ABSTRAK
Berkembangnya kehidupan demokrasi di Indonesia telah disusul dengan tuntutan demokratisasi dalam berbagai bidang termasuk dalam penataan ruang. Menguatnya tuntutan masyarakat agar diikutsertakan dalam perencanaan tara ruang kota merupakan salah satu indikasi perubahan tersebut. Sebelumnya, kebijakan nasional yang mengadopsi PSM dalam perencanaan sudah banyak. Fakta lapangan, penyelenggaraan PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang masih terus dipertanyakan banyak pihak. lni berani pendekatan PSM belum terinstitusionalisasi dalam arti belum diterima, belum dinilai tinggi, dan belum dipaluhi.Rencana tata ruang kota merupakan kebijakan publik (public poiicy). Pemasalahan kebijakan akan terjadi apabila kebutuhan-kcbutuhan (needs), nilai-nilai (valtrex), dan potensi/peluang untuk perbaikan belum tercalisasi padahal seharusnya dapat didorong melalui public action. Munculnya tunlulan masyaral-:al berperan serla dalam perncanaan lata ruang kota mengindikasikan adanya kebutuhan-kebutuhan yang belum terpenuhi, nilai-nilai terdistorsi, dan peluang perbaikan yang tidak termanfaatkan. Kesenjangan yang ada antara kebijakan pnblik dengan harapan masyarakat merupakan persoalan kebijakan (policy probiem).Berdasarkan permasalahan dikemukakan diatas, maka pertanyaan dalam penelitian ini adalah: 1) Bagaimanakah persoalan kebijakan (policy problem) PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang kota di kota Jakarta? 2) Bagaimana model PSM yang diinginkan stakeholders dapat ditransformasikan dalam proses pelembagaan perencanaan tata ruang kota Jakarta? 3) Bagaimana institusionalisasi PSM tersebut di dalam perencanaan tata ruang kota Jakarta?Penelitian ini berlolak dari asumsi, proses perencanaan tata ruang kota merupakan proses pembuatan kebijakan publik. Berdasar asumsi ini, proses perencanaan tata ruang pada dasarnya mengikuti kerangka proses pembuatan kebijakan publik (public policy making). Untuk mengkaji persoalan kebijakan mengenai PSM, dilakukan analisis secara policy content terhadap tatanan peraturan nasional serta tatanan peraturan dan kebijakan yang terkait langsung dengan PSM dalam perencanaan di DKI Jakarta. Ada beberapa teori yang digunakan sebagai alat analisis. Pertama, A ladder of citizen participation dari Arnstein. Kedua, lnstitusionalisasi yang diangkat dari teori institution building dari The Inter-University Research Programme for Instituion Building. Ketiga teori tentang instrumen kebijakan dari Howlett & Ramesh.Eksplorasi terhadap model PSM yang diinginkan stakeholders, didekati dari teori tentang lingkup PSM oleh Ronald McGill dan Margareth, teori tentang obyek PSM dari Fagence, teori tentang isu-isu panting dalam penyelenggaraan PSM dari Margareth. Untuk mengetahui pola interaksi antar kelompok stakeholders, didekati dengan paradigma jaringan kolaboratif PSM yang dikemukakan Innes & Booher, serta teori social capital khususnya pola interaksi antar institusi yang dikemukakan Ismail Serageldin & Christian Grootaert. Sedangkan untuk mengetahui institusionalisasi PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang Kota Jakarta, didekati dari teori institution building dikemukakan diatas.Penelitian ini dirancang sebagai penelitian deskriptif-eksploratif. Disebut deskriptif karena merupakan penelitian klarifikasi PSM sebagai fenomena sosial. Sebagai penelitian eksploratif penelitian ini berupaya mencari jawaban-jawaban mengenai How dan