POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN INDUSTRY TURMOIL
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
MCO 456 - POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
WEEK 10
Introduction :
The entry of industrialization in the village has caused various problems such as,
fertile land becoming water scarce, prolonged conflicts between the community and
the industrialization entity and the interference of state power in political life, social
rights and economic rights in rural areas.
The situation that continues to develop forms a communication pattern between
opinion leaders who support the entry of industrialization in the village and the
community. These opinion leaders receive support from the government and capital
owners in the village industries. Conversations with their audiences in situations of
interpersonal communication and group communication have various trends in
communication models.
1.
Challenges of Socio-Cultural Institutionalization in Communication :
The social and cultural life of the community is based on local village values that
support harmony in relationships between individuals and groups. However, as the
village situation changed, social and cultural issues also changed. The characteristics
of the primary community, which relied more on relationships based on shared values,
shifted to a community that valued relationships more on economic factors.
1.1.
Maintaining Social Values Society:
Social life in the village, which is inseparable from close kinship relations, can
fade away when people tend to favoring material values over the spirit of kinship. But
when the factory in Klari also experienced a bleak period in the economic crisis, the
community tried to re-understand the social values of community life.
At the beginning of industrialization and when industry was booming, the
communication that took place when people sought information or discussed it with
opinion leaders about social issues was linear, positioning industry in the village very
positively to support better livelihoods. The government's belief is very strong that
"industrialization, even outside the agricultural sector, is a major factor of
modernization that has a major contribution to the change and welfare of people in
developing countries". (Mountjoy, 1981:143).
Opinion leaders who have a lot of cooperation with capital owners in every village
meeting, especially if the meeting is organized by the government, will continue to
give advice, instructions and obligations that must be carried out by villagers. At a
time when there were only a few factories in the village, most villagers often sought
advice and discussed village problems such as contributions to village road repairs,
maintenance of surau, construction of ronda posts, collective security arrangements
and spiritual activities that were often organized in the village.
Opinion leaders, who are partly villagers, are categorized as forward-looking, due
to their anticipation of modernization and the support of the bureaucracy and capital
owners. Support from various parties to opinion leaders, which was formal in nature,
established linear communication at the start of the industry, as people still believed
that opinion leaders understood and maintained local culture.
Linear communication during the agricultural period, shows the leader as an
information giver, orienter and even as an energizer who encourages his audience to
act better. On the other hand, the villagers as the audience are in the position of
information seekers, opinion seekers, or as followers of trusted opinion leaders.
In the heyday of industry, communication between opinion leaders and their
audiences in discussing community social issues was linear and controlling. The
village elite conveyed messages about social life that must be maintained, such as
getting along well with neighbors including with all factory people". The
communication pattern used is one-way, which is irrefutable and highly controlling. In
this context, opinion leaders also act as coordinating integrators in group
communication.
When President Soeharto stepped down from power, there was an impact on
freedom of information. The great support from the mass media in information
transparency also motivated villagers in freedom of opinion and information. The
same situation is suggested by Comb and Shaw (1981:127), the media has a role in
selecting and emphasizing certain issues so that the audience accepts them as very
important. The content of the message shapes the audience to assess and recognize the
social reality broadcast by the mass media.
The spirit of freedom in political communication has strengthened people's distrust
of various state policies. The inequality of government administration is increasingly
becoming a public conversation and every day becomes the headlines of the mass
media. According to Wright Mills (1968:32), "the mass media plays a role in shaping
perceptions of social reality that occurs outside its environment". Press freedom and
the multi-dimensional crisis have implications for the receding role of opinion leaders
who used to get preferential treatment from state power.
The communication model between opinion leaders and villagers is changing to an
interactive one as the role of industry in the village recedes. There is no longer one-
way communication that is controlling, and the structuring style of communication,
which often quotes messages that structurally refer to the government bureaucracy, is
also disappearing. All linear patterns are no longer respected by villagers.
In the spirit of openness, villagers tend to act as disagreeers, refuting propagandist
development messages. The situation of distrust of the past government also positions
the audience as evaluator-critic. Audiences often look back to when these opinion
leaders followed repressive measures in controlling freedom of speech and freedom of
information in the villages.
In fact, since the situation changed, villagers have become increasingly distrustful
of the messages conveyed by opinion leaders. Initially, opinion leaders always said
that villagers should be friendly, maintain good traditions for the benefit of
development and maintain the stability of the surrounding security. Furthermore, when
times change, there are frequent mentions of cheap education for the people, reforms
and eradicating the culture of Corruption Collusion Corruption Nepotism that
undermines village life. Opinion leaders try to adjust to the situation, but we villagers
find it difficult to put ourselves in the position of trusted opinion leaders. Because of
this, villagers often protest and argue about various social and traditional matters. It is
not uncommon for villagers to bring up past actions that have not been beneficial, such
as the obligation to include messages from the authorities in traditional arts and other
actions that essentially shackle freedom.
