http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/jgp.2016.0041.516-550 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 516 Received 21 August 2016 Revised 13 September 2016 Accepted 17 September 2016 Bureaucracy and the Politics of Identity: A Study on the Influence of Ethnicity on the Bureaucrat Recruitment Process in Sorong Selatan Regency, West Papua, Indonesia BAMBANG PURWOKO Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia email: bbpurwoko@ugm.ac.id ABSTRAK Secara empiris, pemerintah Indonesia memperkenalkan model birokrasi yang seragam untuk seluruh wilayah di Indonesia. Sementara masing-masing daerah memiliki karakter masyarakat yang berbeda-beda yang berpengaruh pada birokrasinya, pemaksaan model birokrasi yang seragam dapat dianggap sebagai kegagalan dalam menciptakan model birokrasi yang sensitif terhadap konteks lokal. Penelitian ini dilakukan di kabupaten Sorong Selatan, Papua Barat sebagai upaya untuk mengisi kesenjangan baik di tingkat teoritis maupun empiris tentang hubungan antara birokrasi dan identitas politik. Penelitian ini membahas bagaimana politik identitas, khususnya etnis, bekerja dalam berbagai proses lobi oleh birokrat dari kelompok etnis yang berbeda untuk mendapatkan posisi strategis di birokrasi. Lebih khusus lagi adalah upaya untuk menjawab pertanyaan tentang apakah etnis mempengaruhi penunjukan birokrat di Sorong Selatan. Pada penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa identitas etnis menjadi faktor penting yang digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk mendukung promosi birokrat. Identitas etnis tidak hanya mencerminkan perbedaan budaya di antara kelompok-kelompok etnis yang beragam namun berkaitan erat dengan peran kelompok etnis dalam administrasi di Sorong Selatan. Setiap kelompok etnis memiliki dasar yang kuat untuk mengklaim peran penentu mereka di pemerintah daerah dan dalam pemilihan Bupati. Klaim seperti itu berfungsi sebagai dasar untuk menuntut kompensasi untuk mendapatkan kantor strategis dalam birokrasi. Dapat dikatakan bahwa identitas etnis berfungsi sebagai alat politik untuk mendukung proses lobi. Kata kunci: birokrasi, rekrutmen, identitas politik, etnis, pemerintahan lokal. ABSTRACT Empirically, the central government of Indonesia introduced a uniform bureau- http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/jgp.2016.0041.516-550 cratic model to the entire territory of the country. While each region has a distinct com- munity characters and each character has aninfluence onthe bureaucracy, uniform model of the central government bureaucracy can be regarded as a failure to deliver a bureau- cratic model which is sensitive to local context.This study, which was conducted in Sorong Selatan district of West Papua, is an effort to fill the gaps in both theoretical and empirical level on the relationship between the bureaucracy and political identity. In the area of research, political identity has a significant influence on the bureaucracy. This study dis- cusses how identity politics, particularly ethnicity, works in a variety of lobbying processes by bureaucrats of different ethnic groups to gain strategic positions in bureaucracy. More specifically, it is an attempt to address the question of whether ethnicity affects the appointment of bureaucrats in Sorong Selatan.It was found that ethnic identity became an important factor used as an instrument to support promotion of bureaucrats into important positions. Ethnic identity does not merely reflect cultural differences among diverse ethnic groups but is closely related to the ethnic groups’ roles in Sorong Selatan administration. Each ethnic group has a strong basis to claim their determinant role in the local governments and in the election of the Regent. Such a claim serves as the basis for demanding compensation to obtain strategic offices in bureaucracy. It is argued that ethnic identity serves as a political instrument to support the lobbying process. Keywords: bureaucracy, recruitment, political identity, ethnicity, local governance. A. INTRODUCTION Indonesia has been pretending to be able to rely on Weberian notion of bureaucracy in governing its populous and culturally diverse country. Bureaucracy is meant to serve the country ratio- nally and be oriented toward achieving predetermined goals ef- fectively (Albrow, 1970:41; S.L. Das, 2010), given its main char- acteristics: including hierarchy, continuity, impersonality, and expertise (Beetham, 1987: 11-12; Trikha, 2009: 8-10). The reli- ance on hierarchical-chain of command and impersonal logic makes bureaucracy work in an inhumane manner, confining employees in a formal structure that isolates them from social life. This can be described as a “collision between the bureau- cratic and social life” (Hummel, 1977:62). This Weberian model of bureaucracy is counter productive when implemented in the Indonesian context. Despite its insistence on applying formal rules indiscriminately, bureaucracy is defenceless to subversion of these very rules. It is entrapped in an acutecontradiction. Local context is one of the important factors affecting the performance of the bureaucracy. The strong influence of iden- tity politics on local government administration in Papua and West Papua provinces provide one example of this variation. In JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 517 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 518 the Dutch colonial period, Papua was generally referred to as Western New Guinea or Dutch New Guinea (Nederland’s Nieuw Guinea). After being integrated to Indonesia in 1969, its name was changed to West Irian Province. In 1999, Papua was to be divided into three provinces (Papua, Irian Jaya Tengah, Irian Jaya Barat) but the province was then simply divided into two: Papua and West Papua (Widjojo, 2011: 2). Housing civil servants of various ethnic backgrounds, the bureaucracy has not been able to create a situation where all could work together irrespective of their ethnic origin. The Sorong Selatan (Sorsel) Regency in West Papua province was chosen as a research area because, this area provides a good example of the uniquely diverse demographic character present in the rest of the region. The ethnic and social dynamics of the communities, including those living inland and in coastal regions, has a signifi- cant influence on the local bureaucracy. An exploration of the influence of ethnicity on bureaucracy in Sorsel Regency would shed light on the fundamental issues of government manage- ment in Papua and other regions in Indonesia. This paper discusses how identity politics, particularly ethnicity, works in a variety of lobbying processes by bureaucrats of different ethnic groups to gain strategic positions in bureau- cracy. More specifically, it is an attempt to address the question of whether ethnicity affects the appointment of bureaucrats in Sorsel. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH FOCUS Studies on bureaucracy have given significant contribution to the development of social studies in Indonesia. In addition to the benefit to the academic world, such study also has a real social relevance as it can be used as a basis for policy-making to build a better bureaucratic system. One of the important refer- ences in the study of bureaucracy is a book by Heather Sutherland (1979) The Making of A Bureaucratic Elite, The Colonial Tranformation of the Javanese Priyayi that uncovers the origins and historical development of Indonesia’s bureaucracy from the era of Javanese kingdom to the Dutch colonial period. This book carefully highlights the transformational process of the Indone- sian bureaucracy as a power instrument of Javanese kingdom in the past to that of the Dutch colonial administration, which at the same time functioned as an effective machine to support the political and economic interests of the colonial government. Furthermore, in the New Order era there was further study on bureaucracy from a variety of perspectives. Dwight Y. King (1987) ‘Indonesia’s New Order As Bureaucratic Polity, A Neopatrimonial Regime or A Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regime: WhatDifferences Does It Make?’ introduced the term “bureaucratic authoritarianism” as a criticism to the model of “bureaucratic polity” used by Karl D. Jackson (1978) to explain the bureau- cratic model of the New Order in which both power and politi- cal decision-making authority were in the hands of civilian bu- reaucrats and military officers backed by technocrats. Another study, carried out by David Reeve (1985) Golkar of Indonesia, an Alternative to The Party System explains the relationship between bureaucracy and politics by examining the case of Golkar politi- cal party. Reeve argues that bureaucracy in the early New Order became an effective political machine that played a major role for Golkar’s triumph. Mohtar Mas’oed (2003) Politik, Birokrasi, dan Pembangunan examined bureaucracy from a political economy perspective and put bureaucracy as a political actor in the context of the global economy. This study posits that the bureaucracy is an instru- ment of the state to defend the economic interest, especially in Third World countries, with an indication of the politicization of bureaucracy for the sake of securing capital. Meanwhile, Ryaas Rasyid (1997) Kajian Awal Birokrasi Pemerintahan dan Politik Orde Baru discussed bureaucracy from a governmental perspective in the context of Indonesia’s national development in the 1980s. Priyo Budi Santoso (1997) Birokrasi Pemerintah Orde Baru specifi- cally highlights the dominance of bureaucracy in the political- JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 519 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 520 governmental system of the New Order. It reviews the success of the bureaucracy in playing its role as a political actor, which was evident in its involvement in Golkar’s victory in general elec- tions. In addition, the book also reviews the role of bureaucracy in the successful development programs of the New Order