RESEARCH PROPOSAL

THE APPLICATION OF DELIBERATIVE AND INCLUSIONARY

PROCESSES AND TECHNIQUES TO PROMOTE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IN POLICY MAKING IN INDONESIA

Siswanda H Sumarto

1. Background of the Problem

Undoubtedly, in the last five years the idea of involving public in the process of policy
making has been widely disseminated among the policy makers and development
practitioners in Indonesia. Besides the increasing demand from the people to be involve
in public sphere, this trend have also been influenced by International agencies such as
the UNDP, UNICEF, the World Bank, ADB, and other donor agencies working in
Indonesia. Participatory processes have become requirements for different projects to be
funded by these agencies. Although many public policy making processes in Indonesia
now have been organized in a more participatory way, it has been unfortunate, however,
that the capability to conduct a genuine deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs)
remain low. Many cases and experiences demonstrate that one of the most important
obstacles to achieve desired participatory process is the failure to identify appropriate
techniques to be used.

There are some reasons why many deliberative and inclusive process in policy making in
Indonesia were not so successful. The first reason relates to comprehension of the
concept of DIPs itself. The second is relates to the skill to apply deliberative and
inclusionary techniques, which is relatively low. It is contributed by the situation
connected with the history on public participation during the New Order authoritarian
regime. At that period of time, the process of citizen involvement in development has
been conducted as a ‘one way socialization’ or ‘mobilization’. The aim of the approaches
mainly to seek higher level of acceptance without any intention to give spaces for the
public to directly influence the decisions being made. The adoption of participatory
techniques are mainly superficial.

Supposedly, the success of deliberative and inclusionary processes will be determined by

the capability and skill to employ the techniques which is appropriate with the condition
and proposed aims. The effective methods is needed, so that the process will become a
creative, productive and at the same time empowering. The application of deliberative
and inclusionary techniques in formulating policies requires change in the role of
planners, policy analysts, development consultants, and community organizers. The
largest challenge of deliberative and inclusionary processes is how the voices of the poor
and marginal groups can be heard and influence the decision being made.
The methods and techniques to involve the public in public decision have developed in
such a way, especially in countries such as UK, USA, Germany, and Australia. In
developing countries, the Philippines and India are more advance in adopting and
creating new techniques to promote citizen participation. In Indonesia, usually the
techniques are selected depended on who supported the programs. For example, the
projects supported by Germany development agencies such as GTZ 1, usually applies
ZOPP2 as a technique to formulate the project planning. ZOPP formally socialized in
Indonesia in 1983, and start from 1986, ZOPP ought to be applied in all projects planning
funded by German Government. The World bank and ADB advise the use of PRA in
many of their projects in Indonesia and UNICEF, recently socialized the use of Future
Search Conference technique in its programs in Indonesia.

In the future, the skill to apply deliberative and inclusionary processes and techniques is
becoming more important, to prevent the manipulative form of participation and to
promote more genuine public participation in public decision. It is extremely interesting
to observe how deliberative and inclusionary processes and techniques have been applied
in recent Indonesia? How the committee organized the process of selecting the
participants and choosing the techniques? How the choice of techniques influence the
level of participation of the poor and marginal groups in the process of policy making?
By answering those questions, it will provides better understanding on the politics
behind the choice and application of deliberative and inclusionary processes and
techniques.

The experience of the case studies selected in this research presents stories of advantages
and disadvantages of using certain techniques, and it can be useful to facilitate further
usage of deliberative and inclusive techniques. The story will explain why the cases
succeed or fail to promote genuine public participation. It will explore the origin of
process and technique selection, and how the techniques strengthen representation and
the degree of influence of the poor and marginal groups in decision-making arenas.

2. Review of Literature

There are a number of reasons that contributed to the growing use of Deliberative and
Inclusionary Processes (DIPs) in development activities. The first reason relates to
people’s critics to representative democracy for its inability to protect citizen’s interest.
The second one relates to public distrust in professional expertise and science in policy
making. “The solutions to overcome low public confidence in government institutions
and scientific expertise has often emphasized a more deliberative and inclusive form of
debate and policy making” (Pimbert and Wakeford, 2001:23). Pimbert and Wakeford
(2001) propose some features of DIPs:

1
Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
2
Zielobjektiev Orientierte Projekt Plannung
 “Deliberation is define as ‘careful consideration’ or ‘the discussion of reasons for
and against’. Deliberation is a common, if not inherent, component of all
decision-making and democratic societies. Inclusion is the action of involving
others and an inclusionary decision-makin gprocess is based on the active
involvement of multiple social actors and usually emphasises tha participation of
previosly excluded citizens” (Pimbert and Wakeford, 2001: 23)

There is a wide range of techniques available in include public in policy making process.
Many techniques have been applied in deliberative and inclusionary processes, among
others are: citizens’juries, citizens’ panel, committees, concensus conferences, scenario
workhops, deliberative polling, focus groups, multi-critera mapping, public meetings,
rapid and participatory rural apparaissal, and visioning exercises (Pimbert and Wakeford,
2001: 23). Importantly, deliberative and inclusionary techniques always reviewed and
developed. Deliberative practitioners improve the old ones and innovates new techniques.
More recently, the using of information technology to facilitate DIPs is increasing
tremendously. Moreover, the use of combination of techniques have produced a new
methodology to advance DIPs. One interesting example is the Boundary-Spanning
Dialogue Approach, in which involvement of ordinary people in public policy making
become more likely (Christakis and Brahms, 2003).