Efforts to adjust to the situation by opinion leaders are natural to maintain their
existence in the community, but not all of them can be accepted and are generally
rejected by villagers, because they are free to choose the opinion leaders they trust.
1.2.
Cultural Information as a Basis for Communication Society:
Touching on traditional culture, Landis mentions "the characteristics of traditional
culture of rural communities are as a consequence of being passive towards nature;
passive adaptation patterns to the natural environment are related to the low level of
community innovation". (Paul H. Landis, in Rahardjo, 1999:49). Passivity or perhaps
also social laziness in mechanistic groups and the absence of innovation, play a role in
the handling of agricultural land, attitudes to life and a poorly organized work culture.
Traditional culture is also affected by various situations that occur. In addition, the
mass media broadcasts popular culture and audio-visual technology that serves as a
means of entertainment, generally to play popular movies or music that has nothing to
do with village culture.
As a result, in an ever-changing situation, local village culture is becoming less
and less powerful. According to Ralph Linton (1952:17), "culture is a way of life of a
society that includes a way of thinking and a way of feeling as well as a way of doing".
Culture will continue to exist if it is used as the basis for social life. However, "culture
will also disappear either gradually or quickly, if the community abandons it and the
culture will be lost replace it with a new value system that adapts to changes in
civilization" (Lerner, 1983:149).
The cultural situation during the dominant agricultural period was clearly
characterized by the control of information by opinion leaders on cultural values.
Traditional authority and strong government support meant that communication was
linear; if villagers wanted to hold a public event with traditional arts such as wayang
golek or kliningan, they had to follow the directions of opinion leaders so that it would
be safe and there would be no interference from the village karuhun. In the shackles of
cultural politicization, the community will usually follow all the instructions of
opinion leaders. This one-way communication pattern, in addition to controlling the
audience, also shows the ability of opinion leaders to deal with invisible evil forces.
Belief in the ancestors or forerunners of the village is a form of respect from the
community.
When industry developed rapidly, the pattern of communication between opinion
leaders and villagers, in individual and group conversations, became more linear and
tended to be vertical from top to bottom, tightly controlling their followers. Opinion
leaders are representatives of the government, and in traditional events they always
insert government messages, telling the community to obey. When describing village
traditions that must be maintained, they are patronizing and force people to follow
them. Culture is one of the topics used in development rhetoric by opinion leaders that
cannot be denied.
Communication between villagers and opinion leaders is one-way, with the latter
controlling the conversation. The view of opinion leaders as representatives of the
authorities meant that villagers did not have the courage to dissent. The linear pattern
of conversation between opinion leaders, who are often identified as government
agents, and their audiences has also changed, along with the multi-dimensional crisis.
Political communication, which is loaded with demands for freedom of
information, also affects freedom of expression in culture and traditional arts. There is
no longer any control over traditional arts. And people also have more and more
choices for their enjoyment of all kinds of arts including popular ones.
2.
The Rise and Fall of the Economy Village:
The rural economy involves: agriculture, industry and trade. Agriculture is still
traditional, which is ironic when factories around farmland use high technology.
Industrialization operating in the countryside, on the one hand, is considered
beneficial, especially for migrant workers, but on the part of the natives, is considered
detrimental and damaging to the atmosphere of rural harmony. While trade was
originally in line with traditional agricultural patterns, it now complements and
supports industrial life, with the emergence of new consumption patterns.
2.1.
Surviving with Information Agriculture:
Agriculture in rural areas has been going on for hundreds of years with the support
of technical irrigation. Despite the technical irrigation, the process of agricultural
production is still traditional, using simple tools such as hoes, plows, harrows, sickles
as well as the power of buffaloes or cows. The traditional agricultural cycle includes
working the fields, making seedlings, planting, maintaining the crops, weeding and
harvesting. All issues from the use of tools, animal power and cycles in rice
productivity are inseparable from sharing information and discussing it with opinion
leaders. In addition, the government's messages to farmers in formal meetings in the
village are also frequent.
The production process involves agricultural institutions in the village, such as
institutions managed by the community with the legality of state power, such as credit
distribution cooperatives for farmers and working groups for irrigation arrangements,
which are formed and controlled by the government. In addition, there are institutions,
formed due to community aspirations in the form of working groups, which have ties
but are not well organized, such as in the work of the planting season, harvest season,
community service to repair the village axis and other activities of a socio-economic
nature.
