Skip to main content
Original Research Article Open Access SINTA 2 Accredited

Understanding Sowan as a New Paternalistic Bureaucracy Pattern of Local Officials in Indonesia

Authors

  • 1 Public Administration Department, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
  • 2 International Relation Department, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
  • *Corresponding author
DOI
10.21787/jbp.14.2022.201-211
Published & Pages
5 August 2022 · pp. 201-211
Manuscript History
Received30 Apr 2022 Accepted5 Jul 2022 Published5 Aug 2022
License
CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Read PDF 220 KB Cite

1,614 Views 1,244 Downloads

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the visit of bureaucratic officials to local head candidates who have been confirmed to win local elections, commonly known as sowan. The officials ignore the neutrality aspect of bureaucracy that should be strictly upheld. This phenomenon is explained by the concept of a new paternalistic bureaucracy. This study used a qualitative research method with a phenomenological approach. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions (FGD), and documentation was utilized as data collection methods for this study. This study's interview and FGD participants include local officials with knowledge of the sowan phenomenon and general civil servants in Banyumas, Purbalingga, Banjarnegara, Cilacap, and Kebumen. This study discovered that sowan in the perspective of bureaucracy signifies friendship, loyalty, approach, and negotiation. This research highlights the strength of paternalistic bureaucracy, which generally begins in the final phase of the democratic process of local elections. Conceptually, this study is useful to explain the sowan phenomenon concerning bureaucratic neutrality and democracy and provide practical insights on the importance of law enforcement to violators of bureaucratic neutrality. This study explains the new paternalistic bureaucracy in the era of democracy in local governments in Indonesia. This study recommends the importance of law enforcement for violators of bureaucratic neutrality without discrimination, the improvement of the relationship between political and bureaucratic officials that reflect better partnerships in the recruitment of career officials, and the importance of bureaucrats who are committed to maintaining the principle of merit in the selection of local officials.

Keywords:

Read the Full Text

The full text of this article is available as PDF. Version of record published in Vol. 14 No. 2 (2022).

