This paper explores how certain discourses operate and shape political subjects and their agency through specific political patterns with which the subjects aspire to welfare. Drawn upon our research’s findings in Manggarai, Western Flores, people’s demand for welfare is shaped and articulates through long-enlived discourses of patronage: Kairos (Local Catholic Church project of salvation and Developmentalism (District Government project of development).
The two discourses operate through patronage practices in three interpenetrating area of encounter: district bureaucracy, political party’s representation, and Local Diocese’s bureaucracy. The hegemonic discourses reproduce Tuang (the patron) and Roeng (the Client) as both comprise two contrasting identity and agency. Tuang belongs to the domain of the governing-rescuing subjects (tuang pegawe, tuang pelitik, and tuang gereja) while on the other side, Roeng belongs to domain of the governed-redeemed objects.
Our main argument is that Manggaraian patronage is effectively sustained by the specific ways with which the two subjects make sense of politics, development, identity and agency. At large, this study has twofold objectives. First, to highlight specific nature of political power that resides in actual power-relation, which is spacialized and temporalized in certain discourses, rather than in both state’s sovereignty-authority and powerholder of autonomy-interest. Second, to reframe democracy debate by putting together development, power, and politics. Keywords: Developmentalism, Kairos, Tuang-Roeng, Patronage
Understanding Democracy Impasse
Why does one decade of democratization bring more problems than solutions to our entrenching poverty and other degrading social and human problems across the country? This has been our question today, especially among scholars and democracy activists. We, the liberals, who are so accustomed to believe in trickle-down and collateral effects of institutional arrangements, get confused with the process and unintended repercussions of what have been put in place in the aftermath of New Order period.
Leaders of government of all levels including parliaments, elected directly by the people, have taken leading role, but voices of the voters, their demands and needs, are made voiceless and too distant to bring into policy making. Some might argue that current experience with political democracy facilitates the oligarchy reconsolidation, while other rethinks the urgency of refining the existing arrangements through notorious governance framework.
Our research takes different route in making sense of the question. Our central problem is twofold. First problem is the lack of attention given to actual power-relations on the ground that sustains political disempowerment of the citizens. Second problem is, as consequence, the lack of efforts taken at transforming the people into active citizenship within current democratic institutional arrangements.
Ample evidence has shown how vast majority of the people remains in the place of objects to technocratic interventions and controls. Both bureaucrats and politicians employ common phrases, such as ‘public interest’ or ‘people’s interest’, to justify their technocratic business as usual, even to the extent that the political content of the employed phrases have been completely exhausted.
If one may ask, what is people’s interest-demand and how such interest is articulated in the process of policy making today, the answers need to be sought in technocratic logics and practices of development all of which have been strengthened and justified through legitimacy procedures of electing and supporting leaders with deficit of emancipatory agenda at their disposal. It is this small circle of bureaucrats and politicians, ideologically assisted by growing number of economist and political scientist, who define and formulate what they perceive as people interests and how best in technical terms to meet ‘the constructed demands’, while, in fact, real people keeps struggle at surviving lines. Workers and peasants, to name larger composite of the term, belongs to the domain of development problems and objectives.
Quick glance at one decade of our experience with political and developmental practices compels us to be more realistic in understanding the connection between democracy and development at home. Politics remains in favor of elite affairs, while development practices are the privileges of government bureaucrats, those men of uniform and weekly routinized office activities. These state apparatuses believe in their fantasized capacity that public welfare can be effectively attainable through the language-games of procedures and law enforcement.
This fallacy inherits political epistemology of technocracy favored by liberal economist and market-promoters, that economic welfare must precede political democracy (Escobar 1995:?; Mas’oed, 2003:41-63). In this situation, our politics turns into closed but widely viewed space of elite craftsmanship, a magic stage for greedy oligarchs while development takes place as usual affairs of benevolent bureaucrats at all levels of administration. Public funds and resources yearly offered as masked with populist slogan to entertain those countless poor. Bureaucrats and politicians are policy makers and heroes while vast majority of people is found in ballot-box and statistical numbers.
