POLITICAL COMMUNICATION, POWER AND DEMOCRACY
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
MCO 456 - POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
WEEK 9
Introduction:
During President Soeharto's rule, the countryside was not a suitable habitat for
party life and people were not fit for politics at the village level, rather their thoughts
and energies were channeled into participating in village development. Therefore,
there were no party administrators at the village level, except for the Golongan Karya,
which identified itself as a kekaryaan institution, and could use the party's leadership
to support the village.
rural offices and institutions as its political base.
There is no stream of political groups in the village, most are oriented towards the
political stream. The village head spearheaded the massive constituency gain in the
election. "Indonesia's political history has recorded that the organization of elections,
which took place five times during the New Order government, was systematically
oriented towards maintaining power". (KIPP, 1999:1). The model of political control
that succeeds in placing politics as a sensitive and elitist conversation, makes villagers
uninterested or afraid when talking about politics.
The need for village community information in political communication, including
local power or the implementation of village government by village officials. As in
political communication which involves discussion of government and its apparatus.
"Political communication examines the impact of government on the mass media or
the impact of the media on the behavior of government officials. and formal / informal
channels in running the government". (Rivers. et.al, in Charles R. Wright, 1975: 81-
85). In this context, information about the operation of local government or local
power is something that village audiences want to know, in addition to information
about elections related to rural politics and the existence of political figures and parties
in the village during the New Order era.
1.
Local Power and Development Information Democracy:
The village community, as in other rural areas, cannot openly discuss the power of
the village head and the village officials and institutions that support the government.
With the support of higher levels of government at the sub-district and district levels,
the village head has very strong power.
Power, according to Timasheff (1967: 167), "is the ability of a person or a number
of people to carry out their will even if that will is contrary to the wishes of others".
Power is guaranteed by rules and laws, but strong support from all institutions,
political parties and higher power structures, making the Village Head in exercising
his power cannot be criticized or controlled by the people who have given a mandate
in the Village Head election.
Local power or the system of government run by the Village Head in the situation
of agricultural villages and the beginning of the growth of industry, runs without
significant turmoil, although the community is not satisfied with the pattern of
government in the village but the power of the village head with all the people who
protect and the various village institutions formed, it is very difficult to reject the
policies of the organs of state power.
In autocratic local power situations, opinion leaders are a source of information for
the community in political communication. Opinion leaders who always cooperate or
disagree with village officials have a dominant role in providing information about
governance in the village with all kinds of policies on rural development and politics.
Autocratic tendencies, never paying attention to generally accepted rules but
making their own provisions to legalize all their actions. According to Smith when
addressing this behavior is:
Most rural communities look to the Village Head for guidance in all forms of
action and participation in village development, Even in certain areas, the Village
Head is considered a small king who can determine all his wishes without being
rejected, in addition to having a strong position as a representative of the government
in the village, the village community also follows him. (Theodore M. Smith in
Kuntjaraningrat, 1984:197)
During the agricultural period, traditional authority was strong in the village, and
everything that was said by the opinion leader as an extension of the Village Head, the
community tended to obey. If people were dissatisfied or felt aggrieved by the
leadership of the Village Head, they would seek more detailed information from
opinion leaders.
Similarly, people who simply want to confirm the policies of the village
government before declaring their support will also look to opinion leaders for
guidance and advice. Because the sub-district government and other state officials
support formal rural organizations, villagers look to opinion leaders, who are well-
informed about government operations, including the election of the village head. If
villagers encounter problems that they do not understand, they will ask opinion leaders
for clarification or ask them to explain the various policies of rural institutions.
Opinion leaders are the most widely referenced source of information for
villagers. Important decisions by villagers to act collectively or individually are highly
dependent on opinion leaders who still have traditional authority. As stated by Altman
and Taylor (1973:131), "similarities in aspirations and goals will form more intimate
communication in building relationships between interacting individuals". Differences
in rural characteristics are considered to disrupt harmony in social life.
Similarity of orientation is the choice of villagers to consult and seek information
from opinion leaders in their neighborhood. Meanwhile, information from other
sources and the mass media still goes through the filter of opinion leaders in two-step
flow communication. The position of opinion leaders in relation to the mass media is
mentioned by Rogers and Svenning (1969: 227), usually opinion leaders in villages
have a greater frequency of contact with the mass media compared to other
communities, so they have extensive knowledge, and that is one of the things used to
deal with their audiences.
Opinion leaders, as elites in the community, are the source of information that
villagers seek and trust in agricultural village situations. Various information in the
countryside from other sources such as the mass media or from the results of their
interactions with other people such as village bureaucrats, government development
agents, political party activists are only complementary to talking to opinion leaders.
In the era of industrialization in the village, the Golkar Party had a very large
presence in coloring the lives of rural communities. On a national scale, the condition
of industrialization in the village was a representation of the power of the New Order
that was rooted to the lowest level in the village environment. However, on the other
hand, the village community remains static, and still features a mechanistic nature,
with an instinct to always behave the same way towards all forms of behavioral stimuli
or symbols from outside their community.
In general, the village community in the calculation of local power is understood
as a uniform and general social category, or in the perception of Smith and Zopf
(1970: 161) there are two different types in developing countries, namely, "one class
system" with uniform group characteristics and two class systems, one of which is still
traditional and the other is more modern rational". With a uniform nature, the Village
Head in exercising his power recruits opinion leaders who are widely known in the
community. Controlling one opinion leader means controlling the followers he has.
With his power, it is not difficult for the village head to influence opinion leaders to
support the policies of government institutions.
In the context of superior bureaucratic legal power, Etzioni reveals, Position
power as power obtained and supported by regulations in the formal power structure,
this power relies more on formal authority than personal power based on exemplary in
the environment of followers. (Etzioni, in Robbins, 1980: 80).
Power at the village government level is autocratic, with all village policies
controlled by village officials and village officials. This condition is certainly not
conducive for the community to reject the programs of rural power organs. In this
situation, there are opinion leaders who support and do not support the policies of rural
organs or institutions. Usually, this grouping occurs at the time of the village head
election, and continues until the village head is elected. The government of the elected
village head, and each group also has special relationships with power holders at the
kecamatan and kabupaten levels.