era. Miftah Thoha (2002) Perspektif Perilaku Birokrasi focuses on suitable bureaucratic behaviour for the Indonesian state admin- istration. Bureaucratic behaviour is closely linked to the cultural approach that at that time was considered the most suitable frame- work in studying Indonesian bureaucracy. Miftah Thoha (2007) Birokrasi Pemerintahan Indonesia di Era Reformasi also wrote a book about the bureaucracy with a focus on bureaucratic management in Indonesia. In addition to the studies on the behaviour and bureaucratic management by Miftah Thoha, Sondang Siagian (1994) Patologi Birokrasi: Analisis, Identifikasi dan Terapinya also studied the pathology of bureaucracy. Some of the ‘bureaucratic pathology’ includes misuse of authority, prejudiced perception, conflict of interests, bribes, fear of change/innovation, arrogance, deceit, blaming others, lack of commitment, and indifference to criticism and suggestions. Bureaucratic pathology in Indonesia is also related to inaccuracy, counter-productive action, learning disability, hesitant attitudes, lack of initiative, inability to describe the policy of the leadership, and the tendency of bureaucrats to act in discordance with their duties. Bureaucratic failure in creating quality public service delivery has spurred many publications centred on bureaucratic reform, including Agus Dwiyanto, et. al. (2003), Ambar Sulistiyani (2004), and Yuyun Purbokusumo, et al. (2006). Dwiyanto explains the results of research on bureaucratic reform in some provinces in Indonesia and they assess the performance of the bureaucracy. This study attempts to explain how environmental conditions interact with the internal characteristics of bureaucrats that ulti- mately shape the practices and behaviour of public officials who tend to be power-oriented, to ignore the public interests, and to be very rigid in applying the procedures and regulations so that worsen the performance of the public services. Meanwhile, the book by Purbokusumo describes the background and process of bureaucratic reform in the Special Territory of Yogyakarta, and Sulistiyani’s writing highlights the aspects related to human re- source management in the bureaucracy. In 2008, Fadel Muhammad as the Governor of Gorontalo Province authored a book Reinventing Local Government: Pengalaman Dari Daerah ex- amining the practice of organizing the bureaucracy at the local level. Muhammad reviews the success of Gorontalo provincial government in managing the bureaucracy in the era of decen- tralization and regional autonomy. Muhammad goes some way in simplifying complex theories used to examine the performance of bureaucracy in provincialgovernment. Some works also study Indonesian bureaucracy’s connection to the social structure of the country. Joel. S. Kahn (1987) ex- plains three important aspects that can be used to understand the ideology and social structure of Indonesia, namely: aliran (cultural stream), ethnicity, and patterns of patron-client relation- ship. Aliran is the terminology used by Geertz (1976) to describe the political orientation of community groups influenced byre- ligious factors. Ethnicity is used to analyse political behaviour, as conducted by Liddle (1970). Patron-client patterns are used by sociologists and anthropologists to explain the pattern of rela- tionships between individuals with different access to power and wealth. The pattern of patron-client relationships will be used in this thesis to explain the behaviour of bureaucrats and their rela- tions with various ethnic communities. Setiawan (1998) relates bureaucracy to the influence of ethnicity especially by the Javanese concept of power. The Javanese concept of power suggests a form of ethnic dominance (Javanese) in the bureaucratic management in Indonesia. Among the influ- ence of Javanese control on bureaucracy is the centralization of power in the hands of the leader, the paternalistic style of man- agement, and a strong Javanese culture of ewuh-pakewuh (“un- easiness, awkwardness, uncomfortable, ill at ease”) which is a JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 521 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 522 Javanese custom not to say directly anything that could poten- tially insult the interlocutor or demean oneself. The embodi- ment of the ewuh pakewuh value in the bureaucracy is the will to live in harmony and with respect. The will to live in harmony is implemented through an attitude of “avoiding any potential con- flict or dispute” while the will to live with respect underlies the understanding that one should pay attention to the degree and position to which one belongs. Muhaimin’s work (1980) also states that the strong influence of Javanese culture on the bureaucracy is noticeable in the insti- tutionalization of reticent attitudes and the pattern of patron- client relationships in management. The widespread patron-cli- ent patterns in bureaucratic management confirm the influence of traditional aristocratic Javanese styles on the local bureaucracy. There are certain studies on Papua that focus either on the local government bureaucracy or on the problems of ethnicity in a particular region. Books by Yan Pieter Rumbiak (2005), Sem Karoba, et al. (2005), Frits Bernard Ramandey, et al. (2006), and Bambang Purwoko (2008) deal with questions of Papuan special autonomy. Rumbiak elaborates the Papuan people’s disappoint- ment to the Central Government at various periods since inte- gration of Papua into Indonesia to partition of territories into new administrative entities, which have been coloured by vio- lent conflict. Koroba argue that autonomy is actually a policy to accommodate a variety of interests: personal, local, national, re- gional and international interests, all of which actually lead to the same thing, that is, the search of material gains. Ramandey shifts focus toward the background of special autonomy imple- mentation in Papua, including the policy principles. Meanwhile Purwoko analyses the eight-year implementation of special au- tonomy (from 2001 to 2008) and the impeding factors on its success. To understand the problematic relationship between bureau- cracy and ethnicity in Papua it is not sufficient to simply review the literature on decentralization or special autonomy, but also important to examine the fundamental socio-political aspect of the society. Mansoben (1994) take on the traditional political system is a helpful reference. This book describes the social struc- tures of the indigenous people of Irian Jaya (now Papua), the varied patterns of leadership and religious systems. The book also provides information on the organization of traditional gov- ernance, organizational structure of central and regional organi- zations, as well as the relationship between power and economy in regard to the royal system of leadership. Mansoben’s elabora- tion on the types of leadership in Papua is highly relevant to explain the behaviour of ethnic groups in Papua and their in- volvement in the structure of local bureaucracy. Schoorl (2001), with a focus on on the history of governance in Papua, describes the early contact between Irian Jaya and the outside world, which was first established by the Dutch. Based on the articles written by the Dutch administrators in Papua it provides a detailed pic- ture on the condition of its people during 1945-1962. In the past ten years, there has been considerable research on the politics and governance in Papua. Two books whose content is relevant to this study are by Richard Chauvel (2005) on Papua nationalism and by Widjojo, ed (2010). Chauvel describes the fundamental problems that Papuans faced by looking at histori- cal factors and ethnicity as well as the influence of the govern- mental models of both Dutch colonial administration and Indo- nesia on the rise of Papuan nationalism. The part most relevant to this study is a description of the anti-amberi (foreigner) senti- ments among Papuan bureaucrats. Widjojo’s Papua Road Map identifies four sources of conflict in Papua: a) the effects of marginalization and discrimination against indigenous Papuans; b) the failure of development in education, health and economic empowerment of the people; c) contradiction between Jakarta and Papua on history and the construction of political identity; and d) accountability for past State violence against Indonesian citizens in Papua. Widjoyo’s examination about“papuanisation of the bureaucracy” is very closely connected with this study on JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 523 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 524 bureaucracy and ethnicity in Sorong Selatan. In relation to pemekaran (regional partition) in Papua, a study by Andrew McWilliam (2011) reviews comprehensively the con- sequences of radical decentralization policy in the form of waves of pemekaran in Konawe regency, South Sulawesi and Teluk Bintuni regency, West Papua. Both regencies underwent differ- ent process of regional partition according to their own contexts of local politics and society. Nevertheless, the logic of regional partition elaborated in this study presents a critical overview of the discrepancy between the ample power extent and the lack of political capacities, which resulted in the poor governance and administration in the two regencies. The study compares the two pemekaran processes by identifying the trigger factors, the actors, the required resources and the administration of the new au- tonomous regions. Furthermore, it explains the political spec- trum after the pemekaran. The resulting success and failure is analysed to see the extent to which cultural and structural fac- tors significantly affect the sustainability of local autonomy. Another study on Papua in relations to the pemekaran is by Aloysius G. Brata (2008). It explains the political and govern- ment configuration in the form of regional expansion in Papua as a consequence of decentralization. This book elaborates on the factors that drove the pemekaran by identifying the various