Againts Liberal Outlook: Current Debate and Conceptual Framework
Despite their differing approaches and political implications for policy making, a number of studies have highlighted specific problems that characterize the ways democratization fails to meet public demands for sustained welfare. Some Scholars look at how democracy is being hijacked by political elite at national and local level (AE Priyono et all, 2007). Other scholars point to the historical legacy of political practices (Nordholt, 2007:29-47; Sidel, 2004:51-71). Their study enables us to make sense of the causes through the ‘history’, ‘culture’, and ‘political behavior’. State bureaucracy-institution, which theoretically perceived as neutral and sovereign, is captured by groups of big men, oligarchs, and plutocrats who have been descendants of colonial established aristocracy and used as proxy by national elites during New Order period.
One of their central thesis is that elite behavior, well-organized or loosely structured, takes benefits from the existing democratic arrangement and responsible for the absence of opportunity and actual exercise of people’s rights into political participation and their access to welfare. While they are not specifically discussing the extent to which democratic politics compatible or not with development, current lack of people’s inclusion into policy making is broadly explained in terms colonial legacy and bureaucratic authoritarian specters of New Order.
There are also more progressive strands of scholars whose study brings to clearer light how current practices of political representation has little to do with formulating and channeling multiple interests of various interest groups among the citizens. Lack of organized politics sets ground for the plutocrats, bureaucrat and aristocrats to exploit ethnic, religious and territorial markers as political identification in favor of public support and constituency (Tornquist, 2004:201-225, 2009; Warouw, 2009; Mundayat, 2009:75-96).
Having getting out of New Order’s bureaucratic authoritarianism, political elites get locked in short-term calculation of their tenure and electoral contest. Relatively absence of democratic blocks among social and economic groups have rendered them easily into communalist articulation as they fall prey to elite’s rhetoric and show of wealth and status. Instead of addressing and channeling concrete demands among vast range of dispersed constituencies, political elite takes recourse to identitarian logic and maneuver of doing politics by endlessly reinventing tradition, religion and cultural boundaries. At stake is their tenure and electability which is short-termed and highly competitive.
Studies noted above share one crucial finding that prospect of public welfare are unlikely to achieve within current practices of politics and development. Electoral events and processes have turned into show of wealth and culture rather than arena of constructing democratic identity and agency between the representative and the represented. Symbolic and descriptive articulation sidesteps substantive representation with far-reaching impacts on the ways development programs are practiced by government administration and parliaments (for further discussion of types of representation, see Pitkin1967:60-111).
What is missing is the democratic nature of political representation, that is, political activity to transform people from mere object of development into political subjects or demos (Laclau, 2005:157-164). Current bureaucratic reform does not help much since it deals with the wrong question of underdevelopment as if the problem lies solely in the capacity and role of the state institutions or state-apparatuses. It equally applies to agenda of reforming political party that does not cope seriously with the question of how best to empowering the people into active constituency with strong associational bases and their intersection or mutual encounter with different interest groups toward the crafting of common interests.
Situated within theoretical backdrop above, our study draws upon second theoretical strand that stresses power-relations in explaining current democratic deficits. Taking up case from three districts of Manggarai, Western Flores, this study employs conceptual frame of discourse analysis in which governmentality, radical democracy’s concept of politics and representation are utilized to analyze the relation between application of democracy procedure-instrument and local responses ensuing from the application. Moreover, this study sees the urgency of bringing together development and politics in democracy studies. The point is to highlight how actual discourses are shaped through local patronage practices, and simultaneously how the discourses reproduce different identity and agency of human subjects in service of their ideological projects.
Patronage Practices: Manggaraian Experience of Democratization
As explored in our study of Manggaraian patronage practice, this paper argues that our problem, the discursive gap between politics and development, locates in current nature of political representation within which ‘elite’ and ‘people’ are constructed and distributed in actual space of representation.
To better understand how politics and development operate and intersect, we need to go beyond behavioralist-institutionalist notion of political power and refocus our critical attention into actual practices of representation. To the question of why current democratic politics fails to deal with the immense problem of poverty, attention should be mostly paid on how subject—elite and people—is reproduced and acts out their constructed agency through specific pattern of articulation toward welfare. It is through specific mode of connecting development and politics on the ground that we begin to grasp the urgency of dealing with the ideological questioning of political power which has been deeply absent in our talk and study.