Thus, in matters of village governance, this group of opinion leaders is dependent
on state power. It is known that village head candidates can compete in elections after
being selected by the government. Therefore, the support of government officials is
absolutely necessary. But the point is that in local power, people seek information
from opinion leaders. In general, villagers usually ask opinion leaders for information
about the running of the village government. Although they do not participate in the
decision-making process of the village government program, they pay close attention
to government operations.
Opinion leaders are the dominant source of information in the community, so
news obtained from other sources will usually be informed and filtered again by
opinion leaders before being disseminated back to their audiences in the form of
suggestions and instructions to support or even criticize the village government.
However, the act of criticizing in egalitarian political communication is never done
frankly, as the support for the village head as the ruler in the village is quite strong
from the government apparatus in the sub-district and district.
Communication from a variety of sources was a key characteristic during the
economic crisis, whose implications reached rural enterprises. The elites who usually
collaborate with government officials and those who disagree with the government are
not the main source of news when people seek information. Villagers were also
outspoken, criticizing the policies of government institutions, expressing their
dissatisfaction and demanding that the supporting institutions and people in the
village's circle of power speak up about what should be done about the changes in
political life.
The most prominent demand is for the government to understand the villagers'
curiosity, which requires sensitivity and the ability of opinion leaders to monitor their
aspirations, which are always unclear on the surface. Thus, even if the lower levels of
society feel unrepresented in village institutions, their demands can be accommodated.
The control of political information and power by the group carrying the reform
jargon was followed by those who were considered outsiders when the New Order was
in power. There are no institutionalized outsider groups in the village, but they appear
to change their names according to the issues of debate or conflict. They would give
their names to forums, movements, committees, ranks, coalitions and combine them
with the terms people, victims, reform and other more democratic terms.
Electronic media broadcasts, which before the change of power were full of
broadcasts of the successes of state authorities, became full of broadcasts of abuses
committed by state officials and political rulers. Faced with a rapidly changing
situation, villagers sought information about local government administration by
asking young people who used to watch or participate in protests outside the village.
News from television, newspapers and even stories from the internet obtained through
university students, became knowledge for villagers. As for opinion leaders, since we
have information from other sources and the same mass media, we share information
and discuss it more.
Villagers regard the mass media, opinion leaders and leaders of mass movements
as sources of information that are always sought after. None of these sources are used
as the main reference, but all three support each other to counter policies that are not in
line with community aspirations.
The political situation of local power in the countryside and the information
needed to deal with power competition in the countryside can be seen in the political
attitudes of villagers. They no longer see officials from formal rural institutions as
entities to be feared. Villagers try to keep up-to-date with the latest news about the
running of the government from various news sources. They continue to follow and
monitor all actions taken by elites in government power. Communities that used to
depend on village officials who sheltered behind higher authorities have changed their
attitude by maintaining good relations with their people.
Trust, obedience and fear of government officials have faded. In fact, they have
become more forceful in controlling the deviant behavior of the village government.
Appropriate oversight of democracy is suggested by Larry Diamond (1994: 7), whose
point is that stated that the basis of democratic functioning is the ability of civil society
to control state power with clear restrictions on the running of government and
organize more democratic political institutions. Civil society can monitor and outline
democratic obligations for the ruling regime.
Discussions and talks that were previously sensitive in political communication
are now open and all villagers are free to discuss them. Interaction and communication
among rural communities is often characterized by reviews of politics at the local level
and at a broader level, talk about interests and other jargon commonly used in
speeches by political figures and government officials at various levels in the power
structure.
The truthfulness of the content and appropriateness of information on local power
politics is ignored by villagers. They are happy to look for news that concerns local
power without paying attention to the perfection of a message. In principle, power
must always be monitored and criticized, so even power holders who have tried to
create order and order will always be looked for mistakes.
2.
Hegemony of Information Control Elections:
Politically, since the New Order government, general elections have been won by
the Work Group. Therefore, general elections are not a measure of substantial public
political participation, moreover, the campaign before the general election in the pre-
reform period was more like a mass mobilization to show the strength of political
groups. William Liddle (1973) assessed the characteristics of political parties in
Indonesia by stating the following:
"Political parties are very ideology-oriented, not program-oriented, exacerbate
ideological conflicts in Indonesian society at the elite and mass levels, create
organizational competition in society because parties always maintain mass support to
show the strength of competition among elites, party leaders are opportunists who are
only interested in improving the welfare of themselves and their close friends, not
fighting for the interests of society" (William Liddle, in Gaffar, 1988: 5).
Villages in Indonesia are strategic areas to gain constituents in general elections,
given that villagers will follow their opinion leaders or patrons in the choice of
political parties. The villagers, as long as the government is considered a floating
mass, cannot freely make party choices other than being in line with the government
party. According to Gerth and Mills (1981: 180), "a party is a voluntary association of
its members intended to gain power in a country, parties can represent the interests and
goals of class, status or a mixture of class and status".
Political parties in rural areas also show the same symptoms. The point is that
parties are not just the dominance of social class, or economic status in which there are
elites and masses, but political parties are more visible as inclusive organizations in
which there is integrative communication between social and economic classes and the
owners of formal power in the state.
Depoliticization became an important agenda of the government, under the pretext
of a strong commitment to the economy. In the situation of agricultural villages, the
power of political parties is almost invisible in the countryside, except for the power of
the Golongan Karya through the bureaucratic apparatus and rural institutions under
government control. Groups of farmers, youth, housewives and other entities
organized by the village government in the power network of party power dominate
power.
Although all village institutions have been formed with the orientation of
supporting the ruling party, the village government also uses opinion leaders to
influence the community to follow the government's political choices. The role of
trusted people is in line with the opinion of Roucek and Warren (in Rahardjo, 1999:
73), explaining, "village communities have characteristics as primary groups,
geographic factors determine group formation, relationships are more intimate and
durable, homogeneous, low mobility, and tend to follow group leaders who have
traditional authority".
When it comes to party choice in general elections, village opinion leaders rarely
have individual preferences. In general, although they differ with the government on
various matters in political communication, they may be unanimous when it comes to
political parties. At least this can be seen from the results of the 1997 general election,
where the Golongan Karya won an absolute majority of the electorate. The majority of
villagers seek information about their choice of political party in the general election
from opinion leaders.