underlying interests. Using the perspective of a social democracy in which the public interest gets more emphasis than political compromise, the author tries to identify and analyse the two rea- sons for the formation of new autonomous regions: issues of social welfare and elite interests. Discussions on Papua are often associated with conflict oc- curring in the region. Timo Kivimaki (2006) explains conflict resolution, through a more democratic approach with little risk of derivative conflict, takes precedence over security measures and the introduction of conflict resolution through dialogue and negotiation. The mapping of actors and interests in the conflict between the Indonesian government and Papuan separatist groups is also important here. According to Kivimaki, the in- volvement of the international community is important when conflict resolution requires a mediator to bring the involved par- ties together. With the need to consider unique local and social contextual factors, the international community opted for a more favourable conflict resolution mechanism through the re-enact- ment of peace values. While these books deal with the issues pertaining to the po- litical dynamics in Papua both before and after the enactment of Law No. 21/2001, a specific study on the newly-established re- gencies emphasizes the interplay between the new bureaucracy and ethnic interests is yet to be undertaken. Therefore, this study is an effort to fill the gaps in both theoretical and empirical levels on the relationship between bureaucracy and the politics of iden- tity. Here, identity politics has significant influence on bureau- cracy and, being part of political identity, ethnicity must be con- sidered in the establishment and management ofbureaucracy. RESEARCHMETHOD All data in this study was obtained in research conducted be- tween 2008 and 2011. As a faculty member at Gadjah Mada University, in 2000 the author served as a member of the Boards of Examiners to select Sorong Regency’s bureaucratic officials who would take a Master’s program at the Graduate School of Local Politics and Regional Autonomy (S2PLOD), Gadjah Mada University. Again, in 2006 the author was assigned to the Team for Sorong Selatan Regency. These tasks provided the author with the opportunity to get to know and to learn more inten- sively the bureaucratic problems in Papua in general and in the two regencies of Sorong and Sorong Selatan in particular. Since 2008, the author has specifically been focusing a study on bu- reaucracy and ethnicity in Sorong Selatan Regency. As a researcher-cum-consultant to whom Sorong Selatan Re- gent and officials always ask for advice on various problems in bureaucratic management in the regency, the author has had an JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 525 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 526 unrestricted access to various documents and other information, some of which has become valuable data in this study. The au- thor has unlimited data accessibility, which, in terms of method- ology, is an important aspect in any study, as also endorsed by Sarsby in Bryman (2012): Every field situation is different and initial luck in meeting good informants, being in the right place at the right time and striking the right note in relationships may be just as important as skill in tech- nique. Indeed, many successful episodes in the field do come about through good luck as much as through sophisticated planning, and many unsuccessful episodes are due as much to bad luck as to bad judgement. The data in this study was obtained through participant ob- servation and ethnographic research. Through these two meth- ods, researcher as observer and ethnographer took part and en- gaged in the lives of Sorong Selatan community and bureaucracy during 2008-2011, during which the author observed the behaviour of bureaucrats and community leaders as the key in- formants, recorded and analysed the conversation between them, collected the relevant documents, conducted interviews and dis- cussions with small groups on certain topics. Referring to Bryman, this is a process of ethnographic research. Ethnographic research can also be understood as a method of cultural descriptions, or description and interpretation of cultural and social systems of a community, or the study of culture in order to understand the subject of research in their own perspective, or a research prac- tice that places researchers in the centre or as part of the re- search subjects. POLITICAL FEATURE OF INDONESIAN BUREAUCRACY Political analysts have been suggesting that bureaucracy in post- colonial countries including Indonesia, does not conform to the Weberian ideal. In Indonesia, bureaucracy presents itself as a politically powerful entity and, in many cases, becomes a pillar of the political regime in power. In the New Order era (1966- 1998), the role of the Indonesian bureaucracy was not limited to administrative instrument to achieve goals effectively, but also served as a main instrument to the Golkar political party as the New Order’s strongest political machine (Reeve, 1985). In its development, bureaucracy has also had a dominant role in the political-governmental system of the New Order (Santoso, 1997). In the context of the global economy the bureaucracy played an active role in the capital protection of the country (Mas’oed, 2003: 20). Aside from the military’s declining role, the present Indone- sian bureaucracy has not changed significantly. Bureaucracy is a dominant institution serving as an effective, power-supporting machine. It has enormous power and capability to mobilize the masses through its programs. It is due to this enormous power that politicians try to control the bureaucracy in order to per- petuate their power (Mas’oed,2003:12). Some pathology has also developed in the Indonesian bureau- cracy (Siagian, 1994). The signs of this include the misuse of authority, fear of change/innovation, and indifference to criti- cism and suggestions. As a result, bureaucracy has failed to de- liver the proper public service. A number of project are often left incomplete as bureaucrats sometimes lack the relevant skills and are reluctant to consult their supervisors for fear of reveal- ing their weaknesses. (Blau and Meyer, 1971:38-45). Bureaucratic reform is an important issue, especially since the era of democratization and political decentralization of 1998. The purpose of bureaucratic reform in Indonesia goes hand in hand with the notion of good governance, where the principles of accountability, competence, participation, and equity are ap- plied. At the national level, the Masterplan for Bureaucratic Re- form 2005-2025, introduced by central government, has been ratified and used as template for regulating local government (Padjadjaran University, 2005). There are also national legisla- tions in the form of the Laws and Government Regulation gov- JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 527 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 528 erning the structure and nomenclature of the local bureaucracy. As a result, in 2007-2008 all regencies/municipalities were si- multaneously trying to reorganize their bureaucratic structure. Due to the national legislation, the structure of the local bureau- cracy throughout Indonesia is relatively symmetrical. Local gov- ernments cannot develop a different bureaucratic structure; oth- erwise, their access to the central government finance would be cut off. Bureaucratic uniformity through the national legislations has made it difficult for local governments to manage the bureau- cracy. There is a contradiction between the decentralization policy, which provides local government with broader autonomy on the one hand, and the obligation to comply with the national regula- tions on the other hand. In fact, local bureaucracy tends to be vulnerable to local influences. Local bureaucracy (especially in regions outside Java and Bali) is heavily influenced by political affiliation, ethnicity, and religion (Dwiyanto, 2003:82; Nordholt and Klinken, 2007). In the appointment of officials, bureaucracy is forced to accommodate the demands of local ethnic groups on their share of power. Studies conducted in several areas includ- ing North Sulawesi, West Kalimantan and Papua show that bu- reaucratic policies also accommodate the dominant ethnic groups in the particular regions (Kusnoto, 2005; Rakhmawati, 2006; Vel, 2008; Krenak, 2011; Tanasaldy, 2014). As an archipelagic country with vast territory, Indonesia is administratively divided into 542 local governments consisting of 497 regencies (excluding one administrative district in DKI Jakarta Province), 93 municipalities (excluding five administra- tive cities in DKI Jakarta Province) and 34 provinces (Kemendagri, 2014). Communities in each region are comprised of ethnic groups and sub ethnic groups with different culture and charac- teristics. Government administration and local public services could be more effective if the bureaucracy that implemented it was more adaptive to the local context. This is supported by the implementation of the Law on regional autonomy, which has facilitated the implementation of asymmetric decentralization. Theoretically, the asymmetric instrument is a policy intended to address two fundamental things that a country faces. The first is the political dimension of the problem, including those rooted in the uniqueness and cultural differences. The second is tech- nocratic-managerial problems, i.e., the limited capacity of a re- gion in performing the basic functions of government (Wehner, 2000: 2). In Indonesia, four provincial governments have special autonomy to implement different local government systems from the other provinces. Nevertheless, the characteristics of the In- donesian bureaucracy remain centralized and symmetrical (uni- form). In general, the Indonesian bureaucracy simply adopts the val- ues of the dominant ethnic groups, the Javanese, resulting in the centralization of power and patron-client