches on   democracy and 

autonomy transformation  in the 

village governance by applying the  

perspective of cultural studies.   

 Furthermore, practically, this 

study is beneficial to the village 

government elements and all the 

stakeholders, such as the village heads 

and the village representatives (BPD). 

The civil society will able to know its 

responsibilities and functions by 

implementing transparency principles, 

participation, accountability, and 

responsibilities in order to develop the 

village governance. 

 

 

 



 3

MATERIAL AND DISCUSSION 

 

 This study applied qualitative 

research method which illustrates 

democracy and autonomy transfor 

mation in the village governance in the 

transition era. Various forms of 

democracy and autonomy transfor 

mation with their implication and the 

sense in the development of the village 

government were investigated. First, 

primary and secondary data were 

collected, and second,   the appropriate 

theories were chosen for analyzing the 

data. Third, the selected data were 

selected and interpreted, and fourth, 

the process of writing the report and 

constructing all the study results was 

done. In order to achieve the goal, 

various theories were applied such as; 

democracy theory, political 

democracy, substantial democracy, 

decentralization theory, and political 

cultural theory.   

 In order to know the results of 

this study, the explanation is as 

follows: first, from the analysis of 

transition era based on the normative 

and sociological criteria which was 

focused on the early  transition era, 

that is,  from  the end of the reign of 

the New Order  (1998) to the next 

government and the characteristic of 

power relationship between the supra 

village government and the  villages 

manifested in the  legislation 

controlling characteristic, the reality of 

the era transition can be divided into 

three. The first transition era (1998-

1999) still left the strength of the 

central influence and standardization 

of   the  village government 

management and it was the end of the 

implementation of the regulations  

number 5/1979 concerning the village 

government; the second transition era 

(2000-2004) was the peak of the  

political liberalities when a wide 

autonomy for the regions and villages 

was provided  by implementing the 

regulations number  22/1999 

concerning  regional government; and 

in the third transition era (2005-2008) 

there was a tendency to rearrange 

some  rights for the regions  and 

villages by the central government by 

implementing the regulations  number 

32/2004 concerning the regional 

government and regulation number 

72/2005 concerning villages. 

 Second, from the analysis of 

democracy transformation in the 

village governance, in reality, the 

village democracy in the first transition 



 4

era was authoritarian-leviathan; there 

were not many choices in the 

implementation of the village 

democracy. The term, structure, 

function and mechanism in conducting 

the village government had been 

standardized. The paradigm of the 

authoritarian political arrangement did 

not give sufficient chance for diversity 

in pattern and management of the 

village government to emerge. In the 

second transition era, a basic shift 

occurred toward Lilliputian-

Libertarian by replacing the village 

consultation body which previously 

had corporative characteristic with the 

monolithic power in the village head 

with the Village Representative Body 

(BPD-1 = Badan Perwakilan Desa) 

which was much more democratic so it 

could produce a more equal relation of 

power.   This condition increased the 

freedom of the villages to be more 

creative in arranging the village policy 

which was adapted to the tradition, the 

need and aspiration of the community. 

Entering the third transition era, the 

village democracy was retransformed 

to the pattern of procedural-

democracy, that is, the reorganization 

of the institutional system and the 

process of democracy by   forming a 

new institution called the Village 

Consultation Board  (BPD-2 = Badan 

Permusyawarahan Desa) whose  

function was weaker than that of BPD-

1).  

 Third, from the analysis of the 

autonomy transformation  in the 

village governance,  the village 

autonomy in the first transition era was 

still  centralistic – homogeneity which 

was constrained by centralistic pattern, 

homogenized by hierarchical structure  

making  it difficult to keep it beyond 

the system previously determined  by 

the central government. Such a 

condition made it difficult to manage 

the village governance which still 

referred to dualistic pattern. In the 

second transition era, there was 

autonomy transformation which was 

centralistic – heterogeneity in which a 

wider autonomy was delivered to the 

village level. Previously, the service 

aspects were de-concentrated on the 

village heads, while the strategic 

decision making related to villages was 

still concentrated in Jakarta.   

Transformation from the power of 

centralization to decentralization took 

place by developing the village 

governance based on plurality, 

participation, true autonomy, democra 



 5

cy, empowerment of the society. In the 

third transition era, the village 

autonomy was re-transformed toward 

the form of heterogeneity-decentralist 

with the strong controlling power of 

the state via the supra-village 

government over the villages through 

the policy on the villages especially in 

terms  of formation, deletion, merging, 

arrangement of the village government 

and leaders, village finance and  

development. All of them were 

conducted by the regency government 

officials determined through the 

regional policy referring to the central 

government policy. 

 Fourth, from the analysis of the 

implication of the democracy and 

autonomy transformation,  there were 

claims that the democracy institutions 

be strengthened, that the society 

participation be improved,  that  more 

transparent public services be created, 

and that accountability and 

responsiveness  toward what was 

needed by the village society be 

needed. The village government does 

not run and control its own as it was 

practically done before, but it has been 

controlled and adapted to the condition 

of civil and political societies (BPD1 

and BPD 2) which are active, 

articulative, and organized.  