To be more precise, discussion on public welfare should couple with discussion of poverty. Both are bare facts of human condition as well as discursive constructions for governmental power. Patronage practice in three Manggaraian Districts illustrates the persistent operation of local discourses through routinized and normalized practice of patronage. The discourses, Developmentalism and Kairos, are two hegemonic but identical ideological framework that defines and perpetuates two subjects, Tuang (the patron) and Roeng (the client) in their coping with poverty and welfare.
These two subjects occupy clear-cut position and role in two domains of agency. Within govermental-pastoral reason of the discourses, patronage practices, in fact, produce and reproduce these two subjects of identity and agency which are in contrast to each other. Tuang belongs to the domain of the ruling, governing and salvaging, while Roeng belongs to domain of the ruled, governed and the salvaged. Patronage practices, as routinized in three arena of their encounter (church, government, political party), become governmentalized so as to ensure the continuity of power-exercise over vast majority of Manggaraians.
Manggaraian patronage not only perpetuates poverty but reproduces the poor through patronage patterns of governing and distributing public resources. Manggaraian patronage practices reveals how two hegemonic discourses develop and intersect on the ground through concrete workings of their respective institutions, strategies, procedures and deployment of ideological apparatuses.
Attention to the working of two discourses assists us in capturing the persistent construction of Manggaraian population into Tuang-Roeng nexus that sustains unequal power-relations within governmental domain of three district government, including political party, and pastoral domain of local church diocese. These three arenas of patronage practice are porous spaces where similar Tuang and Roeng efface their identity and agency. One is called Tuang referring to his embodiment of both pastoral power of the church and governmental power of the state. This equally applies to Roeng as empirical category of identity and agency in both domains. Clients of the state patrons are those flocks of church patrons. The difference is in spaces, but the subjects remain the same.
Routine development programs and electoral politics are two discursive activities which currently intensify the effacement of identity and agency of both governmental patrons and clients. Instead of breaking historical nexus of Tuang and Roeng, direct electoral politics deepens their power-relation, rendering patronage more naturalized and institutionalized. It is through electoral practices that difference in identity and agency of both subjects is getting individualized and politics itself becomes de-collectivized.
Critical point is that electoral politics institutionalizes their power differentials as discursive effects of long rooted-local developmentalism. Tuang Pelitik, Tuang Pegawe and Tuang Agama are local power holders who are perceived eligible to assume strategic role and position in district administration and parliament. Centrality of electoral politics resides in its capacity to reconfigure and re-constellate power holding among local patrons with far-reaching impacts on the welfare of the clients. It directly relates to welfare distribution in the aftermath of the election. Demos are the clients whose welfare depends on winning their patron candidate in the election. Patronage sustained through electoral practice explains Manggaraian version of political representation which is substantive, symbolic and descriptive altogether.
Manggaraians within Governmental-Pastoral Discourses
Inquiry into political identity and agency of the Manggaraians compels us to explore their discursive construction in historical period. It does not mean that their identity-agency, Tuang and Roeng, is imposed by force or through repression. Identity including agency it implies must be understood as contingent effects of certain discourse articulation that embodies in networks of social relations.
Two major institutions, District Government and Local Diocese, matter most not in the sense that it is a sovereign entity capable of regulating and controlling the Manggaraians, but the fact that the political nature of the institution, its existence and functioning, has been rendered workable within specific discourses. It is within two hegemonic discourses of Developmentalism and Kairos as articulated by the two institutions that Manggaraians reinvent themselves as two different identities with contrasting positioning and role in developmental space of their encounter when coping with bare fact of poverty and dreamed welfare.