The existence of informal institutions concerning the village economy, runs in
accordance with the mechanical society system, but economic organizations under the
control of state power are far more prioritized by local bureaucrats. According to
Uphoff and Esman (1974:12), "the effectiveness of farmer organizations in influencing
agricultural productivity and the welfare of villagers depends on the relationship
between the organization and the farmers with other institutions at the horizontal and
vertical levels in the government structure ". In line with this statement, "farmers in
implementing village development are also influenced by the messages contained in
government policies and strategies" (Inayatullah, 1978: 2).
The dominance of state power in political communication that controls farmers in
the production process, and their involvement in village development, is considered to
limit the movement of farmers in their efforts to achieve welfare. This situation is at
least seen in the opinion that says, "the needs of society are diverse, so that even in a
totalitarian society, all interactions in the organization are unlikely to be combined in
one pattern because each has a difference" (Etzioni, 1985: 160).
Differences are not in line with the power holder's concept of harmony, so it is
necessary to uniformize rural farmers, for example in the use of seeds, fertilizers,
points of sale and productivity per hectare until pricing is done uniformly, not
following individual abilities or group abilities and not based on a perfectly
competitive market. This uniformity is rejected by Ruttan (in Soetomo, 1991: 204),
"the emergence of unsynchronized and imposed rural institutions makes it difficult for
farmers to develop". Another opinion is more emphatic, "in its development the
organization must be run by looking at the differences that exist in all societies".
(Horison, 1988: 34).
The involvement of state power in farmer communication is prominent through
field extension officers, for example in introducing new seedlings or seeds that can be
purchased at farm offices or from wealthy farmers, the use of controversial tablet
fertilizers and cooperation in marketing. This proves the truth of Dick's (1986: 38)
statement, "market control by the government at the local level often suffers from
information distortion, subsidies for agricultural inputs that should be directed to small
farmers are often biased towards large landholders". Poor farmers as a marginalized
group, already unable to do much about various internal problems, are still burdened
with the frenetic pace of industrialization that they do not understand at all.
The traditional authority that has been passed down through the generations to
protect agricultural land has receded, they are no longer able to face the forces of
capital owners from outside the village who usually use local villagers, government
officials and soldiers as accomplices. The commercialization of agricultural land has
not improved the socio-economic conditions of rural farmers, but has made them
worse off due to the lack of land and the growing population. As in most developing
countries, "the commercialization of agricultural land is changing from ownership
based on residence to a private system based on money, with the result that
agricultural productivity is reduced" (Chirot, 1967:87),
In various studies on agriculture and population growth in developing countries, it
is not uncommon to conclude, "because of high population growth, productivity
increases are absorbed by the growing population, so that ultimately there is no effect
on average income". (Todaro, 1983:401). In the villages of industrial locations,
although the number of factory workers is very large, they are generally migrants.
While the number of agricultural workers from the local village population remains
large, they generally find it difficult to move to other sectors, except for young people
whose qualifications are in line with factory work.
Regarding village communities, as many references analogize that villagers are
farmers, Bergel asserts, in every settlement of peasants, the main characteristic
attached to the village is its function as a place of residence (settled) of a relatively
small group of people. In other words, a village is characterized by the attachment of
its citizens to a certain area. (Egon E. Bergel in Rahardjo, 1999: 27),
Villagers and rural dwellers who are accustomed to organizing their own work
systems, working at their own pace, are often criticized by factory workers who work
under strict timetables. Peasants were considered static in the fluctuating economic
situation of the surrounding industry. Such conditions, Boeke once wrote, made it
difficult for Indonesian peasants to transform themselves into a dynamic capitalist
economic system, while a dynamic economic system resulted in the destruction of the
entire community life in the villages. Against a dynamic economy, the village
community has absolutely no ability to adapt to accept or change itself. (J.H.Boeke, in
Soewardi, 1976:105). The difficulty of changing work patterns and economic
characteristics has become commonplace for rural communities. On the other hand,
the development of the rural environment and changes in production technology are
very rapid.
In the early days of factory construction, agriculture was still the main character of
Klari. Communication patterns that run linearly refer to traditional authorities
supported by formal power and capital owners. It is possible that the audience and
opinion leaders have almost equal agricultural knowledge, but because opinion leaders
are figures who are close to the ruler of rural resources and have a number of
traditional powers, making communication run linearly.
Opinion leaders act, among other things, as initiators-contributors who put
forward new ideas from the government. Even if there is transactional communication,
in the end the audience must be able to play the role of summarizer, to summarize the
message conveyed by opinion leaders and implement it accordingly.
Villagers had to obey the messages delivered by opinion leaders, who presented
news from the government. Villagers could not resist, no matter how hard they tried,
by not carrying out the appeals, which were all mandatory. But even that is difficult to
do, because the government also conducts strict supervision through its apparatus.