Why perihal PSM. Data kuantitatif diperoleh dari pengolahan terhadap jawaban responden atas kuesioner, dan data kualitatif diperoleh dari wavtancara mendalam dengan para informan, hasii telaahan terhadap tatanan peraluran, kebijakan, dan dokumen terkait lainnya, Serta observasi lapangan. Responden dipilih dari stakeholders kelompok government, pi-ivote sector, dan civil society secara purposive yang diwakili institusi, asosiasi, organisasi, dan kelompok yang berpartisipasi dalam penataan ruang.Temuan penelitian menyingkapkan bahwa tatanan peraturan nasional membatasi PSM hanya pada tingkatan informing, consultation, dan plocotion (tangga ke 3, 4, dan 5), dan sedikit pada taraf kemitraan ("partnership?). PSM yang lelah diterapkan oleh Pemda DKI Jakarta mencapai tingkatan kemitraan (partnership) melalui perwakilan institusi dari Perguruan Tinggi, Asosiasi Profesi, Asosiasi Pelaku Bisnis, institusi-institusi pemerintah pusat dan daerah, dan LSM sehingga PSM bersifat institusional. Sedangkan PSM yang diharapkan stakeholders mencapai tingkatan delegated power dan citizen control (tangga ke 7 dan 8 Arstein). Namun khususnya kelompok civil society, memilih tetap dilakukan bersama-sama dengan pemerintah dan private sector secara terbuka.Sebagian besar stakeholders menyatakan tingkat pelibatan PSM selama ini tidak cukup, padahal dinilai sangat panting. Nilai-nilai keadilan, dan pernerataan sosial-ekonomi dinilai belum terealisasi. Stakeholder menyatakan bahwa tujuan utama PSM adalah untuk memastikan aspek keadilan dan pemerataan sosial ekonomi diakomodasikan dalam rencana tata ruang kota. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan tidal( efektifnya pelaksanaan PSM dalam perencanaan, bersumber dari tidak adanya pcngaturan PSM pada sebagian besar unsur/sub-unsur institusionalisasi, baik pada tatanan peraturan nasional maupun daerah. Kebijakan strategis (UU Penataan Ruang) yang telah mengadopsi pendekatan PSM, temyata juga tidak ditindaklanjuti dengan penetapan instrumen-instrumen kebijakan yang memadai agar kebijakan strategis tersebut efektif sehingga untuk menyelenggarakan PSM pedomannya tidak memadai.Model PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang kota yang diinginkan stakeholders, memiliki pola benjenjang/bertahap. Bukan seperti PSM paradigma tradisional lagi, tetapi tidak pula seperti paradigma jaringan kolaboratif yang dikemukakan Innes and Booher. Untuk tahap awal, stakeholders menghendald forum-forum informal, dimana kelompok civil society harus dipisah dengan kelompok bisnis (private sector). Selain itu, stakeholders menginginkan adanya Komisi Perencanaan, bertugas mengembangkan pendekatan, menyusun strategi, mengagendakan, dan membahas hasil akhir dari proses PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang kota.Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa institusionalisasi PSM masih rnenghadapi masalah besar. Sebanyak 21 dari 27 unsur/sub-unsur institusionalisasi kondisinya masih "tidak memadai? sebagai persyaratan berlangsungnya proses institusionalisasi PSM dalam perencanaan tata ruang kota. Dinas Tata Kota DK1 Jakarta sebagai institusi perencanaan, tidak disiapkan untuk menyelenggarakan PSM dengan partisipasi yang lebih luas dari civil society, private sector dan government sebagai implementasi pendekatan PSM yang sudah diadopsi UU Pcnataan Ruang . Hal ini terkait dengan tidak memadainya instrumen kebijakan dari UU tersebut.