Manggarai, as Manggaraians understand where they have been in the world, has been at the centre of historiographical debate among Manggaraians (Toda, 1999; Erb, 1993). The debate is premised notably on Manggaraian experience with external forces before the advent of Christianity in the early years of twentieth century and the colonialist-crafted kingdom of Manggarai around the period in 1929. What is interesting is that Manggaraians come to perceive and imagine their ‘fixed’ historical identity together with the rapid spread of Catholic teaching since 1912 and then more convincingly with the establishment of the Manggaraian District in 1958 as the establishment based in principle on ‘cultural and historical parameters.
Such parameters confirms the fact how rapid the discursive construction of the territory and its population following the line of religion as cultural marker amidst diversity of cultures within the territory. Historical record tells that since the first Manggaraian baptized into Catholic in 1912, followed by the conversion of the Manggaraian’s first King and other lower ranks of the kingdom’s structure in years afterward, number of baptized Manggaraians have reached 69.592 in 1939 (Bettray SVD, 1974:1253-1284).
Rapid cultural reconfiguration of Manggaraian society tells us the historical interplay between institutionalizing of religious practices and political practices toward the creation of the District. The Manggaraians have began to perceive themselves as Catholic as they practice its prescriptions on daily basis. Catholic Schools are the very locus of religious grounding of its message to enlighten the Manggaraian which one of the first missionarists once writes in paternal tone: “We, the missionarists, find in this area a culture of patriarchy and totemism”.
Taking up indirect rule model of governing the Manggaraian, catholicization of the population has since then rendered more effective through producing and reproducing educated groups whose background is mostly local aristocracy. The educated segment of the population begins to reconsolidation and proliferate structure of social power as their competence and skills fit at best the administrative and cultural requirement of being state apparatuses in 1958 onward, while other turning into indigenous priests whose managerial power becomes dramatically increasing with the sudden takeover of pastoral leadership from Western missionarists 1985.
Throughout this process—catholication and statization—two types of subjects emerges and made more intelligible through institutional practices in the arena of co-existential encounter between the governing and the governed. Both local church and district administration have been the visible space of effacing difference of identity and agency among Manggaraians. Ideological core that grounds their difference has been the governmental reason as articulates in District government activities-programs of ‘development’ in one hand and pastoral reason that drives Diocese’s project of ‘salvation’.
This typical modern project places Manggaraian into two domain of subjectivity without which the project would be socially groundless and morally illegitimate. With these two typical rationalities at work, Manggarai is no longer a territory of population but a materialized space of Kairos-Developmentalism. It becomes locus theologicus and site of developmental intervention altogether. This shift of course implies the transformation of identity and agency of the Manggaraian as effects of productive power of the two discourses.
As taking place in almost all districts in Indonesia, developmentalist discourse as articulated through development programs of the District administration began to define ‘poverty’ and ‘welfare’ in Manggarai during its formative decades of bureaucratic developmentalism in 1970-1980s. This discursive formation did not develop exclusively. It is also the golden period of intensive project of local evangelization drawn upon social doctrines of universal church in post Vatican Consilium II. This project shares in greatest degree modernist rhetoric of the local developmentalist apparatuses of the period, as made more plausible in Gaudium et Spes, one of the Universal Chuch’s notable social doctrines until today:
‘By development ‘By development is meant the human, civil, temporal promotion of those people who, by contact with modern civilization and with the help that it provides, are becoming more conscious of themselves and are stepping out on the road to higher levels of culture and prosperity. The missionary cannot excuse himself from taking an interest in this promotion’ (J Neuner SJ & J Dupuis SJ [eds], The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. P. 309-315)
As amply evident in local’s Church teachings and growing internal spacialization of the territory into Dekenat and Paroki (Dekenat covers a pastoral juridiction as large as two or three subdistrict mixed, while Paroki at least one sub-district covered), modernist Church programs has begun to define grace and sin much more in localized version of pastoral politics. Districts’s developmentalist public services such as health, education and most importantly, infrastructures, grew in tandem with local Church-managed schools, hospitals, training schools.
Through these two tracks of articulation, ‘modernization’ has steadily taken double face of ideological effacement, in which the first face concerns material world, intelligible and sensible, while the second looks carefully at inner world of the manggaraians, mental and immaterial. Welfare and Christian grace become increasingly identical as they mutually reinforcing. Both cover mundane conversation between economic progress in developmentalist-technical register and mental enrichment in local Catholic’ moral-liturgical register. How does this imply for identity and agency of the Manggaraians?