These opinion leaders usually convey their messages through the medium of formal
and informal meetings in the village, but the audience that specifically seeks
information from them is very limited. In informal meetings, such as at a village
celebration, people sometimes talk and debate with opinion leaders about agricultural
issues in the village, but this is just flowery talk, because in the end, people are
generally unable to argue when opinion leaders quote government regulations.
The statement shows that the opinion leader has a strong position so that in every
conversation he will take the lead. Debate is only a very slight variation of the
audience, because in the end the audience is more inclined to obey what the opinion
leader wants.
In times of rapid industrial development, and high levels of support from state
power, the army and capital owners, the pattern of communication with audiences is
increasingly linear, without transactions for feedback and rebuttal. Opinion leaders
who are an integrative part of state power always control the conversation in
controlling the message to suit the government's development goals.
One-way communication with the controlling style was very prominent during the
industrial heyday. Rural audiences are in a position of relinquishing style, that is, they
are willing to receive information from others, but on the other hand, their real
interests and information needs are ignored by opinion leaders.
As an agricultural village, before industrialization entered, agricultural
management was carried out using kinship patterns. Agricultural land and plantations
with historical ties were not easily sold to others. However, modernization with its
industrialization undermined attitudes towards land ownership. It is rare for villagers
to sell land to outsiders. But since the construction of freeway facilities, and the issue
of industrial estates, the environment around villages has quickly changed. A land
market emerged in the village along the freeway. Fertile land is traded freely,
regardless of whether it is used for agriculture, factories or simply investment by
capitalists from outside the region.
As in other changing roles, during the decline of industry, the role of agricultural
talks also declined. People no longer shy away from government-supported opinion
leaders. In fact, the community felt that these opinion leaders, who always controlled
the villagers in any discussion about agriculture, had contributed to the decline of the
village. Ordinary villagers expressed disappointment when at the beginning of the
factory construction, opinion leaders and industry-supporting entities stated that land
acquisition would be carried out for fish farms, chicken farms and other businesses
that would not damage the village environment.
The messages conveyed to the public are ignored, and the public tends to be
reactive to opinion leaders supported by the New Order government. Some opinion
leaders, with their remaining authority, try to adapt to change, but it is not easy to win
back their audience. People still have bad experiences when the coercion model does
not provide opportunities for dissent.
2.2.
The Dilemma of Industrial Development in Rural Areas:
At the time, technical irrigation farmland, whose production did not depend on the
season, was also displaced by the construction of factories. This was the beginning of
the decline of the village as a rice-producing center. On the other hand, symbols of
modernization are growing rapidly, such as factories, upper middle-class settlements,
commercial recreational areas, farms and plantations managed in a modern way. These
institutions require little more than marginal labor with the qualifications of rural
farmers. The displaced farmland, however, was originally capable of accommodating a
large number of farm laborers.
The new orientation towards the industrial order is strong, activities related to the
agricultural cycle are increasingly abandoned, especially by young people, who prefer
to work as factory laborers or work in the informal sector supporting industrial
communities or go outside the village as laborers in urban areas or as domestic
servants abroad.
They feel that working in the agricultural sector does not provide much profit, and
often falls into uncertain situations when pest attacks or natural factors disrupt the
agricultural cycle. Therefore, for some people, working in a factory is considered to
provide more certainty in earning an income.
In the initial situation of the entry of industrialization into the countryside, the
communication patterns of opinion leaders who were oriented to support
industrialization with the village community were more characterized by linear
communication patterns. The mastery of information about factory development with
all its implications made and the position of individuals who had relationships with
government officials and capital owners strengthened their position in front of their
audience.
On the other hand, villagers tend to avoid (withdrawl style) interacting and
communicating with everything related to symbols of power. But at the same time, the
community's dependence on the existence of the factory in the village in terms of land
sales and the desire to work in the factory, makes communication more one-way in the
control of opinion leaders.
The community actually dislikes the opinion leader who is supported by the
government, but given the strength of his presence in every village meeting, the
community is unable to balance the opinion leader's political communication, which
often directs them to accept the presence of capital owners who can provide welfare.
He also often speaks at traditional and religious events organized by the community.
As people close to the government, opinion leaders opinions are always present and
take advantage of opportunities in political communications that contain "government
messages" for villagers.
Villagers have two different attitudes towards opinion leaders who support
industrialization in the countryside: the first group accepts it reluctantly, while the
second group considers that opinion leaders have a big role to play in helping
overcome income difficulties. In terms of the number of audiences, those who accept
the message with compulsion are the majority of villagers. This is because people who
have the same orientation as opinion leaders are generally young people and a group
of landowners or land brokers who are intensively involved in the commercialization
of rural land.