After scrutinizing different techniques, Sumarto (2003) proposed the application of the
techniques depend on the purpose and character of activities which will be conducted.
The detail is shown in the following table.

ACTIVITIES IN DIPs PROPOSED TECHNIQUES

Scenario Planning
Strategic Planning
Create a shared vision
Future Search Conference
Dialog Stakeholder
ZOPP
Framing a plan Action Planning(Using Idea Writing)
Mawas Diri (Self Reflection)
Workshop
Building a consensus
Consensus Conference
Deepening Insights/
Discussion (ORID) methods
Sharing Experiences
Brainstorming
Ideas Generating
Snow Card/Snow Ball
Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
Ranking Priority/
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
Choosing alternatives
CAREL
SWOT
Information Inquiry/
Focus Group Discussions (FGD)
Situational Analysis
Participatory Appraisal
Public Hearing
Public Consultation
Collect inputs/suggestions
Media Interactive Programs (Radio/TV)
Deliberative polling
Increase Awareness Exhibits
 News Media
Source: Sumarto (2003: )

Cleaver in Cooke and Kothari (2001) suggests that the application of participatory
techniques need to be fundamentally examined, to develop a critical understanding
whether they are adequately address issues of power and control of information, and
ensure involvement of the poor in decision-making (Cleaver in Cooke and Kothari,
2001:38-39).

Based on her observation of various participatory events conducted by governments,

NGOs, Universities or donor agencies in Indonesia in the last ten years, Sumarto (2003)
identified several weaknesses of the practice of deliberative and inclusionary techniques
in Indonesia as follow:
(1) The tendency to stick on certain techniques. Sometimes the techniques selected
only because it is trendy, even if it is not fit with the purpose of the process.
(2) Dependent of imported techniques. Almost all ‘ready to use’ techniques are
imported from other countries, and not many available in Indonesian language.
(3) Lack of expertise to design and organize deliberative and inclusionary
forum/meeting. There were trainings for facilitators. But very rare the expertise to
set up and organized the meeting. Sometimes the venue unsuitable with the
number of participants, the participants do not reflected the social differentiation,
the process undocumented well, and the meeting unripe because of time
constraint.
(4) The techniques applied were not suitable with the number and selection of
participants. Very often the number of participants are too many, or vise versa.
Future Search Conference requires 64 participants and good Focus Group
discussions are those with less than 15 participants. Representation become
important issues. Usually, a small number considered as less representative,
however, a high quality participatory process not always involve big number of
participants.
(5) Deliberative and inclusive forums in reality not as much of involving those who
are not articulate. The process of selection usually choose them who are
articulative. Illiterate, women, youngster, are facing more difficulties to be
involve in the forums. Visual aid and the techniques to involve people without
rely on speaking such as Parish Map or Planning for Real, are hardly being used.
(6) Too expensive to carry out participatory processes. Many forums are conducted
using a huge amount of funds. Some reaches hundreds million rupiah. Many were
conducted in expensive hotels for 3 days meeting. It is important to find more cost
effective techniques, so that the availability of funds does not hamper the process.
(Sumarto, 2003:... )

3. Research Questions

This study aims to explore a set of questions below:

(1) To what extent the policy makers and practioners comprehend the concept of
 deliberative and inclusionary processes: their principles and purpose?
(2) What deliberative and inclusionary techniques have been used in the propose
case studies to increase public involvement in public decision making?
(3) Who choose the techniques? And for what reasons are they selecting those
techniques?
(4) How the selected processes and techniques are applied?
(5) Has the selected processes and techniques effective in strengthening
representation and the degree of influence of the poor and marginal groups in
decision making?

4. Research Design

In a sense, this study is an exploratory study, in view of the fact that little is known about
the topic in Indonesian experience. The case studies of three experiences in different
levels of policy making (National, District and Sub-District) are selected to present
concrete examples or illustration on the use of deliberative and inclusive process and
techniques in policy making. The cases are:

Case 1: The formulation of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Development

Strategy in Indonesia

Under the Ministry of Cooperative and SMEs Development, a Task Force on SMEs
development have been established. The task Force comprises 36 members representing
different stakeholders from different backgrounds: business associations, NGOs,
Universities, and various national government agencies that have a concern in SMEs
development. The purpose of the formation of this task force is to formulate, in a
deliberative and inclusive manner, new policies on SMEs development in Indonesia.