In general, however, opinion leaders advise villagers to follow the choice of the
village head. In fact, these opinion leaders often disagree with the policies of village
institutions as sub-organs of the ruling power in various village development
programs. But when it comes to elections, they follow the majority in the village. In
this context, opinion leaders are the information center for villagers to discuss politics
and elections. There is no other source of information to ask about politics in the
village. Village politicians outside Golkar are hard to find, so in general elections it is
common for party witnesses to be absent or unwilling for fear of repercussions.
In the course of its development, the development of industry without meaningful
distribution to rural communities is one of the problems of development. The power of
industry, which is claimed to be the success of depoliticization and the concept of
floating mass, makes political communication increasingly distant from rural
communities. Even just talking about the choice of political parties in elections is
dominated by a group of opinion leaders or government officials and their supporting
village institutions.
And Nimmo (1993: 8) argues that "political communication is any type of delivery
of political messages from a source to a number of recipients, either in the form of
words, written or in the form of symbols". Another definition that emphasizes the form
of political messages for the purpose of its users, conveyed by Ellul (in Suwardi, 1995:
9), states, "Political communication is any type of message delivery, either in the form
of written or unwritten symbols, in words and gestures that can affect directly or
indirectly the position of someone who is at the top of the power structure in a
system".
Communication that has political value is the hegemony of state power
administrators and opinion leaders who help smooth the course of village
depoliticization. In villages, political information is completely controlled by the state
power network. Villagers seek election information from opinion leaders, although
they actually get a lot of information about elections, but in the end we will ask
opinion leaders and tend to follow their advice.
Opinion leaders are the main point of reference when villagers seek information
about which party to vote for in general elections. Information from other sources and
the mass media that aggressively report on politics and elections are also not sources
of information. Depoliticization requires villagers to support the ruling party.
The relationship between power and its support groups in the government
supported by political groups with the regularity of the system, stated by Max Weber,
"the political group in power, seeks to maintain order through its supporting organs
formed to maintain order, apply threats or physical coercion, in order to maintain the
continuity of its power". (Max Weber, in Timasheff, 1967:218).
As a political force that plays a role in state administration, they form a cohesive
network of organizations that can maintain their power. One of those who became part
of the power network during the period of industrial development in the village was
opinion leaders.
The end of the floating mass era, which coincided with the change of power in
1998, had a far-reaching impact on political life. A society that had been conservative,
apolitical and unconcerned with changes in the five-year cycle at the elite level for
decades, suddenly changed drastically in 1999. At the same time, many people in
society analogized this era with excessive and uncivilized political freedom. In fact, in
the 1997 elections, in some polling stations in this village it was often difficult to find
witnesses for parties other than Golkar. On many occasions in the run-up to elections it
was common for government elites to tell people to vote for the ruling party, which
always won the election.
At the beginning of the reformation, everyone was free to talk about politics and
villagers enjoyed following political news on Jakarta television and radio. The news
was usually discussed with friends or asked questions of those who knew better, as
there was an increasing number of confusing political positions. With opinion leaders,
they were no longer looking for information or guidance, but more for an attitude in
dealing with the political turmoil that reached the village.
Attention to political information leads to an eagerness to imitate what is
happening elsewhere. People feel they have a much stronger political position than
government officials. They easily make decisions that alarming, the form of people's
concern for the state process is to occupy, repress state policy centers, remove officials
they don't like and easily mobilize masses in the streets to demand change.
A change in the emotional and defiant political attitudes of villagers is also easy to
emerge, because they learn from the electronic media. Political life on a national scale,
which is full of conflicts of interest, is one of the television shows and newspaper
news that never runs out. Political news from the mass media is a daily spectacle for
villagers. Bombastic and scary newspaper headlines do not escape the attention of
villagers. They also have the desire to adopt mass mobilization behavior and suppress
people who are not liked in local politics in rural areas. The dynamics of rural politics
in Klari ahead of the 2004 general election were increasingly colored by competition
between parties.
RURAL POLITICAL COMMUNICATION:
Communication between opinion leaders and rural audiences can include two
broad models: linear and interactional. The linear model is one-way communication A
one-way view of communication, like the hypodermic needle theory, which is in line
with the one-step flow model, this model believes that mass media can have a strong
influence on audiences.
In information dissemination, mass media does not always have a direct influence,
but takes place in two stages as in the two-step f1ow model, the first stage, opinion
leaders obtain from mass media information sources while the second stage, opinion
leaders disseminate information to their followers. Thus, the linear model is also
related to different patterns of information dissemination.
There are other variations that complement the linear model, such as the selective
perception model and limited effects theory. According to Gonzales (in Jahi: 1988: 8),
"the might of the influence of the media or other message sources is not absolute, the
messages received will be selected by the audience". Meanwhile, the limited effect
theory has the principle that mass media has little or no effect on its highly selective
audience. Audiences tend to strictly select all information received.
The second communication model is interactional as a two-way communication
process (cyclical process), where each participant has a dual role in the sense that at
one time acting as a sender but at another time acting as a receiver of information. In
addition to these two models, there is a transactional model. According to Mulyana
(2000: 111):
Implicit in communication as a transaction is the process of encoding and
decoding. The two processes, although theoretically separable, actually occur
simultaneously, not alternately. It is this simultaneity that marks communication as
a transaction.
When referring to this opinion, communication does not sort out between the
source of the message and the recipient of the message because everything will take
place without distinguishing as a sender or recipient of the message. Given that the
transactional model has its own characteristics that are more complex, this research
emphasizes the interactive model.
In an interactive perspective, Rogers and Kincaid (1981: 85), consider
communication as a process whose participants exchange information signs to reduce
uncertainty, in communication there is a transaction or exchange of information
between the participants in their own way has contributed to the process of growing
understanding.
Between the linear model and the interactive model, communication styles are
also presented for analysis in relation to the two main models. Communication styles
can arise between linear and interactive conversations. These communication styles
are The Controlling Style, which is controlling and forces others to comply with its
will, The Equalitarian, the distribution of verbal and written verbal messages is two-
way, The Structuring Style, communication in accordance with organizational systems
and structures, The Dynamic Style which is dynamic, aggressive and action-oriented,
The Relinquishing Style, reflecting a willingness to accept suggestions, opinions or
ideas of others and The Withdrawal Style, unwillingness to communicate with others.
