Identity Politics of Papuan Indigenous Ethnics in the Position Seizure Contestation: A Case Study of the OPD Structural Positions in the Governmental Bureaucracy in Papua

Ferinandus Leonardo Snanfi, Muhadjir Darwin, Setiadi Setiadi, Hakimul Ikhwan

Abstract


This research was aimed to (1) Know how identity politics of Papua indigenious ethnics of Papua contested to seize structural positions of the OPD (Regional Apparatus Organization) in the governmental organization (2) Know identity politics of Papua indigenous ethnics collaborated with identity politics of non-Papuan ethnics in filling structural position of the OPD in the governmental bureaucracy. The research method used was qualitative i.e. describe, record, analyze, interpret conditions occur today. While data gathering used an observation technique, photos and also interview technique. The research results showed (1) Identity politics practice implemented in the governmental bureaucracy shown along with the existence of dominance of office chief, secretary, structural position and also office with much financial were mostly dominated by MT ethnics. MT ethnics marginalized other Papuan ethnics in positions of office chief, agency, district, secretary, structural position. From the process of marginalized Papuan ethnics were affected by ethnics egoism from village, clans, family, one ethnic and other Papuan ethnics emerge other Papuan ethnics prefer non-Papuan ethnics to collaborate in power in the governmental bureaucrcy. Various powers in the filling of the OPD structural positions in the governmental bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of Papuan governmental bureaucracy was still thick with a cultural primordial, familism, tribalism and margaism. The purpose of ethnics identity politics applied in the governmental bureaucracy include to dominate economic resources that are much such as:  Otsus Fund, APBD, PAD, DAK, DAU, governmental projects and programs for self ethnic interest and political groups in the governmental bureaucracy. (2) The filling of the OPD structural position of the governmental bureaucracy. The whole of position percentage data result available in filling the OPD structural position of the governmental bureaucracy, MT ethnics dominate all of positions available. And is followed by non-Papuan ethnics  (BS, BN, MR, AN, and TA) that collaborated with MT ethnics in seizing number one and number two chairs in the governmental bureaucracy. Team baperjakat has selected officers who are skilled, good career, professional suitable with country’s civil apparatus. However, all decision to promote officials in the OPD structural position, that guard ethnic contestation in the governmental bureaucracy, in overall policy based on number one and number two persons in the governmental bureaucracy. The purpose of collaboration was to dominate jointly economics resources that are much in the governemntal bureaucracy such as: Otsus Fund, APBD, PAD, DAK, DAU, governmental projects and programs for ther ethnic’s interest and their politics group interest.

Keywords


Political Identity; Papua; Structural Position

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdillah S. Ubed. 2002. Politik Indentas Etnik, Pengulatan Tanda Tanpa Identitas. Magelang: Penerbit Indonesiatera.

Arie, M., & Ilmar, A. (2017). The Institutional Arrangement of Special Fund Management of Papua Province. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 67, 79.

Arikunto, Suharsimi, 1998. Prosedur Penelitian. Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Bert Klandermans 2015. "Politicized Collective Identity: Collective Identity and Political Protest" In Social Identification in Groups. Published online Journal: 10 Mar 2015; 155-176.

Buchari, Sri Astuti Sri. 2014. Kebangkitan Etnik Menuju Politik Identitas. Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia anggota IKAPI DKI.

Claude-Hélène Mayer, (2015) "Travelling inner landscapes: a longitudinal study on transcultural identity development", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 34 Issue: 4, pp. 272-292,

Effendi, Sofian. 2005. “Membangun budaya birokrasi untuk Good Governance, Lokakarya Nasional Reformasi Birokrasi”. Jakarta: diselenggarakan Kantor Menteri Negara PAN, 22 September 2005.

Hapsari, Septi S. 2011. “Pemekaran Daerah dan Penataan Birokrasi (Studi Penataan Birokrasi Dalam Konteks Pemekaran Kabupaten: Kasus Kabupaten Tambrauw Provinsi Papua Barat)”. Tesis. Yogyakarta: Universita Gadjah Mada.

Hasan, Ali. 2015. Tourism Marketing. Yogyakarta: CAPS (Center for Academic Publishing Service).

Huntington, Samuel P. 1995. Gelombang Demokrasi Ketiga. Jakarta: Pusat Utama Grafiti, Terjemahan dari judul asli The Third Wave: Democratization.

Hong, S. (2016). Representative bureaucracy, organizational integrity, and citizen coproduction: Does an increase in police ethnic representativeness reduce crime?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 11-33.

Irawan, Prasetya. 2002. Logika dan Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: STIA-LAN Press.

Klinken, Gerry, Van. 2007. Perang Kota Kecil, Kekerasan Komunal dan Demokrasi di Indonesia. Jakarta: KTLV Jl. Prapanca Raya 95 A, Kebayoran Baru 12250, Indonesia.

Kubangun I. I. 2014. “Kontestasi Primordialisme dalam Positioning pada Struktur Birokrasi Pemerintahan Kabupaten Manokwari”. Tesis. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Kumorotomo, Wahyudi dan Widaningrum, Ambar. 2010. Reformasi Aparatur Negara Ditinjau Kembali. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Gava Media.

Laksono, PM., dkk. 2001. Igya Ser Hanjop: Masyarakat Arfak dan Konsep Konservasi. Studi Antrologi Ekologi di Pengunungan Arfak, Irian Jaya. Yogyakarta: KEHATI, PSAP-UGM, YBLBC.

Law No. 5 year 2014 on Civil Servant

Lefaan, Avelius. 2012. “Etnosentrisme dan Politik Representasi di Era Otonomi Khusus Papua”. Disertasi. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada. Tidak Diterbitkan.

Liliweri, Alo. 2005. Prasangka & Konflik, Komunikasi Lintas Budaya Masyarakat Multikultur. Yogyakarta: Lkis.

Mantra, Idebagoes, 2004. Filsafat Penelitian dan Metode Penelitian Sosial. Pustaka Pertama Yogyakarta.

Mardalis, 1990. Metode Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Proposal. Jakarta: Bumi Aksa Cetakan Pertama.

Moleong, Lexi, J. 1997. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.

Nasdian, F.T. 2015. Sosiologi Umum. Jakarta: Yayasan Pusat Obor Indonesia.

Nasir, Moh. 1988. Metode Penelitian. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Nawawi, H. Hadari. 2001. Metodologi Penelitian. Yogyakarta: Bidang Sosial, University Press.

Reba, Y. E., Bachri, S., Razak, A., & Riza, M. (2015). Political-Legal Dynamics in the Establishment Status of Special Autonomy of Papua: A Historical Perspective. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 38, 182.

Ruhyanto, A. (2016). The Perils of Prosperity Approach in Papua. Peace Review, 28(4), 490-498.

Salim, A. 2006. Teori dan Paradigma Penelitian Sosial. Yogyakarta PT. Tiara Wacana, Yogyakarta.

Siagian, P. Sondang. 2002. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Singarimbun, Masri dan Sofyan Effendi. 1995. Metode Penelitian Survei. Jakarta: LP3ES.

Sugiyono. 2007. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Suwae, Habel M. 2011. “Pelayanan Birokrasi Papua dalam Era Otonomi Khusus”. Jurnal Dialog Kebijakan Publik Edisi 3, September 2011. Hlm.11-18.

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. Social identity: Context, commitment, content, 3(1), 6-34.

Widodo, Joko. 2008. Membangun Birokrasi Berdasarkan Kinerja. Cetakan Keempat. Malang: Bayumendia Publishing.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/ipsr.v3i2.12502

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/