relations (Setiawan, 1998; Muhaimin, 1990; Day, 2002). Furthermore, the power that accommodates the values of the dominant ethnic group at the expense of the other ethnic groups has the potential to become an “ethnocratic state/ provinces/ regencies/ municipalities” as takes place in Burma and several provinces in Indonesia (Brown, 1996: 36-37; Firman Noor (ed), 2008; Erb and Sulistiyanto (eds), 2009). Ethnocratic recencies represents a situation where the state acts as an agency for the dominant ethnic community in terms of ideology, policy, and resource distribution. One example is in the recruitment of government and military officials, which is not proportional allowing majority group to dominate it. In the case of Burma, such an ethnocratic model results in ongoing and unresolved ethnic rebellion even until today. The Burmese case of ethnocracy can be used to explain the importance of the implementation of a bureaucratic system that is more sensitive to local contexts and is able to accommodate the diverse community. A bureaucratic model that allows ethnic representation at the national level, among others, can be found in Zambia during the 1960s (Dressang, 1974: 1605-1611). In Zam- bia there was a response to ethic diversity in the community. In JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 529 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 530 particular, ethnic groups tried to gain access to positions in the bureaucracy as an opportunity for social mobilization and as a means to channel the group interests in policy-making. The fun- damental argument for the creation of bureaucracy that embraces all segments of society is the assumption that every state em- ployee will articulate the values and interests in line with their social background. This will affect the substance and implemen- tation of policies. It is surprising that to date in Indonesia there are only a few studies on bureaucracy in relation to ethnicity. Brown’s study as cited above discusses more about the relationship between neo- patrimonialism and national integration, which specifically looks at the case of Aceh. In fact, some scholars conclude that there are growing demands for ethnic groups to be involved in deci- sion-making in the bureaucracy (Nordholt and Klinken, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Vel 2008; Tanasaldy, 2012; Haryanto, 2015, Paskarina, Asiah and Madung (eds), 2015). The challenge for Indonesia is how to implement a model of representative bureaucracy at the local level. It is becoming very urgent as an alternative solution to regions with special charac- ters, such as Papua. One of the past mistakes in the public ad- ministration in Papua since the Dutch colonial period was the absence of indigenous people’s involvement in government ad- ministration. While in the other regions of the Dutch East Indies, the colonial government employees were taken from the local elites, almost all governmental administrators in Papua were ei- ther foreigners (Dutch) or migrant (non-Papuans) who directly dealt with the Papuans. Ultimately, this develops such a Papuan resentment against Indonesia (Chauvel, 2005: 42). Thus, an implementation of a bureaucratic system that gives opportuni- ties for various Papuan local elites to take part would be more acceptable to local people and would be expected to be more effective in delivering the public services. E. CRATICFEATURES In response to political pressure, the central government treats its own provinces asymmetrically. In this regard, Papua is granted ample political and cultural autonomy. Papua, comprising of Papua and West Papua provinces, has a unique character. It is one out of the four provinces in Indonesia that are granted spe- cial autonomy. The other three provinces are Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Special Territory of Yogyakarta, and Jakarta Capi- tal Territory. Papua’s uniqueness is not only due to special au- tonomy but also due to its diverse ethnic groups (Bromley, 1973; Widjojo, 2010), as well as the way ethnicity has heavily influ- enced the local government. Papua is demographically unique compared to other parts of Indonesia: its population largely consists of the indigenous Papuans classified as Melanesian while that of the other areas are predominantly Malay (Muller, 2008:58; Rollings, 2010: 82). In addition to the distinctive Melanesian phenotype and culture of its inhabitants, Papua has also been characterized by its abun- dant natural resources. It has huge amounts of copper grain and gold ore deposits that are currently being exploited by an Ameri- can company, Freeport Indonesia. Maley explained that the gold mine in Papua has the largest deposits in the world. The entire backup Hertzberg-Grasberg (including underground reserves) managed by Freeport reached 2.6 billion tons of ore with 39.7 billion pounds of copper and 46.6 million ounces of gold (Numberi, 2013: 58). Unfortunately, the development process in the regions is less advanced than that in the other regions of Indonesia (Cenderawasih University, 2012). The abundant natu- ral resources do not make Papua a prosperous land for its com- munities. Papua is trapped in underdevelopment and poverty. In term of Human Development Index from 2011-2016, Papua is in the 34rd position while Papua Barat province is in the 33th position of the 34 provinces in Indonesia (BPS, 2016).1 The conspicuous condition of underdevelopment, in com- parison with other regions in Indonesia, has been one of the JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 531 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 532 sources of local communities’ resentment and dissatisfaction with the central government in Jakarta. With the increasingly inten- sive implementation of both political liberalization and decen- tralization policy by the central government, by the end of 1999 and early 2000 the Papuans began to demand special attention from the central government. Particularly, they insisted on the implementation of a special autonomy policy for Papua prov- ince. After a long and gruelling struggle, the central government finally responded to the demands by Papuans through the enact- ment of the Law on Special Autonomy for Papua Province. The essential spirit of Law 21/2001 is the empowerment of and the respect to various essential traits of indigenous Papuan society within the Unitary State frameworks of the Republic of Indone- sia. The policy has extremely wide effects on both Papua and central government. Changes in the governmental structure at the local level, the delegation of authority to a vast extent, an extensive fund mobilization and the recognition of the indig- enous society are the dominant colours in the political landscape of the government in Papua today. Since then, the policy has also been the central government’s formula to solve the problem of underdevelopment in Papua. Despite of the implementation, special autonomy policy is not yet overcome the roots of Papuans problem (Ramandey, 2005, 2006; Purwoko, 2008; Malak, 2013). As a part of the special autonomy policy implemented through- out Papua since 2001 (Ramandey, 2006; Malak, 2013), Sorsel Regency has encountered problems that are replicated in other parts of Papua as well. Sorsel is a new regency as a result of the partition of Sorong Regency. Although declared officially in 2002, it was only in 2003 that local government activities began. In August 2005, the local government started developing a new lo- cal government structure to carry out local development and to deliver public services. It applied the principles “equity, balance, and togetherness” as the basic value in local governance. Both locals and bureaucrats interpreted this principle as an impera- tive to sustain an ethnic representation in bureaucracy. This is noticeable, for example, in the recruitment of structural officials in bureaucracy. Structural officials in the Indonesian bureaucracy are bureucrats who appointed in certain positions such as head of section (echelon IV, the lowest), head of division (echelon IIIB, the lower middle), head of office (echelon III A, the upper middle) and head of local department (echelon II, the highest level). Key positions in bureaucratic offices are distributed equally along ethnic lines, at the expense of competence (Otto Ihalauw, 2008; Gainau, 2012). JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 533 FIGURE 1: THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PAPUA ACCORDING TO SPECIAL AUTONOMY LAW 21/2001 As new regency, Sorsel encounters new challenges. While the local government’s main mandate is the provision of public ser- vices, the people also expect them to provide high levels of finan- cial redistribution. To give an idea of the patterns of relation- ships among the actors in local governance in Papua, the follow- ing figure (Figure 1) shows the structure of local government applicable throughout Papua including Sorsel Regency. The dynamics of Sorsel local government is an interesting topic of discussion as it could reveal the entire interaction pat- tern between the political structure of modern government and Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 534 the primordial structure of the indigenous Papuans. The struc- ture of modern government is at the centre of the figure and includes heads of villages, heads of districts, regent, and gover- nor. Meanwhile, indigenous people are represented by their tra- ditional leaders who assemble institutionally in MRP (Majelis Rakyat Papua) or Papuan People’s Council. Political aspirations of the people are channelled through the local political parties and parliament, which at the provincial level has a specific name DPRP (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua) or Papuan Local Parlia- ment. According to this mechanism, the aspirations of the Papuan people should have been sufficiently channelled through the customary figures, political parties, and local parliaments. In practice, however, Sorsel community tends to