ABSTRACT
The evolvement of democratic life in Indonesia has been followed by the need of democratization in all sectors including in spatial planning. lnvigorating contention from community demanding to be involved in the urban planning process is one ofthe indications of such evolvement. Prior to that, the national policy adopting Public Participation (hereinafter ?PP?) in planning had reached numerous numbers. ln contrary, the empiric Facts show that the implementation of PP in urban planning process remains questioned frequently by many parties. This implies that the approach of PP has not been institutionalized, in a way that it has not been well-accepted, not highly praised, and has been neglected.Urban planning is a public policy. Policy problems will occur if needs, values, and opportunities for improvement have not been executed, whereas they could be encouraged through public action. The existence of public contention to be involved in urban planning indicates that there arc unfullilled needs, distorted values, and unutilized opportunities for invoking improvement. Gap occurred between settled public policies with public?s expectations constitutes as a policy problem. According to problems elaborated above, this research questions: l) ?What are policy problems of implementating PP in urban planning process in Jakarta?? 2) ?How could the PP model desired by stakeholders be transformed in institutionalization process of urban planning of .lakarta'?? 3) ?How has the institutionalization of PP in the urban planning of Jakarta been institutionalized??This research is based on the assumption that the process of urban planning is a process of public policy making. Evolving from such assumption, the process of urban planning basically follows the frame of public policy making process. In reviewing policy problem of PP in urban planning, analysis through policy content is conducted towards the set of national regulations and provincial regulations directly attached with PP in the planning of Jakarta. There are several theories utilized as tools of analysis in this research. The first theory is ?A ladder of Citizen Participation" from Amstein. The second theory is the institutionalization which arises from the theory of institution building from ?The Inter-University Research Programme for Institution Building?. The third theory is concerning the policy instrument by Howlett & Ramesh.Exploration of the PP model intended by the stakeholders is observed by the approach using several theories; the theory on the coverage of PP by Ronald McGill and by Margareth, the theory on the object of PP by Fagence, and also the theory conceming major issues in the implementation of PP also by Margareth. In identifying the interaction pattern among the stakeholders, a theory on the paradigm of colaborative network of PP by Innes & Booher, and also a theory on social capitol specifically on the interaction pattem among institutions by Ismail Serageldin & Christian Grootaert, are applied. In the other hand, in identifying the institutionalization of PP in the Jakarta urban planning, the aforementioned institution building theory is applied.This research is built as descriptive-explorative research. It is descriptive because it is a research on the clarification of PP as a social phenomenon. It is an explorative research because it aims to find solutions on ?how? and ?why? regarding PP. Quantitative data is obtained through the analysis of respondents? answers to questionnaires, and qualitative data is obtained through profound interviews with informants, critical review on the set of regulations, law, related documents and field observation. Respondents are chosen from groups of stakeholders, government, private sector, and civil society in purposive order represented by institutions, associations, organizations, and groups of participants on spatial planning.Research finding reveals that the set of national regulation enacts limitation to PP only to the degree of informing, consultation, and placation (the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ladder), and a little to the degree of partnership. PP implemented by the provincial government of Jakarta has reached the degree of partnership through institution representatives from universities, professional associations, business associations, central and regional govemmental institutions, and non-governmental organizations that makes PP institutional. However, PP aspired by stakeholders reaches the degree of delegated power and citizen control (the 7th and 8th Amstein?s ladders). Though, groups of civil society in particular, prefer to participate together with government and private sector transparently.Most of stakeholders narrated that the involvement degree of PP up to the present is not suflicient, whereas its value considered being very substantial. Values of justice and redistribution of social-economics are argued to be not realized yet. Stakeholders affirm that the main objective of PP is to ensure that the aspects of justice and social-economics equality are being accommodated in urban planning process. This research concludes that the ineffectivencss of the implementation of PP in planning is rooted from the absence of the regulation of PP in most of institutionalization elements in both national and regional/provincial set of regulations and policies. The strategic policy (The Spatial Planning Act No.24/1992) adopting PP implementation is infact not equipped with sufficient policy instruments in order to make the strategic policy becomes effective. Thus, the directive of PP implementation is also insufficient.Model of PP in urban planning process intended by the stakeholders has a grading pattern. It is not similar to the traditional paradigm of PP or either to the collaborative network paradigm stated by limes & Booher. In the first grade of the model, stakeholders yearn for informal forums, in which civil society groups must be separated from private sector groups. Moreover, stakeholders request for a Commission of Planning. This commission has the obligation to develop model of approach, set strategies, arrange agenda and discuss the linal results of PP process in urban planning.This research illustrates that the institutionalization of PP still faces problems. 21 out of 2? elements/sub-elements of institutionalization still struggle with the condition of ?insufficiency? as a requirement to implement PP institutionalization process in the urban planning. City Planning Agency of Jakarta?s Government, as a planning institution, is not prepared to perform PP implementation with a wider range of participation from the civil society, private sector, and the govemment, as an implementation of PP approach that had been adopted by The Spatial Plaruiing Act No.24/1992. This is in accordance to the fact of the insufficient policy instrument in the derivative of such act. |
D818-Mara Oloan Siregar.pdf :: Unduh