Case 2: Education Reforms at the district level in Bandung Municipality

Under Law 22/1999, the authority to formulate the education strategy has been
decentralized to the district level. Bandung Municipality have responded this change by
establishing the Education Council. The council main tasks are to assist local government
in formulating its policies on education. The members of the council consist of 24
representation from parents association, teachers associations, public schools, private
schools, educational foundations, students organizations, and NGOs working in the area
of education. At this time, the main target of the council is to formulate strategy to
reforms the education system in Bandung Municipality and propose the result to the local
legislative.

Case 3: The Formulation of Spatial Planning at the Sub-District Level in Majalaya

Town

At present time, the process of detail spatial planning formulation in small towns still
conducted in a conventional way. But the case of Majalaya is particularly interesting.
The spatial town plan for Majalaya has been formulated in 2000 by a planning consultant
hired by local government. This plan was protested by the community with the reasons
that the data used by the consultant are outdated and terribly inaccurate. The protest by
the community, supported by some reforms government officials, NGOs working on
participatory planning and department of urban and regional planning from the neighbor
university, has showed a good result. The office of human settlement and regional
development agreed to formulate an alternate town plan by involving the community in
the process of its formulation. New consultant was appointed using a new criteria in the
process of tender. And local task forces in each of eleven villages are formed to support
the process of data collection and planning.

5. Choice of Methods

A variety of data collections techniques is used to allows a richly detail portrait of the
cases under study. Direct observation, depth interviews, study meetings, and focus group
discussions are the primary methods of gathering information. The qualitative methods
used because they can seeks perspective of participants and stakeholders, can address
dynamic of evolving situation, and at the same time, can be empowering.

A direct observation is used by the researcher to:

 Observe interaction among people/group dynamics
 Decision making process
 Investigating why people think that way
 To understand complex behaviour and motivations

The depth interviews very variable in length, and may be extended into repeat interviews.
It is mainly used by the researcher to:
 Identify the characteristic/biographical information of individuals involved in the
process
 Explore individual/sub-cultural meanings, motivations, and actions/reactions
 Deeper exploration on policy process (policy formation and implementation)
 Explore what people think

The researcher will guide the open-ended interview to make it focus enough on the topic
of interest, however, the interview have to give enough freedom to respondent to steer the
conversation, especially when the discussion focuses upon their views and experiences.
Although all details and direct quotations from respondents might be relevant to be
figured out, however, it is seems to be more secure for the informants to have unrecorded
conversation. This research will interview the policy makers, members organizing
committee, facilitators, participants, and outsiders who do not involve in the process but
influence by the decision being made.

Study Meetings is compiling a list of information about meetings and other organized
activities relating to cases. Information about meetings is relevant to this research for the
reason that as part of open politics, meetings are “vital features of the social reality of the
place” (Barker, 1999: 254). He states that by studying meetings, we can discover many
different attributes connected to our interest in social change and democratic
participation. Some of the most important are:
 The size and richness of the public space: how many meetings? How many people
participate? Under what different auspices? addressing how many different topics?
 Power in public space: who comes? who speak? who controls directly? What indirect
controls?
 Content and style of public action: what topics? how addressed? who speaks and
who does not? what emotional tone? what decision methods? what decisions or
actions?
(Barker, 1999: 255)

Focus Group Discussions will be used in combination with a number of depth

interviews. The Focus Group Discussions are used to:
 Highlight the social processes as understood by the people involved
 Identify the advantages and disadvantages of deliberative and inclusive processes as
the people themselves belief
 Identify the concerns on the usage of deliberative and inclusive techniques by
facilitators
 Encourage generation and exploration of people’s own questions and develop own
analysis of common experiences plus active comparison of feelings and experiences
 To gain an ‘explanatory understanding’ on certain issues

5. Work Plan and Time Table

This research will be carried out within 12 months. 4 months will be used for data
collection in 3 sites. Detail tasks and activities and the time schedule planned as table
below:

Tasks and Activities Months

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Formulating a detail research design
Recruit researcher assistants
Preliminary Research to the 3 sites
Field Study (data collecting)
Data processing (compiling field notes,
writing a narrative report, organizing and
categorizing the data) & data analysis
Report Writing
Reference

Barker, Jonathan (1999), Street-level Democracy: Political Settings at The Margins of

Global Power, Kumarian Press, Toronto.

Christakis, Alexander N and Brahms, Sabrina (2003), Boundary-Spanning Dialogue for

the 21st-Century Agoras, System Research and Behavioural Science, 20, p. 371-
382.

Forester (1999), The Deliberative Practitioners: Encouraging Participatory Planning

Processes, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Pimbert, Michel and Wakeford, Tom (2001), Overview-Deliberative Democracy and

Citizen Empowerment, in PLA Notes (2001), Deliberative Democracy and
Citizen Empowerment, IIED, London.

PLA Notes (2001), Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment, IIED, London.

Sanoff, Henry (2000), Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Sumarto, H.S (2003), Inovasi, Partisipasi dan Good Governance, Yayasan Obor, Jakarta.

White, Shirley A (ed) (1999), The Art of Facilitating Participation: Releasing the Power
of Grassroots Communication, Sage Publication, London.