(See Koehler, Anatol and Applbaum, 1981:48).
To determine more detailed communication patterns, in both linear and interactive
communication, opinion leaders and audiences have different roles in group
communication. According to Beal, Bohlen and Raudabaugh (in Rakhmat, 1998: 170),
"roles in group communication include, the role of group tasks, the role of group
maintenance and the role of individuals in the group". These three roles will appear in
every interaction between opinion leaders and rural communities with more specific
characteristics in each role.
In Klari, the tendency of communication patterns can refer to the various
references above. The communication patterns carried out by opinion leaders cover
three situations, namely first, when the village of industrial location agricultural
characteristics are still dominant, in this situation the construction of new factories is
in the early stages of physical development and acquisition of agricultural land, the
second situation is a period where factory construction and industrialization activities
in the village are running rapidly, while the third situation is a multi-dimensional crisis
situation that affects the decline of industrialization in rural areas.
In the three villages, opinion leaders have two major orientations: some reject
industrialization while remaining loyal to the agricultural sector, and others support
industrialization. Opinion leaders who do not have a stance on these two factors can be
identified through in-depth observation, but their true orientation of support or
rejection can be determined. The grouping is not influenced by the increase or
decrease in the number of opinion leaders, but rather based on the orientation of
attitudes in interaction and communication. For example, in a situation where
industrialization is so strong in the village, new figures supporting the industry will
emerge, but other new figures will also emerge to reject industrialization, although not
as many as those supporting the industry.
Historically, prior to the introduction of industrialization, opinion leaders shared a
common view of the agricultural village that was oriented towards maintaining the
village's socio-cultural values. But the emergence of factories in the village has formed
two main orientations, namely opinion leaders who reject industry and prefer the area
to survive as an agricultural village, on the other hand there are opinion leaders who
accept industrialization and adapt to various symbols of modernization.
This grouping does not mean that there is no orientation of opinion leaders who
are physically impartial. This is because in reality, the neutral attitude of opinion
leaders has a tendency to support or reject rural industrialization, even though in a
pattern that is not very transparent in its political communication. For example,
opinion leaders who appear to be neutral, but are involved in spiritual activities at the
company on a particular day, are likely to be grouped as supporters of
industrialization. Opinion leaders who identify themselves as impartial, but who
actively convey messages of village development, including being friendly with
factory people, are also grouped with opinion leaders who support industrialization.
Conversely, if an opinion leader ostensibly supports industrialization in the
countryside, but in reality is dissatisfied with the fact that factories are being built,
then he or she is analogous to someone who opposes industrialization. As an
illustration, in formal meetings at the village or sub-district level coordinated by the
government, opinion leaders are present, but do not show active participation in
discussions about the operation of factories in the countryside. These opinion leaders
come to formal events more because of the mobilization of state power over the
people. Their physical involvement in an activity is not necessarily synonymous with
voluntary participation.
Davis (1977: 140) states that there are three elements contained in participation:
first, participation is a person's mental and emotional involvement which is more than
just physical involvement; second, participation is a motivation for people to support
their group situation in the sense that they develop their initiative and creativity; and
third, participation is an encouragement to feel responsible.
If participation refers to mental and emotional involvement in rural activities, then
opinion leaders who attend meetings on rural development but are only physically
involved cannot be classified as supporters of industrialization.
There are also opinion leaders who are apathetic, skeptical and ignorant of rural
industrialization, but this group has a limited audience, little influence on social
relations, and is not considered a force by the village administration or the community.
On the other hand, there are opinion leaders who change their roles according to the
village situation, especially in 1998 when The change in government can also be
grouped into the orientation of these two tendencies, because the change in role that
was carried out in a short period of time has not been able to eliminate the memory of
the village community to group as supporters or rejecters of industrialization.
Industrialization in the village received support not only from the government, but
also from opinion leaders and the community who expected that the operation of the
factory would bring prosperity to the surrounding community. They expect to be able
to work in the factory, open businesses that support the factory's activities and earn
other income as the village becomes more crowded.
1.
Socio-cultural Impact Society:
Conversations about social and cultural issues between communities and opinion
leaders are not fixed, communication patterns continue to evolve in a variety of
situations, from very traditional villages with a heavy dependence on agricultural
products, to industries that develop in the countryside to factory activities that recede,
have different communication implications.
1.1.
The Power of Social Values Rural:
Social problems in daily life involve the relationship between villagers in various
issues faced. From simply maintaining the kinship system, social and religious
activities, to the emergence of conflicts among villagers. Social problems in
discussions between the community and opinion leaders have changed in line with the
situation in industrial villages. Social values that are believed to be true by the
community in various situations have shifted due to the emergence of symbols brought
by industrialization and the influence of mass media that are easily accessible to rural
communities.
In a harmonious farming village situation, communication takes place between
opinion leaders and their audiences in discussions on social aspects. When the
countryside is at the beginning of factory construction, it generally takes place under
the model of guidance and advice that cannot be denied, as in the patron and client
relationship in traditional societies. Most villagers at the time when factories had not
yet appeared were accustomed to asking opinion leaders for guidance when they had a
problem opinion, even when villagers want to play soccer, they ask for blessings and
obey opinion leaders.
Opinion leaders have authority in community relations, so that various issues in
daily life always require their role and villagers also try to follow the messages
conveyed by opinion leaders in formal and informal opportunities in the village. The
substance of the ability of opinion leaders is in line with the opinion of Stogdil (1974:
15), namely "leadership is a relationship between people that occurs in a situation and
is directed, through a certain communication process in achieving the expected goals".
Opinion leaders are people who use their communication skills to influence their
audiences.
During the period of rapid industrial development, traditional authority faded so
that discussions concerning the social aspects of culture were more interactive and
transactional, given the emergence of the village community's passion for rationalism
due to the influence of social change in industrial location villages. Social change
marginalizes the established customs of society. The interference of state power under
the pretext of rationalization in village deliberations, rice field water management and
other institutionalized customs further eliminates the value of togetherness in the
village community. The social system that is maintained together is pushed out by
more rational forces of change. If there is a problem in the village environment, such
as a conflict between youth groups, it is difficult for villagers to rely solely on the
advice of opinion leaders. This is because opinion leaders always point to stories from
the past that are assumed to be incompatible with the current situation.