ignore all these mechanisms and prefer to channel their aspirations directly to the Regent who is viewed as the top authority determining the allocation of financial resources. Bureaucracy, which is placed in the middle of the scheme, administratively supports the perfor- mance of local governments in providing public services. Politi- cally, however, bureaucracy becomes an arena for contestation among local ethnic groups in their struggle for local government resources. The effects and manifestations of the special autonomy vary from one regency/municipality to another. However, in most cases, there is a common, strong expression of ethnic identity related to the issue of local representation. New demands for greater roles in political structure (through local parliament) and modern government (through the bureaucracy) keep emerging and solidifying. However, at the level of policyimplementation, special autonomy often ends up in a paradox. The policy aimed at creating more room for the fulfilment of native rights has cre- ated new problems in the bureaucracy. The issue of putra daerah has been a hot topic during the spe- cial autonomy era. This concept assumes maximization and prioritization of representatives from among the indigenous people in political and bureaucratic positions. This policy pre- sented a vast opportunity for local human resources by changing the composition of the bureaucratic structure, and promoting local representatives into dominant roles in Sorsel’s local gov- ernment. This is obvious especially in recruitment process of bureaucratic officials, which is strongly influenced by the poli- tics of ethnic accommodation. Ethnic domination starts to de- termine the strength of one’s position and decisions in thegov- ernmental mechanism. Until 2002, the number of indigenous civil servants in Papua who occupied top-level offices was only 40%. This figure jumped to 80% in 2003. The Papuanisation and restructuring policy of the bureaucracy in the special au- tonomy era has deprived 4,242 non-Papuan bureaucrats of both structural and non-structural offices (Widjojo, 2010: 52) In 2010, Sorsel Regency made a strategic move to launch bu- reaucratic reform at the local level, one of which was the recruit- ment of bureaucratic officials by emphasizing professionalism and reducing ethnic considerations. This policy had triggered strong negative reaction from bureaucrats, politicians, and tradi- tional leaders who were concerned about the possible removal of the indigenous bureaucrats and the promotion of more “for- eign” bureaucrats to strategic positions. In response to this they made various attempts to secure their positions in the bureau- cracy. There has been a strong relation between ethnic identifica- tion and communal ways of life among the native people in Sorsel. In their daily lives, Sorsel natives live a very strong communal life. In most ethnic groups, when a child is sent to school, all members of the particular ethnic group will pay for the tuition collectively. In return, the beneficiary is under an obligation to return the favour to anybody from within the ethnic group in need. A successful member of a society carries a debt that has to be paid back to the people. MANAGING ETHNIC COMPOSITION IN SORSEL The people of Sorsel live in original Papuan social structure, JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 535 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 536 i.e. heterogenic, fragmented, and not institutionalized. Domi- ciled in the area of this regency are several groups of people who insist on clinging on their root values. Sorsel is the home for at least three major ethnic groups: Maybrat, Tehit, and Immeko. In addition to the three, there are another two ethnic groups that play an important role in the socio-political dynamics of Sorsel: the non-Sorsel Papuans and non-Papuans, both are known as pendatang or settlers. Maybrat ethnic group comprises about 10% of the Sorsel popu- lation. The Maybrats are nomadic farmers and have been prac- ticing certain concepts of production in their simple form (Mansoben, 1994:67). For the Maybrats, becoming a civil ser- vant, especially in the bureaucracy, is a noticeable achievement. This encourages education, since they believe that it is only by having good education, capability, capacity, and personal quali- ties that a person can occupy a bureaucratic position rather than by depending merely on ethnic background (Interview with Karel Murafer, a Maybrat, former Sorsel bureaucrat who moved to Maybrat regency, Sorong, June 7th 2011. He was elected as the Vice Regent of Maybrat in October 2011). Tehit ethnic group identify themselves as the natives of Sorsel. Their population is about 35% of the total population and most of them are farm- ers, traders, civil servants, and entrepreneurs. In this group, par- ents expect their children to join civil service in the hope to that they would become the future leaders. They generally mention, “it is better for our children to be civil servants than to become entrepreneurs” (Interview with Michael Momot, the Chief of Tehit Customary Council, May 3rd 2011 in Teminabuan). Imekko, being the abbreviation of Inanwatan, Matemani, Kais and Kokoda, unites the four ethnic groups residing along the shore- line. Their population is around 45% of the total population of Sorsel. The Imekkos usually work as fishermen (as a dominant occupation), private workers, farmers and traders, with quite large number working as civil servants. The Imekkos generally per- ceive the civil service as a dignified profession. Parents send their children to school in the hope that they would become civil ser- vants (Interview with Dominggus Aifufu, the Chief of Imekko Customary Council, May 2nd 2011 in Teminabuan). The pendatang or settlers in general refers to both Papuan eth- nic groups other than the big three of Sorsel, and non-Papuan settlers that started arriving in Sorsel in the early 1980s. In the earlier years, the non-Papuans departing from Java, Sulawesi and Moluccas used to come as fishermen and traders. Some of them, generally from Java, were transported as part of central govern- ment transmigration program (Transmigration is the displace- ment or removal of people from one region to settle in other areas specified in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia in the interests of the country’s development for reasons deemed necessary by the government (Law 3/1972 on Basic Provisions of Transmigration). Along with the development, they migrated to the Teminabuan district, where most of settlers now reside. This group consists of people from Bugis, Buton, Makassar, Am- bon, Java, and Toraja, and is estimated to amount to 10% of Sorsel population. In general, this group is more dynamic. Most people of this group engage in economic and service sectors and commonly work as traders and motorcycle taxi drivers. The set- tler bureaucrats of Sorsel are generally the second or third gen- eration. Even for those who are competent, strategic positions in the structure of bureaucracy do not often appeal to settlers, as a result of their position as outsiders in Papuan society (Interview and focus group discussion with some settler bureucrats, Teminabuan 9 Maret 2011). Despite their small number, how- ever, this group is more than capable of fuelling the bureaucratic engine. SIDELININGFORMALREQUIREMENTS: MOBILISATIONOF ETHNIC SENTIMENTS In the more advanced regencies/municipalities with relatively stable bureaucracies, the appointment of bureaucratic officials to structural positions belongs to the full authority of the head JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 537 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 538 of regional administration (Governor, Regent or Mayor) and Baperjakat or “advisory board for bureaucratic position and rank”. Baperjakat is an institution in every regency/municipality and province whose functions are to examine the process of struc- tural appointments and to provide the head of regional adminis- tration with consideration in promotion or demotion of offi- cials. Baperjakat is chaired by the Regional Secretary. Although bureaucrats might lobby the Regent/Mayor to be appointed to certain offices, it usually takes place silently and the bureaucrats willingly accept any decision of their leaders. In Sorsel, the bu- reaucratic appointments process is always tinged with heated political and social dynamics. Ethnicity becomes an important instrument used by bureaucrats as a basis to gain various posi- tions in the bureaucracy. This process is even characterized by mass mobilization involving members of each ethnic group de- manding the Regent’s attention so that the bureaucrats of a par- ticular ethnic origin are appointed to certain offices. Likewise, the Regent also utilizes the ethnic sentiments as an instrument to gain support from the community. The Regent is a central figure who was instrumental in determining the fate and future of the bureaucrats. The great power of the regent is a result of two factors: the incapacity of local bureaucracy in general, and the administration mechanism at local level which makes the regent the most dominant actor in allocating local budget and policies. The process of appointing officials to key positions in the bureaucracy in Sorsel Regency was conducted from March to May 2011. This process was preceded by a competence assess- ment for bureaucrats, the result of which became the basis for determining the bureaucrats’ qualifications. The competency assessment had several objectives, which was mainly to increase competence and capability of the future leaders in the local gov- ernment. In fact the competency assessment did not go smoothly. Bureaucratic officials and local politicians feared that the results of the competency test could simply marginalize indigenous Papuan officials and, would put foreign officials in key positions. The result of comptence assessment was revealed that the aver- age competence of the bureaucrats was below the