Transformation of democracy and 

autonomy means the implementation 

of the transparent principles, 

accountability, and participation in the 

village governance. The presence of 

civil society organized in various 

village social organizations which dare  

articulate what is needed by the  

village society  is the feedback of the 

state’s hegemony taking place 

previously. The village apparatus, 

especially BPD 1, as political society 

has acted as the mediating structure 

which translates the state’s power in 

the lowest level to become legally- 

based government, that is, the 

transformation from the rule of power 

to the rule of law. 

 

RESEARCH NOVELTY 

 

 The novelty of this study: First, 

transformation occurred from the 

normative democracy which was 

authoritarian-leviathan in the first 

transition era to the substantial 

democracy which was libertarian-

liliput in the second transition era. This 

condition was followed by the 

minimization of the village 

bureaucratic domination which was 



 6

then equalized by the role of the 

Village Representation Board (BPD-1 

or the other village informal 

institutions, such as traditional banjar, 

traditional villages, and youth 

organizations. The equality in roles 

among the institutions in the second 

transition era was part of the social 

principles in which the participative 

values developed authentically.  

 Second, substantial democracy 

which was libertarian-lilliputi in the 

second transition era tended to be re-

transformed into the procedural 

democracy in the third transition era. 

The existence of the Village 

Representative Board was replaced by 

the Village Consultation Board as the 

new legislative board in the villages. 

The board still has the role of looking 

after the tradition, with the village 

heads, producing the policies of the 

villages, accommodating and 

delivering the society’s aspiration, and 

controlling the management of the 

village government, but it lacked the 

right of asking   the village heads for 

their responsibilities. 

 Third, autonomy transfor 

mation occurred from that which was 

centralistic-homogeny in the first 

transition era into that which was 

decentralization-heterogeneity in the 

second transition era. The perspective 

of governance which minimized the 

state’s power was then implemented 

by minimizing the government 

intervention in the livelihood of the 

village society. The society has a wide 

autonomy to manage itself because the 

government role is restricted only as 

the regulator and facilitator. There has 

been a kind of mechanism, practice 

and system of government, and the 

villagers manage their resources and 

solve the public problems emerging.          

Fourth, the decentralization-

heterogeneity autonomy in the second 

transition era was retransformed into 

that which was centralistic-homogeny 

in the third transition era. The supra 

village government withdrew some of 

the village autonomy rights making it 

unable to create such an atmosphere as 

it likes that it can facilitate  the 

political society in the village 

legislative institution; the civil and 

economic society in the village can 

synergize with the village government.        

Fifth, the condition of the 

democracy and autonomy 

transformation which was   dynamic-

fluctuant in that transition strongly 

influenced the development of the 



 7

village governance. The development 

of the village governance which had 

already been good in the second 

transition era became faint in the third 

transition era in line with the role of 

the supra village government, which 

within a certain limit—though not as 

great and strong as in the first 

transition—had taken part in 

restraining the progress of the 

democracy and autonomy 

transformation of the villages.  It 

seemed that there was no consistency 

in commitment and political will of the 

government to implement the policy of 

democracy and autonomy that 

contributed to the realization of the 

village governance. 

 

RESEARCH CONCLUSION 

  

The conclusion of this research 

is that the democracy and autonomy 

transformation in the village gover 

nance which is in the forms of 

transparency principles, accountability 

and society participation commencing 

since the end of the first transition era, 

reached its peak in the second 

transition era, and restrained in the 

transition era. The transformation of 

the village democracy which is 

actually the changes in structure, 

function, mechanism of the village 

government can be made more 

democratic by paying attention to the 

institutionalization of the political 

participation of the society, the 

effective control of the village 

representative and critical strength, 

transparency in the process of the 

village policy, and the accountability 

toward the village society as the owner 

of the sovereignty.  Transformation of 

the village autonomy means high 

respect to the village duality, local 

genius in the village, implementation 

of decentralization and to give 

authority to the village to handle its 

cases which was originally its own 

rights in the frame of a united country. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 

I would like to take this 

opportunity to express my great thanks 

to Prof. Dr. I Gde Parimartha, MA., as 

my promoter, Prof. Dr. Ida Bagus Gde 

Yudha Triguna, MS. as co-promoter I 

and Prof. Dr. I Made Pasek Diantha, 

SH, MH., as co-promoter II who have 

attentively given me support, 

encouragement and guidance starting 

from the proposal writing to the last 



 8

process of completing this dissertation 

report. I would also like to deliver my 

high appreciation to the Directorate of 

Higher Education of the Department of 

National Education who has granted 

me scholarship in the form of BPPS, 

Bali Province Korpri Foundation of 

Warmadewa University, the Regional 

Government of Bangli District, Rector 

of Udayana University, Director of 

Post-Graduate Program Udayana 

University and staff, and the Head of 

Cultural Studies Doctorate Program of 

Udayana University and staff.      