Communication and interaction put opinion leaders on an equal footing with their
audiences. The public is guided by what is realistic while opinion leaders who
maintain rural social values strive to be consistent. According to Rogers and Svenning
(1969:21), "the social system of traditional societies, especially in rural farming
environments, functions as a tool to regulate individual and collective relationships".
This kind of pattern is also an influential factor in solving problems faced in daily
life in rural communities. But when the system fades, people tend not to want to fully
depend on a social system that relies heavily on community leaders with traditional
power, as a foundation in social life.
Conversations in the nuances of political communication that concern everyday
life when industrial activities recede, become linear again. The one-way
communication pattern in one-way communication is giving information to its
audience. According to Bohlen and Raudabaugh, "the information giver provides
information that contains authoritative facts or generalizations by connecting his
experience". (Bohlen and Raudabaugh, in Rakhmat, 1998: 172). Relationships with
opinion leaders in a situation of industrial decline have strengthened again. Villagers
who have problems with neighbors or family will consult with opinion leaders, who
have consistently held social values in the village.
Here, opinion leaders again exerted their influence because the attitude of
rejecting the industry, which considered that the factory was not an institution capable
of improving the welfare of farming communities in the village, more or less
contained the truth. Thus, traditional values that are maintained and always used as a
reference point can restore the trust of the village community as a group that feels that
they have various values in common with opinion leaders.
As Rogers and Svennning (1969:233-238) point out, "communication in a
homophily environment illustrates the similarity of the interacting parties in values,
beliefs and attitudes, tending to occur more in traditional villages". Similarities that
refer to local value factors make opinion leaders, who were once abandoned by some
of their audiences, again become a reference in discussing social problems in rural
areas.
1.2.
Cultural Information Needs and Power Media:
Village cultural issues, such as the customs that are commonly practiced by the
local community, including traditional arts, must deal with contemporary arts or
popular culture spread by the mass media. The interaction between villagers and
opinion leaders, in a situation of social change and a more popular cultural orientation,
makes communication patterns also change.
Agricultural villages with strong traditions position opinion leaders as community
patrons whose messages must be heard. On the other hand, the villagers are
accustomed to depending on maintenance of rural cultural values. They talk about the
maintenance of traditions that contain elements of worship, such as the requirements
for building a house, starting it on a day that is considered good and other
requirements related to village traditions.
As a person who controls information on rural traditions, the message of opinion
leaders will not be denied considering that traditional communities always have a
dependence on figures around them who have the same cultural values. As stated by
Gonzales (in Jahi, 1988: 91), "similarities in culture tend to increase effective
communication compared to people who have differences". The similarity factor
makes villagers subject to the traditional authority of opinion leaders.
In the shadow of the power of factory operations in the village, cultural issues that
arise in conversations between opinion leaders and the community are interactive. The
community, influenced by the mass culture of television broadcasts, is less enthusiastic
about the efforts of opinion leaders to maintain village culture. There is no longer a
strong influence from opinion leaders to organize people to attend traditional
ceremonies, such as clean villages, hajat bumi, and various selamatan. If people have
more important things to do, such as work in an office, factory or other business, they
tend to leave these events behind. Opinion leaders like to reprimand those who don't
participate, but this usually leads to longer arguments."
The authority over rural traditions held by opinion leaders is confronted with the
reality of economic laws that speak more to the calculation of gains and losses,
including when dealing with the institutionalization of traditions. Communication is
more of an individual right in their interactions in society. According to Bower and
Bradac (1982: 147), "communication is individual behavior and is a relationship based
on the interests of each". Communication that occurs between audiences and opinion
leaders is an individual need in their environment.
The conversation about culture in the context of the fading factory operations in
the village is not a one-way street. The influence of industry and communication
technology in the media makes the topic of culture interactive and transactional.
Villagers do not always agree with opinion leaders when it comes to traditional arts,
which are not always the same must watch. This is because opinion leaders always
favor village arts in everything, but in reality many villagers prefer dangdut and
popular music on the radio or television.
Syka villagers argued with the traditional opinion leader that he was insisting on
following the traditions of their ancestors. They appreciate the traditions and culture of
the village, but performing a full traditional ceremony is costly so they try to simplify.
Carrying out and maintaining traditions requires a considerable amount of money,
while people affected by modernization are more efficiency-oriented. In addition, the
economic crisis situation has made the community even worse in economic
helplessness, therefore the maintenance of traditions that require a lot of energy and
cost tends to be avoided and this is evident in the interactive communication patterns
between opinion leaders and the village community.
This situation is supported by Jean Martin (1981:141), "socio-economic pluralism
is the best choice for society, groups and individuals". Diversity is the basis of
idealism in a developing society. But on the contrary, Chirot (1987:142) reveals,
"farmers and villagers are groups that have the power to maintain traditions as long as
their habitat is not disturbed". Klari as a changing village certainly disturbs some of
the habitats of the farming community.
2.
The Complexity of Economic Marginalization Village:
Poverty among factory buildings is the reality of communities that are generally
narrow land farmers and agricultural laborers. Various problems shackle daily life,
from the inability to meet primary needs, economic exploitation in price control, to
inconsistent village industrialization, making the community increasingly vulnerable
to economic resilience.
The village economy is also affected by the changing situation of the village. The
pattern of communication on trade topics between the community and opinion leaders
has also changed in accordance with the development, from an agricultural village to a
factory site village.
Most rural farmers have inadequate socioeconomic conditions and fall into
structural poverty. Farming in the village is done not only by controlling the ability of
its management but also oriented towards a specific social order such as a great trust in
the guardians of the universe. Respect for nature is carried out in various ritual
activities such as hajat bumi and various selamatan following agricultural activities in
the village.
2.1.
Trust in Information Agriculture:
In an agricultural village situation, rural opinion leaders have an ideal place. Rural
communities as a form of perpetual alliance between people and social institutions that
support agricultural patterns need figures who are known in their environment.
Villagers tend to follow the advice of opinion leaders in the management of rice fields,
from planting seeds to harvesting, not only requiring hard work but always discussing
every activity with opinion leaders, either individually or through formal meetings at
the village office.