determined standards as regulated by central government. The composition of the official candidates were determined based on the competency test result, combined with the result of the psychological test which gave an idea of the bureaucrats’ per- sonality, cognitive ability, motivation, and leadership potentials. The Regents then look at the ethnic background of each bureau- crat to keep the same ethnic composition of positions. The har- mony in the ethnic composition remained intact to prevent re- sentment among the indigenous community as well as to pre- vent the domination of one ethnic group at the expense of an- other ethnic groups. However, the ethnic composition was the second after the primary consideration of the basic competence test results. In this case, it appears that the Regent tried to adopt an “affirmative policy” in appointing certain officials of the Imekko ethnic group that had been considered to be playing a minor role in local bureaucracy. The particular ethnic group did not have any high-echelon bureaucrats despite the ethnic group having the largest numbers compared to that of the other groups and, politically speaking, had the most votes in the election of the regent in 2005 and 2010. Though the regent was balancing the twin needs, the appointment of bureaucrats still showed the relevance of ethnic politics and lobbying. During the nomination process for the official candidates, the Regent received criticism, suggestions, advice, and even pres- sure from the bureaucrats, politicians, and traditional leaders. Many of them even contacted the Regent either by sending short messages (SMS) or by phone call, with some even trying to meet the Regent at his official residence. In general, they requested the Regent appoint the bureaucrats of their ethnic groups to key offices. They also asked the Regent to limit the appointment of settler officials, even when those bureaucrats were born, raised, and educated in Papua, stressing that those settlers are not indig- JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 539 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 540 enous Papuans (Interview with Regent Otto Ihalauw, held on several occasions between March and August 201). Unlike in Sorsel regency, in other areas with relatively well- established bureaucratic culture and relatively well-established socio-economic conditions, the process of rotation or promo- tion of local officials does not distract from the bureaucrats’ daily work and is not a serious public concern either. In Sorsel, the bureaucracy is always a major concern for both community and bureaucrats, causing unrest and affecting a decline in the bu- reaucrats’ performance. The overall effect is stagnation, due to the lost motivation as a result of bureaucrats feeling that they have no certainty about their future and tenure in bureaucracy (Interview with Suroso, Bappeda Secretary of Sorong Selatan, Teminabuan March 9th 2011). Ethnic sentiment is an important factor that is used as a means to support the bureaucrats’ and community’s aspirations on the appointment of strategic offices. Each ethnic group has their ar- guments and strategies to lobby or press the Regent. There are various strategies that each ethnic group carried out to attain their goals, due to the differences in ethnic characteristics and in socio-political dynamics of their interactions with the Regent/ Vice Regent. The description of ethnic groups’ lobbying processes and channels is presented in the following figure (Figure 2). It shows that each ethnic group uses the traditional leaders and bureaucrats to approach the Regent. The bureaucrats also use the mass support of their ethnic origins as a force for press- ing the Regent. In addition, they also use the politicians in local parliament to nominate the bureaucrats of their ethnic group to the Regent. It turned out that not all ethnic groups nominated only bu- reaucrats of their own ethnic origin. For example, the Imekkos, known to have limited human resources to occupy the structural offices, proposes at least four settler bureaucrats to be appointed as Head of Local Department. There were two reasons. First, candidates were considered to have been experienced in each office. Second, the Imekko community thought that those bu- reaucrats could help the Imekkos, for example by providing them with fuel for their boats, and assisting them with food and other things (Interview with Dominggus Aifufu, Imekko Customary Council, May 2nd 2011 in Teminabuan). FIGURE 2: ETHNIC GROUPS’ LOBBYING CHANNELS TO THE REGENTS A Maybrat ethnic community, in a village who were disap- pointed that no bureaucrat of their village was appointed to Ech- elon II and III offices, showed a different method. As an expres- sion of disappointment, the villagers demanded that their vil- lage had to be merged to the bordering Maybrat Regency. This was done because their indigenous bureaucrat was not appointed to Head of District and the office was granted to a non-Sorsel Papuan bureaucrat (Interview with Suroso (a Javanese), the Bappeda Secretary of Sorong Selatan, May 8th 2011 in Teminabuan). Several Tehit bureaucrats also reacted towards the Regent’s policy in bureaucratic recruitment. Yet these attitudes did not exactly constitute an ethnic refusal because the case represented a problem with individual bureaucrat. What happened was actu- ally an anomaly in a bureaucratic mechanism, where a Head of Division (Echelon III B) refused to be promoted (and inaugu- JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 541 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 542 rated) Head of Office (Echelon III A). The bureaucrat even mobilised the masses of her ethnic group to launch a demonstra- tion in front of the government offices on the inauguration day to protest against the Regent for promoting her to a new office, which had less access to financial allocation. There was also an- other demonstration conducted by a group of people from the same ethnic group, mobilized by an officer’s wife who was not satisfied with the office given to her husband (Interview with Sudi Sasmita, a student at the Gadjah Mada University’s Gradu- ate Program on Local Politics and Regional Autonomy who was conducting a research in Teminabuan when the demonstration took place. Also interview with Sorong Selatan Regent one day after the demonstration, May 5th 2011). The Imekkos, the Tehits, the Maybrats had various degrees in their demands to the Regent. The Imekkos’ aspiration was based on community needs, for example related to the needs of fisher- men and other transportation needs. The Imekkos’s, however, did not make demands on the Regent because they understood his position, and were confidant that he would serve their inter- ests. This was also due to the limited numbers of the Imekkos bureaucrats to be placed in high-level positions. This was in con- trast with the Maybrats and the Tehits who strongly demanded that their “indigenous children” had to be appointed to various offices in the bureaucracy. This was because the number of their representatives in bureaucracy was higher than that of the Imekkos, who only have 16 qualified bureaucrats compared to 60 of the Tehits, and 40 of the Maybrats, largely due to their educational advantages. Unlike bureaucrats of those three ethnic groups, the “settler” bureaucrats in general did not have to lobby or launch any moves to approach to the Regent. According to some settler bureau- crats, they strongly believed that the Regent would definitely give them suitable positions, especially because their results in the last competency assessment were slightly better and, in fact, they did have the administrative skills that the local government needs(Interview with Ajis, (a Javanese bureaucrat), Teminabuan, March 11th2011). F. ENSURINGETHNICREPRESENTATIONINBUREAUCRACY: A HIDDEN INITIATIVE By ethnic background, of the 116 Echelon II and III officials in Sorsel Regency, there are 37 Tehit bureaucrats, 26 Maybrats, only 11 Imekkos, and 42 “settler” bureaucrats, which is surpris- ingly more than the other ethnic groups individually. By per- centage, 64% is indigenous Sorsel bureaucrats consisting of 31.9% Tehits, 22.4% Maybrats, and 9.5% Imekkos. Meanwhile, the re- maining 36.2% is non-Sorsel Papuans and non-Papuan bureau- crats. The composition is presented in the following table (Table 1). At face value, the table shows that the size of population by ethnic groups does not correlate with the number of their repre- sentatives in Echelon II and III in bureaucracy. The gap is espe- cially obvious among the Imekkos who makes up to 45% of the population but their representation in structural office is only 9.5%. In contrast, the settlers who constitute 10% of the popula- tion have the highest number of representatives in the bureau- cracy (36.2%). There are two possible explanations for this. First, JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 543 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 544 as mentioned above, the Imekkos do not have sufficient number of bureaucrats to be promoted to Echelon II and III. Second, realizing their weaknesses, the Imekkos nominated some settler bureaucrats to represent them in the bureaucracy. Thus, despite having the largest number of officials, some settler bureaucrats actually represent the Imekkos. Among the 42 settler bureaucrats, five occupied Echelon II offices that required special expertise such as the Regional Fi- nancial Management Board and the Regional Inspectorate. At the lower level or Echelon III, there are 12 bureaucrats placed in the Secretary level of the Local Departments. The presence of the settler bureaucrats in Sorsel local government was not only a balancing factor in the context of ethnicity but also provide a more fundamental functions such as support, and a driving force behind the bureaucratic machines (Interview with Regent Otto Ihalauw, Teminabuan March 7th 2011). The distribution of bureucratic position among ethnic groups shows mutually beneficial