Open PDF

References

72 references
  1. Afriani, R. (2006). Analisis Pengembangan Karir Jabatan Struktural: Studi Kasus Pengangkatan Pejabat Struktural di Sekretariat Daerah Provinsi Riau [Universitas Gadjah Mada]. https://repository.ugm.ac.id/id/eprint/69624
  2. Akanji, B., Mordi, C., Ituma, A., Adisa, T. A., & Ajonbadi, H. (2020). The Influence of Organisational Culture on Leadership Style in Higher Education Institutions. Personnel Review, 49(3), 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2018-0280
  3. Andersen, B., Henriksen, B., & Spjelkavik, I. (2008). Benchmarking Applications in Public Sector Principal-Agent Relationships. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(6), 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770810915913
  4. Arquisola, M. J., Zutshi, A., Rentschler, R., & Billsberry, J. (2019). Academic Leaders’ Double Bind: Challenges From an Indonesian Perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-0328
  5. Awaluddin. (2010). Intervensi Pejabat Politik Terhadap Penempatan Jabatan Struktural Birokrasi: Studi Analisis Penempatan Jabatan Eselon II dan Eselon III di Lingkungan Pemerintahan Daerah Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah [Universitas Gadjah Mada]. http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/penelitian/detail/117428
  6. Azhari. (2011). Mereformasi Birokrasi Publik Indonesia: Studi Perbandingan Birokrasi Publik di Indonesia dan Malaysia. Pustaka Pelajar.
  7. Basrowi, & Sukidin. (2002). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Perspektif Mikro. Penerbit Insan Cendekia.
  8. Baum, J. R. (2007). Reining in the Bureaucrats: Democratic Transition and Administrative Procedural Reform in Korea. Governance, 20(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00355.x
  9. Bendor, J., Taylor, S., & Gaalen, R. Van. (1987). Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Asymmetric Information. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 796–828. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111225
  10. BPS Kabupaten Banjarnegara. (2018). Kabupaten Banjarnegara dalam Angka 2018. BPS Kabupaten Banjarnegara. https://banjarnegarakab.bps.go.id/publication/2018/08/22/1a4e07f9ddfb4d5976a259a9/kabupaten-banjarnegara-dalam-angka-2018.html
  11. BPS Kabupaten Banyumas. (2019). Kabupaten Banyumas dalam Angka 2019. BPS Kabupaten Banyumas. https://banyumaskab.bps.go.id/publication/2019/08/16/acea131c2528a82a138876e8/kabupaten-banyumas-dalam-angka-2019.html
  12. BPS Kabupaten Cilacap. (2019). Kabupaten Cilacap dalam Angka 2019. BPS Kabupaten Cilacap. https://cilacapkab.bps.go.id/publication/2019/08/16/51f604683beb81c4622a1fba/kabupaten-cilacap-dalam-angka-2019.html
  13. BPS Kabupaten Kebumen. (2018). Kabupaten Kebumen dalam Angka 2018. BPS Kabupaten Kebumen. https://kebumenkab.bps.go.id/publication/2018/08/16/aaafdcc78085229086986039/kabupaten-kebumen-dalam-angka-2018.html
  14. BPS Kabupaten Purbalingga. (2018). Kabupaten Purbalingga dalam Angka 2018. BPS Kabupaten Purbalingga. https://purbalinggakab.bps.go.id/publication/2018/08/16/ab9121010524fe3cb5bf4168/kabupaten-purbalingga-dalam-angka-2018.html
  15. Budiyanto, M. (2003). Kebijakan Rekrutmen Elit Birokrasi Pemerintah Daerah Kota/Kabupaten dalam Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah. Dinamika Pedesaan dan Kawasan, 3(3), 75–88.
  16. Budiyanto, M. N. (2005). Desain Terbaru Sistem Manajemen Pegawai Negeri Sipil Di Indonesia (Telaah Kritis: Paradigma Baru"The New Public Service"). JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik), 9(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.8331
  17. Buhaerah, P., Utomo, N., & Elfansuri, E. (2017). Review of Regional Development Planning Based on the Human Rights Principles. Jurnal Bina Praja, 9(2), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.09.2017.295-305
  18. Carey, G., Dickinson, H., Malbon, E., Weier, M., & Duff, G. (2020). Burdensome Administration and Its Risks: Competing Logics in Policy Implementation. Administration & Society, 52(9), 1362–1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720908666
  19. Cook, B. J., & Wood, B. D. (1989). Principal-Agent Models of Political Control of Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 965–978. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962069
  20. Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods: A User-Friendly Guide to Mastering Research Techniques and Projects. How To Books.
  21. Edison. (2011). Meritokrasi VS Politisasi Jabatan Karir dalam Birokrasi Lokal: Sebuah Paradoks Netralitas Birokrasi. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik), 15(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.8110
  22. Evans, K., Perez-Aponte, J., & McRoy, R. (2020). Without a Paddle: Barriers to School Enrollment Procedures for Immigrant Students and Families. Education and Urban Society, 52(9), 1283–1304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519894976
  23. Ferreira, C. M., & Serpa, S. (2019). Rationalization and Bureaucracy: Ideal-Type Bureaucracy by Max Weber. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7220