Communication and interaction tend to be linear and position opinion leaders as
people whose advice must be followed. The lack of confidence in farmers' own
abilities results in dependence on opinion leaders in the environment. Henessy
(1990:105) states, "opinions are shaped by cultural traditions, social institutions and
rules of the community groups of which everyone is a part".
Based on this statement, the opinions and suggestions of community leaders who
are in line with their environment tend to be heeded by those involved in
communication. In the agricultural cycle, farmers have worked hard but
encouragement from opinion leaders who share similar cultural traditions is still
needed to overcome uncertainties.
The development of industry, the influence of modernization and the impact of
mass media have resulted in a society oriented towards the economic calculation of all
human activities. One prominent result is the commercialization of agriculture: the
commercialization of agricultural land, selling most of the rice to traders from outside
the village, the pattern of land maintenance that follows the piece-rate system in
plowing, planting, weeding or harvesting. Whereas all of these activities were
originally carried out together without wages but with a profit-sharing pattern, for
example with a 1:5 division when harvesting rice, i.e. one part for the farm laborer and
five parts for the rice field owner, or certain other agreements that are not based on the
size of money.
Commercialization should be able to increase productivity but in reality this is not
the case, the reduction of agricultural land and the reduced level of soil fertility due to
pollution from factories make farmers increasingly difficult in their lives. In the same
context of the bleak life of poor farmers in the countryside, Leopold (in Manfred,
1981: 210). expressed his opinion as follows:
Various empirical experiences show that an increase in agricultural productivity
does not always lead to an increase in the living standards of rural farming
communities, this is due to population growth, the high cost of production and other
needs that are not comparable and the lack of non-agricultural employment
opportunities in rural areas that are in accordance with the work patterns of farmers
with the habit of arranging their own work schedules.
The problems experienced by rural farmers are not much different from Manfred's
statement. The fluctuating course of farmland management is well understood by
opinion leaders. Information about the traditional agricultural cycle that shifted to
commercial was well mastered by opinion leaders in the early industrialization
situation.
In a changing village environment characterized by the operation of factories, the
control of agricultural information and the traditional authority of opinion leaders has
not changed. In discussing agricultural topics, opinion leaders are in a position to be
the go-to person when people are seeking information, and will be listened to and
followed when they speak at formal village meetings, which are characterized more by
political communication.
The opinion leader plays a big role in agricultural matters, he always provides
information to villagers about the high price of fertilizer, grain that should all be sold
to collectors in the village, while farmers are advised to buy seeds from village kiosks,
and villagers tend to follow his instructions.
In this context, opinion leaders communicate with villagers in a linear, one-way
pattern that provides ideas to overcome problems. The same substance is stated by
Rogers and Shoemaker (1983: 313-314), which basically means that change agents try
to influence or direct other people's innovation decisions, in line with what the renewal
institution wants where they believe in it. Opinion leaders attempt to direct their
audiences to accept agricultural innovations from institutions authorized in agriculture
in the village. People follow what opinion leaders say because opinion leaders still
have a better grasp of agricultural information.
The authority over agricultural information still held by the audience meant that
conversations were mostly one-way, but shifted to two-way communication as the
industry grew rapidly. Villagers saw that traditional agriculture could not be sustained
alongside factories. This interactive situation persisted, even more openly criticizing
government policies as industrialization receded in its operations.
Symptoms of interactive communication appear when villagers do not always
follow advice on tillage, planting seeds and other agricultural matters with opinion
leaders. However, since there have been many factories in the area, villagers tend to
share information with opinion leaders to address the problem of declining soil
fertility, even though opinion leaders cannot do anything about it when farmers' land is
sold to factories.
Given that the capacity of opinion leaders is more in the area of traditional values
and less in the area of agricultural innovations, the conversation about the factory and
its implications is interactive in the various situations that plague the village. In fact,
opinion leaders also tried to absorb a variety of information from villagers about the
impact of the industry. The community is perceived to be more informed, as they get
information from other sources, such as the mass media and from communication with
more cosmopolitan out-group communicators.
When it comes to the factories operating in the village, opinion leaders are eager
to engage with villagers in a form of brainstorming, and may even argue with each
other when planning to give warnings to factories that do not protect the village
environment. Issues that become common challenges are communicated by
interactively providing information to each other. Opinion leaders also adopt a
communication style that emphasizes a relinquishing style, with a willingness to
accept information from the audience in their group.
The development of factories in villages should pay attention to environmental
factors as a potential source or as an internal force to improve the welfare of the local
community. In another perspective, it is referred to as economic development that is
balanced with the environment. Sustainable economic growth must find a balance
point between development policy and environmental policy, so that an economic
development policy will be achieved that truly guarantees an increase in human
welfare in the long term. (Irawan and Suparmoko, 1995: 304).
The ideal concept of industrial development in the countryside originally also
sought to be integrative, retaining fertile, technically-irrigated land, but that goal tends
not to be fully achieved, as factory construction increases, and the acquisition of
agricultural land is inevitable. Balanced development should spur economic life and
trade in the countryside. "In implementing an industrialization program in the region,
it should be able to increase the income of the surrounding community more quickly
than without industrialization". (Sadono Sukirno, 1985:303). But in reality, the
dominance of industry in the village has created a new group of poor people, who do
not own agricultural land. The diversion of a number of villagers' businesses into the
trade sector at the village level was mostly directed to support the needs of the factory
people.
Rural industries that stand on agricultural land harbor various latent and manifest
problems. However, villagers tend to be unable to voice them in transparent political
communication. Essentially, under the tight political communication control of state
power, at the beginning of the factory, when villages were still predominantly
agricultural land, there was already a lot of information that was not transparent in
terms of land use.
In order not to disturb the villagers, opinion leaders, government institutions and
capital owners usually work together to minimize the turmoil that occurs in the village
environment, through political communication that promotes pseudo-democratization.
The usual rhetoric is that the factory to be established is in line with the village's
agricultural habitats, the factory will help villagers overcome poverty, the industry will
accommodate local community products, and the factory even promises to provide
proper education for villagers.
In an agricultural village situation, the presence of industrialization is only a rumor
that is heard throughout the village. Opinion leaders supporting the operation of the
factory usually have far more information than their audiences. Nevertheless, villagers
who do not understand industrialization still smell the signs of the emergence of
factories through physical and non-physical symbols around them. According to Berlo
(in Bower and Bradac, 1982: 151), "communication is a transaction between users of
symbols that is dynamic and changes according to the situation and time when the
event takes place. In this context, opinion leaders attempt to share information with
their audiences to understand the industry in the village.