relationship between the regent and the community. Ethnic groups aspiration in the process of lob- bying is “the structure of demand”, while the regent holds “the structure of supply”. This political process can be considered as the negotiation between the two interests. Therefore, it is urgent to formulate a bureaucratic model that is more sensitive to local contexts. Public regulation and national standards may currently apply to the whole areas of the country, but local governments should have more flexibility in implementing an adaptive bu- reaucratic system. This would be expected to deliver public ser- vice more effectively CONCLUSION Does ethnicity influence the appointment of structural offi- cials? Based on an analysis of research data, it was found that ethnic identity became an important factor used as an instru- ment to support promotion of bureaucrats into important posi- tions. Ethnic identity does not merely reflect cultural differences among diverse ethnic groups but is closely related to the ethnic groups’ roles in Sorsel administration. Each ethnic group has a strong basis to claim their determinant role in the local govern- ments and in the election of the Regent. Such a claim serves as the basis for demanding compensation to obtain strategic offices in bureaucracy. It is argued that ethnic identity serves as a politi- cal instrument to support the lobbying process. Yet each ethnic group shows different strategies of lobbying. This difference is influenced more by differences in the character of each ethnic group and the differences in patterns of interaction among cer- tain ethnic groups with the Regent who is the central figure in the socio-political relations. Based on the analysis of various cases taking place, it can be concluded that the prevailing phenomenon involves an“ethnic manipulation” where ethnicity was used as an instrument to sup- port the interests of the candidates of local government officials and even to exert some pressures to the Regent to meet the spe- cific demands of certain ethnic groups. At the same time, the Regent also used the sentiment of ethnic balance as an instru- ment of retaining the perpetuity of society supports to his politi- cal existence. The national government of Indonesia should think about implementing an alternative bureaucratic model in some regen- cies with special characteristics, rather than the uniform model that currently operates throughout Indonesia. If this were to oc- cur what kind of bureaucratic model is suitable for local admin- istration, which is also sensitive and adaptive to local contexts? For regions whose community has similar socio-cultural charac- ter with Sorsel Regency, a model of bureaucracy that is capable of accommodating the strong demand for the involvement of the ethnic groups in the bureaucracy should be considered. Al- though the local community and bureaucrats may not be aware of the notion of representative bureaucracy, various practices carried out in Sorong Selatan are analogous to what is theoreti- cally known as representative bureaucracy which assumes that JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 545 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 546 the conditions of a bureaucracy reflect the population in such terms as race, ethnicity, or gender (Pitts, 2005:616, Gainau, 2012). Bureaucratic structure in Sorong Selatan also reflects the so- cial structure of the community, especially in terms of ethnic backgrounds. The condition has been around since 2005 with the application of the PKK principle (equality, fairness, and bal- ance) in regional development. The locals demand equality, fair- ness, and balance, in the sense that the majority ethnic group would have a majority share that the small ethnic groups would simply have small portion. The locals consider a proper imple- mentation of the justice and balance principles to be a propor- tional distribution of the positions. The theory of representative bureaucracy defines passive representation as occuring when the composition of the bureaucracy reflects the societal demographic. However active representation will occur when the process of policy formulation and aspirations also benefit the various groups within the particular society (Pitts, 2005:617, Hai Lim, 2006: 194- 195, Bradbury and Kellough, 2007: 699; Gainau, 2012). The extent to which the bureaucratic representative model can be implemented in this area will be highly dependent on central government policy. However, if central government keeps implementing the uniform model of bureaucracy, many local governments might keep altering the structure simply to adjust the bureaucracy to local conditions. Therefore, although they formally comply with the model of bureaucracy applied nation- wide, the actual operation of local bureaucracy is substantively different. If the condition goes unrevised, it might simply worsen the performance of the bureaucracy in delivering the public ser- vice. ENDNOTE 1 BPS data (2014) shows that the number of poor people in Papua province reached 864 113 people (27.80%) and the West Papua Province reached 225 463 people (26.26%), placing both the province ranks first in the number of the poor population in Indonesia. In the health sector, until 2013 West Papua has the level of the highest prevalence of underweight children in Indonesia is 30.9% (Kemenkes, 2014). Papua is also the highest of provinces affected by HIV / AIDS (BPS, 2013; Kemenkes, 2014). In education, until 2015 Papua province still has the lowest school enrollment rates in Indonesia (73, 71%), far below the average national rate of school enrollment rates in the range 88.14% (BPS, 2015). In the field of human rights enforcement, until now Papua is still the area that remains in the spotlight of the UN Human Rights Council for the record of human rights violations are rife. Until 2014, Papua is still the highest areas of conflict cases to result in more deaths from separatism and conflict over natural resources (SNPK, 2015). Taken from Bambang Purwoko and Gabriel Lele (2016), Draft Naskah Akademik: Jalan Baru Pengelolaan Otsus Papua: Pembentukan Badan Nasional Percepatan Pembangunan Papua (BNP3) , Yogyakarta: Pusat Pengembangan Kapasitas dan Kerjasama (PPKK) Fisipol UGM. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beetham, David (1987), Bureaucracy, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England. Badan Pusat Statistik of Republik of Indonesia – BPS (2016), Tabel Indeks Pembangunan Manusia Menurut Provinsi 2010-2015. Downloaded from www.bps.go.id accessed: 19/08/2016 11:00 pm. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Angka Partisipasi Sekolah (APS) menurut Provinsi tahun, 2011-2015. (Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik). Download from www.bps.go.id accessed: 09/06/2016 01:00 pm. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2014. Indeks Pembangunan Manusia Metode Baru 2010-2014. (Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik). Download from www.bps.go.id accessed: 09/06/ 2016 01:00 pm. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Jumlah Penduduk Miskin Menurut Provinsi 2013-2015. (Jakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik). Download from www.bps.go.id accessed: 09/06/ 2016 01:00 pm. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Papua Dalam Angka 2015. (Jayapura: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Papua) Badan Pusat Statistik. 2015. Provinsi Papua Barat Dalam Angka 2015. (Manokwari: Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Papua Barat) Blau, Peter M. and Meyer, Marshall W. (1971), Bureaucracy in Modern Society, New York: Random House. Bradbury, Mark D. and Kellough, J. Edward (2007), Representative Bureaucracy: Explor- ing the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (published by Oxford University Press), pp. 697- 714. Brata, Aloysius G., (2008), Pemekaran Daerah di Papua: Kesejahteraan Masyarakat vs. Kepentingan Elit, Fakultas Ekonomi, Pusat Studi Kawasan Indonesia Timur, Universi- tas Atma Jaya, Yogyakarta Bromley, Myron (1973), “Ethnics Groups in Irian Jaya”, IRIAN, Bulletin of Irian Jaya Devel- opment, Institute for Anthropology, Cenderawasih University, October 1973, Vol. 2 No. 3. Brown, David (1996), The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia, London and New York: Routledge. Bryman, Alan (2012), Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press. Caroline Paskarina, Mariatul Asiah, Otto Gusti Madung (eds) (2015), Berebut Kontrolatas Kesejahteraan: Kasus-Kasus Politisasi Demokrasi di Tingkat Lokal, Yogyakarta: Penerbit PolGovJurusanPolitikPemerintahan(JPP)FisipolUGM bekerjasama denganPCDPress. Centre for Population Studies Cenderawasih University (2001), Indikator Pembangunan Provinsi Papua (The Indicator of Papua Province Development), Jayapura. Chauvel, Richard (2005), Constructing Papuan Nationalism: History, Ethnicity, and Adap- tation, Policy Studies 14, East-West Center Washington. JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 547 http://www.bps.go.id/ http://www.bps.go.id/ http://www.bps.go.id/ http://www.bps.go.id/ http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/697.short http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/697.short Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 548 Das, S.L. (2010), Bureucracy and Development Administration, Delhi: Swastic Publica- tion. Day, Tony (2002), Fluid Iron: State Formation in Southeast Asia, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Democratic Center Cenderawasih University (2003), Principal Thoughts Concerning De- velopment Policies in Papua Province, Jayapura. Dresang, Dennis L. (1974), Ethnic Politics, Representative Bureaucracy and Development Administration: The Zambian, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Dec., 1974), pp. 1605-1617 - http://www.jstor.org/stable/1959945 Accessed: 29/ 07/2012 04:59 Dwiyanto, Agus dkk. (2002), Reformasi Birokrasi Publik di Indonesia, Pusat Studi Kependudukan dan Kebijakan UGM, Yogyakarta. Erb, Maribeth and