  24. Firnas, M. A. (2016). Politik dan Birokrasi: Masalah Netralitas Birokrasi di Indonesia Era Reformasi. JRP (Jurnal Review Politik), 6(1), 160–194. http://jurnalfuf.uinsby.ac.id/index.php/JRP/article/view/1125
  25. Freeman, J. L. (1958). The Bureaucracy in Pressure Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 319(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271625831900103
  26. Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. Russel & Russel.
  27. Hines-Datiri, D., & Carter Andrews, D. J. (2020). The Effects of Zero Tolerance Policies on Black Girls: Using Critical Race Feminism and Figured Worlds to Examine School Discipline. Urban Education, 55(10), 1419–1440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917690204
  28. Jennings, W. (2009). The Public Thermostat, Political Responsiveness and Error-Correction: Border Control and Asylum in Britain, 1994–2007. British Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340900074X
  29. Jerome, D. D. D., & Legge, S. (2002). Politics and Administration in U.S. Local Governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003540
  30. Keban, Y. T. (2004). Pokok-Pokok Pikiran Perbaikan Sistem Manajemen SDM PNS di Indonesia. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.8414
  31. Kumar, M., & Kumar, N. (2016). Three Dimensions of Service Recovery: Examining Relationship and Impact. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 21(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2015-0086
  32. Langhof, J. G., & Güldenberg, S. (2019). Leadership and the Significance of Formalized Organizational Structures. Journal of Management History, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-12-2018-0066
  33. Lervik-Olsen, L., Andreassen, T. W., & Streukens, S. (2016). What Drives the Intention to Complain? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(4), 406–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-09-2014-0209
  34. Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/976648
  35. Mik-Meyer, N., & Haugaard, M. (2020). The Performance of Citizen’s and Organisational Authority. Journal of Classical Sociology, 20(4), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X19860111
  36. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE.
  37. Miller, G. J. (2005). The Political Evolution of Principal-Agent Models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104840
  38. Minelli, A., & Ruffini, R. (2018). Citizen Feedback as a Tool for Continuous Improvement in Local Bodies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0010
  39. Mitchell, R., & Meacheam, D. (2011). Knowledge Worker Control: Understanding via Principal and Agency Theory. The Learning Organization, 18(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111103740
  40. Miwa, Y., & Ramseyer, J. M. (2003). Capitalist Politicians, Socialist Bureaucrats? Legends of Government Planning from Japan. The Antitrust Bulletin, 48(3), 595–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X0304800301
  41. Moe, T. M. (2006). Political Control and the Power of the Agent. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewj011
  42. Mueller, H. (2015). Insulation or Patronage: Political Institutions and Bureaucratic Efficiency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 15(3), 961–996. https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2013-0084
  43. Muhajir. (2009). Pengangkatan Pejabat Struktural Berbasis Kompetensi dalam Rangka Meningkatkan Profesionalisme Pegawai: Studi Kasus di Pemerintah Kabupaten Aceh Besar [Universitas Gadjah Mada]. http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/penelitian/detail/42717
  44. Muramatsu, M., & Krauss, E. S. (1984). Bureaucrats and Politicians in Policymaking: The Case of Japan. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961253
  45. Norman, R., & Gregory, R. (2003). Paradoxes and Pendulum Swings: Performance Management in New Zealand’s Public Sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(4), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j..2003.00347.x
  46. Perdana, G. (2019). Menjaga Netralitas ASN dari Politisasi Birokrasi. Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan, 10(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v10i1.1177
  47. Petrović, A., Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2020). Freedom From the Tyranny of Neighbourhood: Rethinking Sociospatial Context Effects. Progress in Human Geography, 44(6), 1103–1123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519868767
  48. Pramusinto, A. (2014). Building Complaint Handling Mechanisms for Effective Leadership. Bisnis & Birokrasi, 20(3), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v20i3.3203
  49. Purwanto, E. A., Pramusinto, A., & Indiahono, D. (2018). Politics-Administration in the Dynamic Relations of Elected Officials and Bureaucracy in the Recruitment of Local Career Officials in Indonesia. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of Asian Association for Public Administration: “Reinventing Public Administration in a Globalized World: A Non-Western Perspective” (AAPA 2018). https://doi.org/10.2991/aapa-18.2018.41