The development of industrialization, as a symbol of successful development,
gives more power to the government's position. On the other hand, the traditional
power of opinion leaders, who have little understanding of industrialization, is limited
to sharing information with villagers because they share the same fate as those who
feel marginalized.
In discussions about industry in the village between opinion leaders and their
audiences, opinion leaders are grounded in rural economic traditions that are not in
line with the materialistic character of factories, so opinion leaders ask more
information from the community about factory activities in the village. In essence,
opinion leaders are not interested in industrialization, while the community obtains
information from various sources close to factory life. Therefore, communication takes
place interactively in equality. According to Ruben (1992:12), equal communication is
"a process by which we can be understood and understood by others". Even opinion
leaders in solving problems, very likely precisely on information that comes from their
audience in an egalitarian information pattern.
The trust of the villagers waned further when the government's vaunted industry
ceased operations, the factory reduced staff and experienced difficulties in early 1997.
Under these conditions, conversations between opinion leaders and their audiences
became more interactive. Opinion leaders shared a common view that industrialization
in the village could not be expected in the long term.
The conversation of opinion leaders with their audiences, in the dynamics of
reform and freedom of political communication, is usually inseparable from criticized
factory development policies that were less favorable to villagers. In essence,
interactive communication has become a symptomatic characteristic of the changing
political landscape. No one has absolute power over information anymore. Because
people are free to make choices about how to communicate, and have the right to
disagree with the opinions of elites and organs of state power that are presented to the
public. Ruben (1992:14), says "communication is a dynamic process and constantly
changes according to the prevailing situation". In other words, the changing situation
of the village affects the communication patterns between opinion leaders and their
audiences.
2.2.
Source of Trade Information at Village:
In the field of village commerce, the industrial power of the village has created
new opportunities for businesses that were previously unknown in the village. The
local community, however, seems to have been outpaced by newcomers to the village
who anticipated the changing needs of the community earlier.
The agrarian village situation places opinion leaders in an honorable position. The
authority gained through descent from the village elite, economic security, and
mastery of religious knowledge contributes greatly to the role they play in their
communities. In the view of villagers, opinion leaders are people whose opinions must
be followed. In private conversations when people criticize the higher prices of
necessities, opinion leaders tend to advise their followers not to get emotional.
Although the community did not agree with this, they eventually accepted it because
opinion leaders are still respected elites".
In this context, opinion leaders are impartial mediators between the interests of the
village community and government trade policies or politics. Opinion leaders are
mostly positioned as harmonizers for their groups. As Kartodirdjo (1986:vi) argues,
"leadership cannot be separated from social collectivity where there is interaction
between the leader and the led". Social collectivity in rural areas is maintained by
opinion leaders who care about the characteristics of agricultural villages.
Village trade, run by local people, remains dependent on the operation of the
factory. Information or topics concerning trade in various situations will be discussed
further interactive between opinion leaders and their audiences. The position of
opinion leaders is still taken into account even though they do not actually control
information, they are more placed as a figure who is able to provide protection for all
village community activities. Communication patterns that occur with interactive
patterns and are oriented towards their audiences. As Rogers and Svenning (1969: 29)
say, rural communities or rural farmers do not have confidence in their own strength in
handling all the problems they face, especially when they have to compete with those
from outside their community, they will seek support from trusted figures.
Hence, support from opinion leaders is essential, despite the fact that the
conversation for support takes place in a transactional and egalitarian communication.
Trade in the village, especially that organized by the indigenous population, was
originally based on agriculture-related businesses. Wealthy merchants in the village
started their business from the sale of various agricultural management needs,
including the distribution of rent-based capital.
Over time, the ebb and flow of the industry has not changed the pattern of
communication with opinion leaders. Interaction and communication still take place in
a two-way communication that is equal. The difference is that people are more
courageous in criticizing government policies. Villagers and opinion leaders provided
each other with information about the village's trade, which was in danger of going out
of business due to the decline of factory employees as consumers.
In a situation of industrial decline, opinion leaders are trying to assert their waning
influence. Ethnic similarity and socio-cultural values are one of the factors that
strengthen their role. According to Fredrik Barth (1988:11), "shared cultural values
create a sense of community and form a cohesive network of communication and
interaction within a community". With traditional authority based on the village's
socio-cultural values, opinion leaders rejected industrialization, and this attitude was
considered correct when the factory could not provide adequate welfare for the
surrounding community.
3.
Rural Politics in the Polarities of Cursive and Reform :
Around 1987 or earlier under the New Order government, villagers had to be free
from politics. Political activity was often the scapegoat for conflicts that occurred at
the lower levels. Therefore, political issues became very sensitive for villagers during
President Soeharto's era. In contrast, when President Habibie came to power, political
discussions became more open to the lower levels.
3.1.
Political Power Power Local:
The powers of the Village Head in running local government have changed in line
with the dynamics of national politics. Previously, the traditional power held by
opinion leaders did not simply disappear when Law No. 5/1979 on Village
Administration was enacted. This regulation was limited to homogenizing village
politics and governance within a legal framework. On the other hand, hereditary power
with an autocratic style continues to operate in the village administration, so it is not
unusual for village heads to hold positions based on biological factors, in the sense of
referring to hereditary aspects; indeed, in rural areas there are still many village heads
whose parents have also served as village heads.
The role of opinion leaders in controlling information about local politics has
shifted, in line with the dynamics of village governance, which is affected by the
national political situation. Likewise, in industrial location villages, there is no
established role for opinion leaders. All of them try to follow the dynamics of the
industrial area with its symbols of modernization. In fact, there is a strong tendency for
this attitude to be limited to maintaining individual and group interests.
Discussions in political communication about local politics between opinion
leaders and villagers in agricultural villages are characterized by a more linear model
of communication, given that patronage power relations prevail on a national scale
down to the countryside. In official activities held at the village office or in people's
homes, opinion leaders advise the community to follow the advice of elites in
government and support formal rural institutions, as long as they are not detrimental to
the community. But even if government policies are considered not in favor of the
people, Opinion leaders recommended that the refusal be done in a subtle way.