This pattern of communication by opinion leaders became even more dominant
when factories developed rapidly. Farming villages where factories are located no
longer appear to be farming villages. Agriculture seemed to have become just land that
separated one factory from another. The procession of farm laborers going to work in
the fields became less and less conspicuous, replaced by groups of factory workers
who came simultaneously from various parts of the village on factory buses. The back
and forth of company buses, motorbikes and other transportation never stops
throughout the day. The village becomes dynamic with the mobility of factory
workers, most of whom are migrants.
The dominance of opinion leaders is particularly prominent when industry in the
village has a stronger influence and displaces traditional agriculture, which is not only
an economic activity but also maintains rural traditions. Opinion leaders, as an elite
group, became increasingly untouchable by villagers as the factory grew rapidly. The
community submits to all his orders. In their position as special interest pleaders,
capital owners and the government have great power to control audiences and create
broad opinions in the countryside. As a result, people dare not dissent. In relation to
the formation of public opinion, Noelle-Neumann (in Denis McQuail, 1987: 252)
argues, "people generally have a natural fear of exclusion, so that in expressing
opinions, they try to unite by following the majority opinion or consensus". Although
this opinion actually applies to the formation of opinions in the media, the opinion of
It has the same substance in rural communication patterns. People tend to follow the
majority opinion or the opinion that develops, even though their participation is
forced. Rejection of opinions that develop and have many followers will not be
ignored by other audiences.
Rural industrialization, which was used as an attempt to increase the income of
rural communities, was not entirely successful. Instead, new problems arose as a result
of the factories not operating. Therefore, when there was freedom of speech during the
multi-dimensional crisis, the community fought against government policies that
favored entrepreneurs in the past.
They point to inconsistencies in the land acquisition process, waste disposal and
other promised social compensations. Opinion leaders whose support from the village
apparatus has also weakened are not exempt from community criticism. The
conversations that take place between these opinion leaders and the community are
nothing more than arguments and trials against them. Villagers no longer trust them
despite their efforts to harmonize with the reform situation. Even if they still have an
audience, they are limited in number, generally people who still hope that the role of
the government can be restored to its original position. This group tends to emerge
from village bureaucrats or government employees residing in rural areas.
The unfavorable situational context for opinion leaders supporting
industrialization makes the communication patterns that occur with village
communities two-way. The community no longer pays attention to government
messages and even tends to reject all news or messages conveyed by opinion leaders.
Most villagers do not simply accept the messages conveyed by opinion leaders, as
they also obtain news from many more trusted sources. They do not hesitate to reject
the content of the message if it is not in line with the aspirations of the villagers, which
is why opinion leaders rarely appear in village forums. There are still some villagers
who rely on them as community leaders, but generally, they are no longer relied upon.
With a limited audience, the pattern of communication between opinion leaders
and their audiences has also changed in line with the loss of the hegemony of state
power in controlling messages. The linear pattern of communication changes to an
interactive and transactional one where arguments are exchanged. Opinion leaders do
not dominate information but share information with villagers in a two-way
communication of equality.
2.3.
Village Trade as a Life Support Village:
Village trade is influenced by the situation and growth of other fields that occur in
the Klari area. Other sectors are growing, causing the emergence of new opportunities
to do previously unknown businesses. However, traditional characteristics that are less
innovative towards something new have resulted in the local community being late in
anticipating opportunities for business, so that these opportunities are often utilized by
newcomers. For example, the operation of factories throughout the day is anticipated
by migrants by opening restaurants, workshops, grocery stores, bicycle storage and
other profitable businesses.
Village trade, in an agricultural village setting, began as a means of supporting
agricultural productivity when this sector dominated community life. The village
economy was never entirely an agricultural economy. This is because the agricultural
life cycle is related to the provision of goods and services in village life. In an
agricultural village setting, communication between opinion leaders and villagers is
one-way, providing advice and guidance to their audiences.
Opinion leaders are an extension of the government who provide unilateral advice
and are difficult to refute because they carry development messages that are loaded
with various obligations. The interaction between opinion leaders and village
communities results in a linear communication pattern as a community reference and a
one-way communication pattern that tightly controls the audience when the power of
industrialization in the village is dominant. The capacity as a mediator to obtain capital
is one of the references of the community that is dependent on this opinion leader. In
addition, the effects of his success in his business further positioned him as a figure
worth following.