In post 1985, local leadership in both District administration and local Diocese has been in full contact and influence. Entirety of discursive space is under ‘indigeneous’ control as most of the priests and district officials are Manggaraians belonging to priveleged class of colonial and postcolonial reconfiguration. In pastoral framework alone, Manggaraization of the Church apparatuses goes together with the self-financing of the pastoral activity and the dogmatic privilege of the Diocese (Puspar KR,2008:16-17).
The most effaced effects of this Kairos reorientation, from Missionarist’s expansionist evangelization into indigenous priest’s inner-world surveillance, evolve in two accompanying strategies. First, the reinforcement of mixed leadership of pastoral power between the priests and the state officials including politicians in one side, on the other side, while vast majority of the Manggaraians, non-state officials and non-politicians, relocate into the realm of causes and problems of salvation. Second, the reinstallation of multiple activities of intensive engagement between those pastoral agents and the flocks of various non-institutional backgrounds.
Best illustration of how the two strategies have been put into practice is the establishment and functioning of ‘Sinode’ and ‘Dewan Paroki’. Not different from Manggaraian District’s Musrembang, Diocese’s Sinode has functioned as highest forum, the melting pot of leading state-apparatuses and politicians, in bringing together what they perceive as ‘problems’ of the flocks on the ground. The perceived problems, understood as outside the sphere of the Church and the District government, relate to the flock’s lack of welfare, education and health.
Again, social-economic problems are defined as poverty-related degradation that has nothing to do with far-reaching effects of both institutions’ developmental-pastoral policies. At Paroki level (subdistrict), Dewan Paroki (Paroki Board of representative) comprises similar agency of developmental-pastoral power whose representation has no link to the flocks but their own identification into domains of the ruling. In contrast, the flocks are grouped into ‘Wilayah’ and ‘Kelompok’, two spaces of activities where pastoral policy is implemented. It is in ‘Kelompok’, as smaller and more intelligible site of surveillance, that church-steered taxes are levied so as to ensure that the payment ability reflects the faithful service for salvation. Sacraments-related sanctions attributed to those who neglect this ‘Christian’ obligation.
Preceding emphasis helps us make greatest sense of the exclusionary construction of Manggaraians into Tuang and Roeng as made far more articulable in the District administration’s developmentalist project. Ways through which vast majority of Manggaraians represented into policy making are evidently similar with Sinode. As many other districts in Indonesia, three Manggaraian Districts have been sites of developmentalist pacakages ranging from poverty reduction, social protection and safety nets and other policy schemes within broader context of development policy settings—national and international. What remains in practice is that the vast majority of Manggaraians enliven their identity and agency as object of policy interventions. Electoral practice re-amplifies the discursive exclusion of the already categorized Roeng—client of development and salvation.
Four Ideological Pillars
Analysis of Manggaraian patronage practice points to the functioning of four ideological pillars that sustain governmentalized power-relation between Tuang and Roeng. The ideological pillars are (1) Mangaraian conception of development, (2) Manggaraian conception of politics, (3) Manggaraian conception of identity, and (4) Manggaraian conception of agency. These pillars are not theoretical but their practical making sense of patronage as best practice of political and economic exchange.
Local Development and Politics
In Manggaraian Development practices, actual tension between labor and capital is made invisible. The tension is perceived as residing outside development. It is the task of local development programs to reduce poverty, to rescue roeng from economic backwardness and lead them to economic and social progress. Development regime is center of excellence to which problems and hopes are directed. Both Kairos and local developmentalism has invented different understanding of relations of economic production. Peasants conceive themselves as consumers of development projects while government officials conceive themselves as producers of welfare. If the poor remain living in poverty, it is because of their own failure or inability to make use of development infrastructure and assistance.