Usually, villagers do not dare to refuse outright, as doing so will complicate their
dealings with government organs.
Opinion leaders' support for village government power is usually related to the
extent to which government activities favor the interests of the community.
Communication carried out by opinion leaders in the form of supporting or not
supporting government policies, with a linear pattern in the context as an energizer or
as a disagreer to development programs in the village. According to Miller and
Steinberg (1975: 207), "communication can be used to reduce uncertainty, encourage
effective action and strengthen one's own confidence in facing various problems". This
function is inherent to opinion leaders in the rural environment of industrial sites.
The development of industry in villages is often used as a symbol of successful
development. Opinion leaders who oppose industrialization tend to be apathetic and
play little role. In public political communications that are not coordinated by the
village office, opinion leaders always urge the community to understand the situation
in the village carefully. Actually, they want to criticize village policies, but they do not
have the courage, so opinion leaders often take refuge behind the values of goodness
in universal power relations, such as in the election of the village head.
In terms of championing who will become the village head, the community does
not have significant power, given that the administrative requirements for becoming a
village head are mostly under the control of the government. For example, provisions
concerning the government's blessing have the potential to ignore the aspirations of the
community. Therefore, the competition to become the number one person in the
village actually only takes place at the elite level. On the other hand, even if opinion
leaders do not agree with the candidate supported by the government, usually in
political communication, they only remind villagers not to make the wrong choice, and
other false appeals that are not transparent.
Opinion leaders, in situations of factory operating power, when communicating
with their audiences, remain one-way among their communities. One-way
communication patterns in rural political issues are more focused on maintaining the
group so as not to cause turmoil in the community. According to Rogers and Svenning
(1969:247), that "opinion leaders are people who are considered wise and have the
ability to handle problems". Thus, all problems in the village, both individual and
collective, tend to rely on the role of opinion leaders.
The decline of factory operations in the village has reduced the trust of villagers in
the government and its institutions in the village. Opinion leaders, who were once
powerless in the face of state power, began to emerge as community role models in
discussions about local village governance. Messages and conversations with their
audiences in assessing the government are mostly conducted with equal conversations.
Although opinion leaders are still positioned to have a certain amount of authority,
when information flows freely and is obtained from various sources that are easily
found in the countryside, opinion leaders no longer fully control their audiences to be
silent or obey government policies. Communication occurs in a situation of mutual
argumentation, and the conclusion of the conversation is not dependent on the advice
of opinion leaders.
Autocratic communication patterns, on the other hand, show the powerlessness of
opinion leaders to face their audiences. Information sources such as mass media that
are easily found in villages encourage attitudes that dare to differ with local power
holders in the village. It is said by Lerner (1992: 30), "mass media spread rapidly the
desire for a new life as a dynamic force of modernization".
Opinion leaders give people the freedom to communicate interactively in an effort
to achieve a new way of life in local politics. No one appears to be the dominator in
solving problems related to the assessment of local government power.
3.2.
General Elections, from Procedural to Substantial Participation :
Political issues and elections in the Klari area took place in a changing situation during
the New Order government. The floating mass concept that directly eliminates the
political rights of village communities makes the issue of elections or political parties
only belong to activists in the regency and not as a discourse that develops in village
communities.
In a study in East Java in 1980, Gaffar recorded the following statement from a
kecamatan official: "There is no politics here, because in all the villages in this
Kecamatan there is only Golkar. You should not play politics. This kecamatan is free
of political parties". (Afan Gaffar, 1988:1). The expression shows the political
situation in Indonesia.
The political situation in the industrial village also shows the hegemony of
Golongan Karya in controlling information and gaining significant votes. As a
hegemonic party, Golkar would not allow antagonistic competition. With the same
base, namely the village community, Golkar could not be matched by other parties,
until the 1999 election which positioned it in second place after the Indonesian
Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP).
Village opinion leaders are used as agents of political parties to convey political
messages. They routinely conduct political socialization to their audiences, "political
socialization is the deliberate cultivation of political information both formal and
informal in every life cycle" (Fred I. Greenstein in Rush and Althoff, 1997: 36). As an
illustration of procedural politics, opinion leaders are part of the government's political
power network. Villagers simply comply when opinion leaders speak publicly about
elections, which need not be at odds with the government's expectations in terms of
party choice. But in individual conversations, opinion leaders will leave the choice of
party to the community, and villagers tend to comply with what opinion leaders say.
Political talk is the domination of the state over its people and there is no
transaction in receiving political messages. According to Deutsch (1963:147),
"political talk is the transmission of politically relevant information in one part of the
political system to other political systems and social systems".
Opinion leaders who are not in line with the government in the village
industrialization program still try not to go against the government in political matters.
In public talks and individual communication, opinion leaders still use a linear pattern,
although the type of information is different, but has the same substance, namely a
one-way communication pattern.
While in agricultural villages, the choice of political party that appears in the
opinion leader's message is to direct people to vote for the government party, or
according to their own choice, in the heyday of industry, opinion leaders are
increasingly skeptical of political life. Opinion leaders only give instructions to the
community to maintain the peace of the village in a heated political situation. Villagers
also abide by the advice of opinion leaders, including the choice of political parties,
which is left entirely to the voters in the village.
Increased power must compete with the experience of people who interact more
intensively with the mass media and other sources of information. Opinion leaders use
one-way communication to control the population to avoid conflict at the village level.
The tendency not to want to deal with political parties does not mean eliminating
linear communication patterns as a counterweight to the community.
Changes in communication patterns in political discussions have occurred in line
with the multi-dimensional crisis. Discussions about political power at the village level
and party orientation in the run-up to the general election took place freely and were
not dependent on directives or messages from opinion leaders. Villagers are free to
make party choices, and opinion leaders are no longer silent and only give advice to
protect the village environment, but opinion leaders are also directly involved in
political discussions. Messages about elections are always explicitly left to the
villagers, but as the elite at the grassroots, opinion leaders also have an orientation
towards their party choice, and villagers generally know their party orientation.
The one-way communication pattern was abandoned due to the national political
situation, and the incessant mass media coverage of competition between political
parties. Assessing the role of mass media McQuail (1997: 2), "mass media is a source,
power of control, management and innovation tools in society". The mass media
makes a major contribution to people's political attitudes and behavior.