The village economy in the trade sector cannot be separated from government
regulation, from capital issues, mandatory contributions and even paint for stalls. As
for larger businesses, there are regulations related to credit disbursement, the need to
sell commodities, the use of labor, the need to fill in various forms from the
government to controlling the price of certain commodities. All government programs
will be disseminated by opinion leaders to the village community. This cooperation in
McQuail's (1987:188) thinking,:
Control of society by self-interested elites or classes tends to have a strong
influence due to the audience's political ignorance of social reality, emphasis on the
legitimacy of the state and established class institutions. If dissatisfaction arises, these
elites and interest groups will scapegoat as defectors, militants and those who are
uncompromising towards power.
If this condition persists, it is certain that rural communities do not have the
courage to reject the messages received given the power of opinion leaders,
government and interest groups in the village. Here there are actually two types of
message acceptance, Cartwright and Zander (in Tubb and Moss, 1996: 70-71),
substantively explain, private acceptance is more common when valuing membership
in a group, group opinion is unanimously opposed to individual opinion, the issue at
issue is ambiguous and the group is forced to produce an important goal. Whereas
public acceptance usually grows out of a desire to prevent the unpleasantness of
conflict. After maintaining a disagreeing opinion for a long time, people become
uncomfortable by social pressure, so to keep the peace, they will give the impression
of agreeing with all group members.
The support of government and traditional authorities and their adaptability to
evolving circumstances has led opinion leaders to adopt a linear, one-way
communication style with no feedback taken into account.
Various communication issues that are hegemonic, strict control of opinion leaders
and the government, as well as communication patterns in other fields, communication
in trade changes into interactive communication patterns, when people are not easy to
believe the messages that emerge from leaders opinions that often collaborate with the
government and powerful capital owners in the village. Unresolved issues are being
brought up again, such as the disapproval of small warung and grocery store owners
for the operation of several mini markets in the countryside. The village and sub-
district governments, which had been protested by villagers to prohibit the operation of
mini markets, ignored their demands and, through government agents and opinion
leaders, even seemed to support the operation of mini markets under various pretexts,
including the reason for a healthy perfectly competitive market.
Villagers' stalls become empty of buyers when mini markets operate. Generally,
mini markets are established in the central hamlets of the village. This problem has
never been fully resolved, as the powerful capital owners behind retail businesses have
power relations that cannot be matched at the grassroots level. Villagers' anticipation
of industrialization and a shift in livelihoods from the agrarian sector to small
businesses faced unequal competition. All the blame for this is also placed on opinion
leaders and the government, who are perceived as not being in favor of the small
people.
Another problem that arises in relation to businesses outside the agricultural and
industrial sectors is the trade in usable factory waste such as scraps of cloth, carpet,
rubber and all kinds of industrial waste that can be traded. Waste traders are generally
people who have strong relationships with factory owners in the village. As such, these
waste masters always try to defend the interests of the factory, secure the factory's
interference from crime, and quell village protests because the factory is carrying out
activities that the villagers do not want. The relationship between opinion leaders and
waste entrepreneurs works well in the same mode of interest of defending the smooth
operation of the factory.
A rural business that often causes conflict in the community in relation to morality
is renting houses. Opinion leaders and government officials are often not assertive in
policing rented houses and rooms, which are not used in accordance with community
norms. However, this group has a strong presence because, covertly, it has the support
of powerful people in the village. In addition, they also have access to interactive
communication with elites in various groups in the region.
In the context of the factory downturn, opinion leaders lost support, they no longer
dominated village business conversations and were forced to fulfill obligations that
were not to their liking and were not in line with village customs. Communication is
interactive with equality between the interacting parties. At first people were afraid to
reject the messages of opinion leaders, but they often compared what they saw on
television and radio in Jakarta, which also promoted freedom. In addition, radio in the
regions also broadcasts not only entertainment but is full of news about revealing
irregularities committed by various parties in running the government. Therefore, the
villagers, in their political communication, became bold and could no longer be
controlled by opinion leaders. In fact, we prefer to refute what he says. Times have
changed and people are free to seek information on how to solve small business
problems.
The communication pattern between opinion leaders and their audiences appears
egalitarian; there is no longer a position that must be followed, but rather the messages
that emerge are always debated with their audiences. Efforts to adjust to the reform
situation could not be made quickly, so these opinion leaders are also no longer a
reference for the community to talk about trade in the village, although the local
village government still tries to utilize their remaining authority as community leaders.
3.
Beginning with a Blurry Portrait of Rural Politics :
Rural politics, in particular political parties that are supported by or provide
support to the state bureaucracy, influence all forms of public policy from the central
to the rural level. The politicization of villages by the ruling party is very prominent
and contrasts with the depoliticization of villagers by state power.
Since the 1971 general election, Indonesia has entered a new era in the party
system, namely the hegemonic system. Sartori said:
“A hegemonic system is one in which the level of competition between political
parties is kept to a minimum by the hegemony party. Other parties are merely
given a chance to exist with a very peripheral role. The possibility of power
rotation is almost completely impossible because it will not happen by the
hegemony party. (Giovanni Sartori in Gaffar, 1988:10).”