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 

Almond, Gabriel A., dan Verba, 
Sidney, 1984. Budaya Politik: 
Tingkah Laku Politik dan 
Demokrasi di Lima Negara, 
Jakarta: Bina Aksara. 

  
Bennett, David (ed), 1993. Cultural 

Studies: Pluralism and Theory, 
Melbourne, Melbourne: Univer 
sity Literary and Cultural 
Studies, Volume 2 

 
Berg, Bruce L. 1989. Qualitative 

Research Methodes for the 
Social Sciences, Boston: 
Indiana University of Pennsyl 
vania. 

 
Cheema, Shabir G., dan Rondinelli, 

Dennis A.(eds) 1988. 
Decentralization and Develop 
ment: Policy Implementation in 

Developing Countries, Beverly 
Hill USA: Sage Publication. 

  
Dahl, Robert A.1971. Polyarchy: 

Participation and Opposition, 
New Haven, Yale University. 

 
___________, A., 1982. Dilemmas of 

Pluralist Democracy: Autono 
my vs Control, New Haven: 
Yale University. 

 
Dwipayana, Ari, dan Eko, Sutoro (ed), 

2003. Membangun Good 
Governance di Desa, Yogya 
karta: IRE Press.  

 
Eko, Sutoro dan Rozaki, Abdur (ed), 

2005. Prakarsa Desentralisasi 
dan Otonomi Desa, Yogya 
karta: Penerbit IRE Press. 

 
Fukuyama, Francis, 2005. Memperkuat 

Negara: Tata Pemerintahan 
dan Tata Dunia Abad 21, 
Jakarta: Penerbit PT Gramedia 
Pustaka Utama. 

 
Gaffar, Afan, 2004. Politik Indonesia: 

Transisi Menuju Demokrasi, 
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. 

 
Geriya, I Wayan, 2000. Transformasi 

Kebudayaan Bali Memasuki 
Abad XXI, Denpasar: Dinas 
Kebudayaan Propinsi Bali. 

 
Held, David, 1987. Models of 

Democracy, Cambridge: Polity 
Press. 

 
Holt, Claire (ed), 1972. Culture and 

Politics in Indonesia, Ithaca 
and London: Cornell Universi 
ty Press. 

  
Jackson, Karl D., and Pye, Lucian W. 

(eds), 1978. Poltical Power 



 9

and Communications in 
Indonesia, Berkeley: Universi 
ty of California Press. 

 
Karim, Abdul Gaffar, (ed), 2003. 

Kompleksitas Persoalan Otono 
mi Daerah di Indonesia, 
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar 
dan Jurusan Ilmu Pemerintahan 
Fisipol UGM. 

 
Kautilya (Canakya), Made Astana dan 

CS Anomdiputro (penerj.), 
2003. Arthasastra, Surabaya, 
Penerbit Paramitha. 

 
Maddick, 1963. Democracy, Decentra 

lization and Development, 
Bombay: India, Asia Publis 
hing House. 

 
Mawhood, Philip, 1983. Local 

Government in The Third 
World, Chicester, UK: John 
Wisley and Sons. 

 
Nordholt, Henk Schulte, 2006. The 

Spell of Power: Sejarah Politik 
Bali 1650-1940, Denpasar: 
Pustaka Larasan. 

 
Piliang, Yasraf A., 2005. Transpo 

litika: Dinamika Politik di 
dalam Era Virtualitas, Yogya 
karta: Jalasutra. 

 
Powel, Jr, G. Bingham, 1982. Contem 

porary Democracies: Participa 
tion, Stability and Violence, 
Cambridge: Mass., Harvad 
University Press. 

Ritzer, George, 1980. Sociology: A 
Multiple Paradigm Science, 
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 

 
Said, Mas’ud, M., 2005. Arah Baru 

Otonomi Daerah di Indonesia, 
Malang: UMM Press. 

Santoso, Purwo dkk (ed), 2003. 
Pembaharuan Desa Secara 
Partisipatif, Yogyakarta: 
Program S2 Politik Lokal dan 
Otonomi Daerah UGM dan 
Pustaka Pelajar. 

 
Smith, Brian, 1985. Decentralization, 

London UK: George Allen and 
Unwin 

 
Sorensen, Georg, 2003. Demokrasi 

dan Demokratisasi: Proses dan 
Prospek dalam Sebuah Dunia 
yang Sedang Berubah, Yogya 
karta: Pustaka Pelajar. 

 
Uhlin, Anders, 1995. Democracy and 

Diffusion: Transnational 
Lesson-Drawing among 
Indonesian Pro-Democracy 
Actors, Sweden: Departement 
of Political Science, Lund 
University. 

 
Warren, Carol, 1993. Adat and Dinas: 

Balinese Communities in the 
Indonesian State, Kuala 
Lumpur: Oxford University 
Press.