Sulitiyanto, Priyambudi (eds) (2009), Deepening Democracy in Indo- nesia?: Direct Elections for Local Leaders (Pilkada), Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Gainau, Aldrin Watson (2012), Papuanisasi birokrasi Papua: mengkajikebijakanperlakuan istimewa bagi Orang Asli Papua di birokrasi Kabupaten Jayapura mengkaji kebijakan perlakuanistimewabagi Orang Asli Papuadibirokrasi Kabupaten Jayapura, Surabaya: Capiya Publishing. Geertz, Clifford (1976), The Religion of Java, University of Chicago Press. Haryanto (2015), Politik Kain Timur: “Instrumen Meraih Kekuasaan”, Yogyakarta: Penerbit PolGov Jurusan Politik Pemerintahan (JPP) Fisipol UGM. Hai Lim, Hong, Representative Bureaucracy: Rethinking Substantive Effects and Active Representation, Public Administration Review, March - April 2006 Hummel, Ralp. P. (1977), The Bureaucratic Experience, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Jackson, Karl D. (1978), ‘Bureaucratic Polity: A Theoritical Framework for The Analysis of Power and Communication in Indonesia’, in Karl D. Jackson dan Lucian W. Pye (eds), Political Power and Communications in Indonesia, Berkeley, University of California Press. Jenkins, Richard (2001), Rethinking Ethnicity – Arguments and Exploration, Sage Publica- tions, London – Thusand Oaks – New Delhi. Kahn, Joel S. (1987), “Ideologi and Social Structure in Indonesia”, in Benedict Anderson and Audrey Kahin (eds), Interpreting Indonesian Politics: Thirteen Contributions to the Debate, Interim Report Series (publication No. 62), Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, Ithaca, New York. Karoba, Sem dkk. (2005), Papua Menggugat: Politik Otonomisasi NKRI di Papua Barat, Yogyakarta, Galang Press. Kedeputian I Bidang Koordinasi Kerawanan Sosial dan Dampak Bencana (2015), Sistem Nasional Pemantauan Kekerasan (SNPK): Laporan Tahunan 2014. (Jakarta: Kementerian Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan RI) downloaded from www.kemenkopmk.go.id accessed: 09/05/2016 01:00 pm. King, Dwight Y.(1987), ‘Indonesia’s New Order As Bureaucratic Polity, A Neopatrimonial Regime or A Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regime: WhatDifferences Does It Make?’ in Benedict Anderson and Audrey Kahin, Interpreting Indonesian Politics: Thirteen Con- tributions to The Debate, Interim Report Series (Publication No. 62), Cornell Modern Indonesia Projcet, Ithaca. Kivimaki, Timo (2006), Initiating a Peace Process in Papua: Actors, Issues, Process, and the Role of the International Community. Policy Studies 25, East-West Center, Wash- ington. Krenak, Petronela (2011), Pengaruh Etnisitas dalam Pengangkatan Pejabat Struktural Eselon II (The Influence of Ethnicity on the Recruitment of Structural Officials of Echelon II in Sorong Selatan - 2011), M.A. thesis, S2PLOD UGM. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1959945 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1959945 http://www.kemenkopmk.go.id/ Kusnoto (2005), Etnisitas dalam Pengisian Jabatan Struktural – Kajian di Pemerintah Provinsi Sulawesi Utara (etnicity in the recruitment proces of structural officials – study in North Sulawesi provincial government), M.A. thesis, S2PLOD UGM. LaPalombara, Joseph (1963), Bureaucracy and Political Development: Notes, Queries, and Dilemmas, in Josep LaPalombara(ed), Bureaucracyand Political Development, Princeton University Press. Liddle, R. William, (1970), Ethnicity, Party, and National Integration: an Indonesian Case Study, New Heaven: Yale University Press. Malak, Stephanus (2013), Papuadalam Otonomi Khusus, Bandung: Adoya Mitra Sejahtera. Mansoben, Johsz R. (1994), Sistem Politik Tradisional di Irian Jaya Indonesia: Studi Perbandingan, Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden University. Mas’oed,Mohtar(2003),Politik,Birokrasi,danPembangunan,Yogyakarta:PustakaPelajar. McWilliam, Andrew. (2011). “Marginal Governance in the time of pemekaran: case stud- ies from Sulawesi and West Papua. Asian Journal of Social Science 39, pp. 150-170 Muhaimin, Yahya (1990), “Beberapa Segi Birokrasi di Indonesia” in Akhmad Zaini Abar (ed.) Beberapa Aspek Pembangunan Orde Baru, Solo: Ramadhani. Muller, Karl (2008), Mengenal Papua, Daisy World Book, Indonesia. Noor, Firman-ed (2008), Nasionalisme Demokratisasi dan Sentimen Primordial di Indone- sia: Problematika Etnisitas versus Keindonesiaan (Studi Kasus Aceh, Papua, Riau dan Bali), Jakarta: Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Nordholt, Henk Schulte and van Klinken, Gerry (2007), Renegotiating Boundaries: Local Politics in Post-Soeharto Indonesia, Leiden: KITLV Press. Numberi, Freddy (2013), Quo Vadis Papua, Jakarta: Bhuana Ilmu Populer. Osborne, Robin (2001), Kibaran Sampari Gerakan Pembebasan OPM dan Perang Rahasia di Papua Barat, Jakarta: Elsham. Padjadjaran University (2005), Road Map Reformasi Birokrasi 2005-202I, unpublished research report. Peters, B. Guy (1978), The Politics of Bureaucracy A Comparative Perspective, New York and London, Longman. Pitts, David W (2005), Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations,Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Purbokusumo, Yuyundkk.(2006), ReformasiTerpaduPelayanan Publik Pemerintah Provinsi DIY (Integrated Civil Service Reform), Pemerintah Provinsi DIY – Kemitraan bagi Pembaharuan TataPemerintahan, Yogyakarta. Purwoko, Bambang (2009), Sintesa Laporan Evaluasi Implementasi Kebijakan Otonomi Khusus di Provinsi Papua, Departemen Dalam Negeri & Kemitraan (Partnership for Governance Reform), Jakarta. Purwoko, Bambang and Lele, Gabriel (2016), Draft Naskah Akademik: Jalan Baru Pengelolaan Otsus Papua: Pembentukan Badan Nasional Percepatan Pembangunan Papua (BNP3), Yogyakarta: Pusat Pengembangan Kapasitas dan Kerjasama (PPKK) Fisipol UGM Rakhmawati, Fenny (2005), Pengaruh Etnisitas dalam Pengangkatan Pejabat Struktural, Studi Kasus di Sekretariat Daerah Kalimantan Barat, M.A. thesis, S2PLOD UGM Ramandey,FritsBernard et-al.(2005), Profil Otonomi Khusus Papua, Jayapura:AJIJayapura. Ramandey, Frits Bernard et-al. (2006), Majelis Rakyat Papua Yang Istimewa dari Otonomi Khusus Papua, Jayapura: AJI Jayapura. Rasyid, Ryaas (1997), Kajian Awal Birokrasi Pemerintahan dan Politik Orde Baru, Jakarta: IKAPI. Reeve, David (1985), Golkar of Indonesia, An Alternative to The Party System, Singapore: Oxford University Press. Riggs, Fred W.(1997), Modernity and Bureaucracy, Public Administration Review, July/ JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT & POLITICS 549 Vol. 7 No. 4 November 2016 550 August 1997, Vol. 57, No. 4. Rollings, Leslie. B. (2010), The West Papua Dillema, Master of Arts Thesis, School of History and Politics, University of Wollonggong, http//ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3276 accessed: 07/01/2016 01:00 Pm. Rumbiak, Yan Pieter (2005), Otonomi Khusus Bagi Provinsi Papua Menyelesaikan Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia dan Membangun Nqasionalisme di Daerah Krisis Integrasi, Jakarta, Papua International Education. Santoso, Priyo Budi (1997), Birokrasi Pemerintah Orde Baru, Jakarta: Rajawali Press. Schoorl, Pim (2001), Belanda di Irian Jaya Amtenar di Masa Penuh Gejolak 1945-1962, Jakarta, KITLV dan Garba Budaya. Sekretariat Jenderal Kementerian Kesehatan RI. Profil Kesehatan Indonesia Tahun 2013. (Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan RI) downloaded from: http://www.depkes.go.id/re- sources/download/pusdatin/profil-kesehatan-indonesia/profil-kesehatan-indonesia- 2013.pdf accessed: 06/09/2016 01:00 pm Setiawan, Akhmad (1998), Perilaku Birokrasi dalam Pengaruh Paham Kekuasaan, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Siagian, Sondang P. (1994),Patologi Birokrasi: Analisis, Identifikasi dan Terapinya, Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia. Spencer, Jonathan (2007), Anthropology, Politics, and the State Democracy and Violence in South Asia, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press Sulistiyani, Ambar T (2004), Memahami Good Governance dalam Perspektif Sumber Daya, Yogyakarta: Gava Media. Sumule, Agus et.al – eds (2003), Mencari Jalan Tengah Otonomi Khusus Provinsi Papua, Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Sutherland, Heather (1979), The Making of ABureaucratic Elite, The Colonial Tranformation of the Javanese Priyayi, Asian Studies Association of Australia, Heinemann Educa- tional Books (Asia) Ltd. Taufiq, Tanasaldy W, (2012), ‘Regime change and ethnic politics in Indonesia: Dayak politics of West Kalimantan’, Leiden: KITLV Press. Thoha, Miftah (2001), Perilaku Organisasi: Konsep dan Aplikasinya, Jakarta : Rajawali Press. ——————————- (2002), Perspektif Perilaku Birokrasi, Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada. ——————————- (2007), Birokrasi Pemerintahan Indonesia di Era Reformasi, Jakarta: Kencana. Trikha, Rajeshwar (2009), Bureaucracy and Public Administration, Jaipur: ABD Publica- tion. Vel, Jacqueline A.L. (2008), Uma Politics: An Ethnography of Democratization in West Sumba, Indonesia, 1986-2006, Leiden: KITLV Press. Walker, Malcolm & Mansoben, Johsz (1990), “Irian Jaya Cultures: An Overview”, Jurnal Irian, Volume XVIII. Wehner, Joachim H-G, “Asymmetrical Devolution”, Development Southern Africa Vol 17, No.2 June, 2000. Widjojo, Muridan S. - ed (2010), Papua Road Map – Negotiating The Past Improving The Present and Securing The Future, Buku Obor-LIPI- KITLVJakarta. Wing, John Robert (1994), Irian Jaya Development and Indigenous Welfare The Impact of Development on The Population and Environment of The Indonesian Province of Irian Jaya (Melanesia West New Guinea or West Papua), Thesis, University of Sydney. Available at: http://otda.kemendagri.go.id/images/file/data_dan_informasi/seputar_otda/ total_daerah_otonom.pdf file:///C:/Users/USER/AppData/Local/Temp/http/ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3276 http://www.depkes.go.id/re- http://www.depkes.go.id/re- http://www.depkes.go.id/re- http://otda.kemendagri.go.id/images/file/data_dan_informasi/seputar_otda/ http://otda.kemendagri.go.id/images/file/data_dan_informasi/seputar_otda/