In this system, supported by the military and bureaucracy, the dominance of the
Golongan Karya cannot be matched by other political parties in all aspects of political
life in Indonesia. Other parties become minimal in the policy process, limited at best to
complementary roles in an unequal competition.
Political parties should play a role in the political education process, but
depoliticization through the policy of floating masses, especially at the rural level, has
made the relationship between the party elite and the masses become disconnected.
The cadreization of political parties at the lower levels has stalled, making it very
difficult to recruit activists who have the ability and skills. This is not the case with the
ruling party, as the village and sub-district government apparatus are Golkar activists
in the village, so they are able to conduct intensive penetration in all sectors of village
life, of course including determining who the village head candidates should be
supported and elected in the local power system.
The hegemonic pattern ended, the political system with party patterns also
changed. The political system places political parties autonomously to implement their
political agenda. The change in the political system to the village level requires and
frees the active involvement of the community to always control political behavior in a
new system building.
Floating mass has been abandoned, parties are competing to enter the countryside
as a source of constituents for the general election. But based on the records of the
sub-district government, at the sub-district level alone, of the 48 (forty-eight) parties
that participated in the general election, there are only 21 parties that have
administrators at the sub-district level, while the other 27 gurem parties have no
management.
3.1.
The Journey of Democratizing Power Local:
Local power in this context is the power of the local village that can direct and
influence its community. Power according to Mokken and Stokman is "the ability of
an actor (a person, group or institution) to determine absolutely or change (in whole or
in part) the alternatives to action or alternatives to choice available to other actors".
(Mokken and Stokman in Budiardjo, 1994: 94).
Politics as an effort to control other people or communities, if without control,
tends to oppress the controlled or the people. Power Authoritarianism is carried out
through a bureaucratic strategy that parallels the top-down approach, or exercising
power with a controlling bureaucratic model. As a result, political development in the
village denies community participation.
Discussions about local political life, between opinion leaders and villagers, in
agricultural village situations are characterized by a linear communication model,
given that patronage power relations prevail on a national scale down to the
countryside. Support for the village head's power by opinion leaders is manifested in
messages conveyed in a linear communication pattern. On the other hand, villagers
who are dependent on the "village administration" tend to follow the message of
opinion leaders without daring to refuse.
The development of industry in the village is used as a symbol of government
success by opinion leaders. In speeches or public talks, opinion leaders often attribute
their role to securing development and are supported by village officials. There is no
interactive communication that gives audiences the opportunity to disagree. The
opinion leader's message is the government's message that must be implemented.
From the time of President Soeharto to President Habibie, in political
communication about development policies, villagers could not argue, everything must
be implemented, even though there were also provisions that were considered
burdensome for villagers. The political communication that took place in discussing
local power was simply a form of one-sided compromise, or the delivery of messages
to mobilize support from villagers. These opinion leaders control the village audience
and are often feared because they also function as accomplices of state power.
The dominant power of opinion leaders supporting industrialization receded
during the prolonged economic crisis. People no longer submitted to the use of power
to disseminate information. Instead, the community tightly controlled the actions of
opinion leaders, village officials and factories.
Political conversations have become more prevalent in the spirit of openness.
Opinion leaders are just one source of information that is no longer taken into account.
People obtain information from various source of the message, following a multi-step
flow. Villagers no longer care about the obligation to participate in supporting every
government program. The reputation of opinion leaders who support power and ignore
the people is fading. Villagers prefer to talk about power in this village with young and
educated figures.
The discourse on the role of state power organs in controlling the government is
always included in the roles that are disliked by the village community, so the
community has a spirit of criticism that is quite intense when talking about the role of
opinion leaders who always support village government policies.
3.2.
Election Participation :
In the New Order elections, Golkar emerged as the sole majority. This was partly
possible due to the existence of a bureaucratic patrimonial political system with the
main base of the government apparatus acting as a political machine to gain
constituents. In Duverger's view (1998:137), "in traditional societies where
democratization is not yet prevalent, it is easier for state power to control society to
support its interests". Traditional communities do not have the ability or trust to argue
with state power when there is a discrepancy.
Moreover, in political matters, there is very little possibility for villagers to
disagree with the government and opinion leaders in the village. This kind of power,
according to Murdoch and Rosen (1970) as disruptive power, is "the power a person
has to force others to do whatever he wants". (Murdoch and Rosen, in Tubbs and
Moss, 1976:5). The dissimilarity in political orientation, which is often associated with
communists and other radical movements, has trapped villagers in the concept of a
floating mass that continues to be controlled by state power.