  50. Ragavan, M. I., Thomas, K. A., Fulambarker, A., Zaricor, J., Goodman, L. A., & Bair-Merritt, M. H. (2020). Exploring the Needs and Lived Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Minority Domestic Violence Survivors Through Community-Based Participatory Research: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 946–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813204
  51. Rakhmawanto, A. (2016). Kebijakan Moratorium PNS : Analisis Bezetting Pegawai, Rightsizing Kelembagaan, dan Budgeting Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 12(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.24258/jba.v12i1.210
  52. Rosliana, L., & Amarullah, R. (2018). Tingkat Kesesuaian Kompetensi Inti dan Manajerial Pejabat Pengawas (Eselon IV) di Kantor Wilayah Kementerian Agama Provinsi Kalimantan Timur. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 13(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.24258/jba.v13i3.294
  53. Rosliana, L., Kusumaningrum, M., Hidayah, K., & Arieyasmieta, W. L. (2019). Strategi Pemetaan Kompetensi pada Seleksi Calon Penghulu di Lingkungan Kantor Wilayah Kementerian Agama Kalimantan Timur dan Kalimantan Utara. Jurnal Borneo Administrator, 15(3), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.24258/jba.v15i3.503
  54. Shapiro, S., & Guston, D. (2006). Procedural Control of the Bureaucracy, Peer Review, and Epistemic Drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul026
  55. Shin, H., & Larson, L. R. L. (2020). The Bright and Dark Sides of Humorous Response to Online Customer Complaint. European Journal of Marketing, 54(8), 2013–2047. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2018-0522
  56. Simamora, B. (2018). Netralitas Aparatur Sipil Negara dalam Pemilihan Gubernur Riau Tahun 2018. Jurnal Hukum Respublica, 17(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.31849/respublica.v17i2.2071
  57. Singh, V., Jain, A., & Choraria, S. (2016). Exploring the Role of Complaint Handling among Complaining Consumers. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 20(4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262916668739
  58. Sutrisno, S. (2019). Prinsip Netralitas Aparatur Sipil Negara dalam Pemilihan Kepala Daerah. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 26(3), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol26.iss3.art5
  59. Svara, J. H. (2001). The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00020
  60. Taylor, F. W. (1912). Scientific Management.
  61. V. Tselyutina, T., A. Vlasova, T., A. Timokhina, O., & V. Maslova, Y. (2019). Convergence of Institutes of Functional Representation of Group Interests Under Transformation of Social Processes, Quality of Life, and Human Capital. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7624
  62. van Waarden, B. (2015). John Stuart Mill on Civil Service Recruitment and the Relation between Bureaucracy and Democracy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423915000542
  63. Wahiyuddin, L. O. (2014). Politisasi Pejabat Struktural Eselon II di Lingkungan Sekretariat Daerah Kabupaten Muna Sulawesi Tenggara. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik), 18(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.6871
  64. Waterman, R. W., & Meier, K. J. (1998). Principal-Agent Models: An Expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024377
  65. Werlin, H. H. (2001). Bureaucracy and Democracy: An Essay in Memory of Dwight Waldo. Public Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 290–315. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40861843
  66. Werlin, H. H. (2008). The Evolution of Political Power in Political Development. Journal of Developing Societies, 24(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X0802400301
  67. Werlin, H. H. (2012). Doing for Political Science What Darwin Did for Biology. Open Journal of Political Science, 02(02), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2012.22003
  68. White, L. D. (1926). Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. Macmillan.
  69. Willoughby, W. F. (1918). The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States. D. Appleton.
  70. Wilson, W. (1887). The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/2139277
  71. Wright-Costello, B., & Phillippo, K. (2020). Constrained Consumers: Middle-Class Parents’ Resistance of School Closure and Consolidation in Chicago. Education and Urban Society, 52(9), 1372–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520908259
  72. Yahui Hsieh, S. (2012). Using Complaints to Enhance Quality Improvement: Developing an Analytical Tool. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 25(5), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526861211235946

Copyright & Open Access License

Copyright (c) 2022 Author(s). This article is licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0.