Politics being a sensitive issue in rural communities, the dominance of talk of elections
and political parties is completely in the control of opinion leaders as agents of the
government. Political messages will be delivered to their audiences in a very linear
form, in accordance with government policies on life ideology, politics and the
stability of state power at the rural level.
Opinion leaders are used as agents of political parties to convey political
messages. The efforts made by opinion leaders as an entity of the ruling political
power are very prominent. They routinely conduct political socialization to their
audiences. In general, political socialization is the deliberate cultivation of political
information both formally and informally in every life cycle" (Fred I. Greenstein in
Rush and Althoff, 1997: 36). Programmed political introduction results in strong party
dominance, regulating all aspects of life.
Villagers are an easily controlled constituency and will not put up a fight for
political affairs since the political trauma of 1965. Tight political control positioned
the audience as a source of exploitation to support state power. Villagers generally did
not dare to argue with opinion leaders to vote for the party supported by the
government at that time. They were afraid that if they did not comply, they would face
difficulties in dealing with formal institutions in the village.
Therefore, they complied when village leaders, village and sub-district officials
directed villagers to vote for the government party in every general election until 1997.
Communication between opinion leaders and their audiences about the general
election was linear, directing them to vote for the party followed by the opinion leader.
This linear pattern gradually faded when President Soeharto as the most powerful
political authority fell in a political crisis. Subsequently, political communication or
discussion took place freely. The mass media has a big role in creating freedom of
speech in society. MacBride (1980: 209) states, the conception of freedom of
information, freedom of information flow, balanced information flow and freedom to
use the mass media is the development of the basic principles of freedom of speech
and opinion. If freedom of speech is individual freedom, then freedom of information
has individual and collective aspects, developed by the existence of diverse means of
mass communication.
Information about politics and the inequality of government administration is the
talk of the village community. Elections have also become prominent conversations
within the village community. The participation of villagers in the 1999 general
election placed the democratic party as the sovereignty of the people and positioned
the people as autonomous actors in making choices. It was not the people who were
mobilized without knowing for whose benefit their political participation was.
In the 1999 elections, villagers were free to vote. They no longer had to follow the
advice of opinion leaders who usually voiced the interests of the ruling party. The
campaigns of various political parties were crowded all the way to the villages.
Whereas in previous elections, villagers had never conducted or seen party activities in
the village, party campaigns were usually held in the city. In the past, before political
reform, meetings were often held at the village level by village officials, elites in the
community and the ruling party.
People are no longer familiar with mass mobilization in general elections, but they
begin to participate in their own politics. According to Jennings and Vincent, "active
participation in political communication makes voters realize and recognize and obtain
information about candidates in an election (Jennings and Vincent, in Suwardi, 1995:
47). The courage to participate in political activities, because of the changing situation
and the support of mass media that aggressively voiced political transparency.
The courage to disagree with the government or its organs of power is even
exercised by mobilizing the masses of various groups in the community.
Unfortunately, when conflicts are not resolved through compromise and deliberation,
as a result of the community's lack of trust in village government officials and opinion
leaders, the channel used by the community is often in the form of mass mobilization
against government policies.
In response to Patterson and McClure's mass action model, individual expressions
of dissatisfaction with the power structure rarely get their target. However, if they join
in groups, they will usually reach their intended targets. The specific channels referred
to here are demonstrations, riots, or certain events in political situations or during
election campaigns. (Patterson and McClure in Suwardi, 1995: 37).
The village community, which as a floating mass that is not feasible or prohibited
from politics, during the economic crisis and multi-dimensional crisis, has turned into
a politically free community.
In the lowest level of political participation, such as participation in general
elections, people are free to make their choices without the involvement of state
power. Political freedom makes villagers the target of many political parties to become
their constituents.
Political differences are no longer talked about in secret situations in groups that
are opposed to the government alone. In fact, differences in political orientation tend
to be a new characteristic of villagers in situations of prolonged crisis. Differences in
political choices in the village do not cause ideological conflicts as feared by the
government during the depoliticization period applied in the village community.
The composition of the votes of the five political parties in the 1999 general
election for the DPRD at the kecamatan level, which covers the industrial villages,
was: The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) received 37,152
votes. Second, the Golongan Karya Party (Golkar) with 21,157 votes. Third, the
United Development Party (PPP) received 8,314 votes. The fourth place was occupied
by the National Awakening Party (PKB), which received 4,911 votes. In fifth place is
the National Mandate Party (PAN), which received around 4,164 votes. The
composition of these votes has changed the political map, which for decades has been
dominated by the single majority of the Golkar Party. In fact, the results of the
previous general elections, Golkar received between 80-90% of the total number of
votes.