Economic development means infrastructure projects. This informs the need for development intelligibility, as something visible, measured through efficiency, transparence and accountability criteria. Efficiency means the measurability of inputs (fund, expert, time). Transparence refers to ‘publicness’, that is, full participation of clients in project accomplishment, while accountability connotes to internal responsibility of the governmental officials, as welfare producers, in compliance with bureaucratic-administrative rules and measures. The crucial point is that development practices of the Tuang and actual poverty of the Roeng are perceived by both patronage subjects as rooted in separate worlds of human encounter.
Poverty is not defined through labor as productive activity but treated as category of Roeng and their livelihoods. It is in both Kairos and Developmentalism that labor-power of the peasants transforms into labor-identity of the Roeng. This historical and social transformation serves to support ideological projects of the two discourses, that is, how to perpetuate Roeng, clients of governmental and pastoral regimes, as object and permanent target of surveillance, control and intervention. Demands of peasants come from Tuang, those who are well informed, high expertise, and morally infallible. While Roeng, to use Agamben’s term (1995:1-31), are collection of homo sacer, mere living beings who are always in permanent state of economic emergency and in need of immediate aid assistance of the local government and moral backup of local Catholicism.
It is also the case of who both subjects come to perceive local politics practice. Politics is confined into electoral practices, either election of district regents or election of district’s parliamentarians. The election is to ensure that certain powerful patrons (Tuang Pegawe and Tuang Pelitik) are elected to be representative of the Roeng in state arena. Contestation between candidates reflects constellation of local patrons with their respective supporters or clients. Election in strict sense turns to have been moment of declaration among clients to be faithful to their respective patrons so as to ensure that exchange of resources will be continued after the election period.
Electoral politics then serves to meet twofold purpose of patronage practices. First, election is perceived as process and event of consecration of Tuang-Roeng relations that have already established. Second, as consecrating event, electoral politics is present as precious moment for declaring sacred promise that patronage relation will continue in future. Both consecration and declaration are two fundamental components that render electoral politics not only as cute competition between powerful Tuang to win strategic governmental positions but more important, as internalization of the relations into subjectivity reproduction of both subjects. Election period, in short, serves as moment of political contract, which is interpersonal and privatized, between Tuang candidate and his Roeng.
This specific conceptualization of politics is not detachable from Manggaraian Diocese’s paradigm in relation to how local church should best engage with local politics. Guiding rhetoric are ‘Church must be impartial!’ and ‘Church must be absent from politics!’. What actually happens is that against the backdrop of privatized local politics, Christian ethics of care between Tuang and Roeng instead becomes more penetrating in defining ‘rights and obligation’ of Tuang candidate and Roeng constituents. The rights of the Roeng constituents are to be continuously targeted as object of development project as integral to Christian salvation project of local church. While the obligation of the Tuang candidate is to perform as infallible producers of welfare-salvation. This is the central contribution of local Kairos to privatization of electoral politics and as consequence, de-collectivizing public dimension of democratic instruments.
Identity-Agency
Preceding focus on Manggaraian concept of development and politics offers critical insights into how identity and agency of two Manggaraian subjects are defined and reproduced through patronage practices. The argument is that Tuang and Roeng, as ideological marker of identity-agency, have been relative effects of Kairos and Developmentalism that are reproduced through routinization of patronage practices in governmental and pastoral spheres. Both Tuang and Roeng efface their identity and agency through active participation. It would be impossible without being locked in governmental and pastoral mechanism and procedures that present in Church bureaucracy, district bureaucracy and political party machine.
Our analysis explains two discursive phenomena that sustain the reproduction of both identity and agency. First, patronage practice, within the boundaries of Kairos-Developmentalism, facilitates personalization of all types of power embodiment into state officials. Second, as consequence, it facilitates totalization of state control over Manggaraian population. Roeng engages intimately with the state through their direct encounter with state officials of district, sub-district and village levels. In Roeng perception, state officials are not merely apparatuses or development managers, but the state in its complete manifestation and force. To the extent the state has been incorporated into its ‘benevolent’ officials and politicians, identity and agency of Roeng are perceived as fixed, naturalized and impossible to change. When the officials, Tuang, resemble the state, development project and assistance are perceived as belonging to the Tuang’s private property and offered to Roeng without charge.
One of the central implication accompanying ideological effects of local developmentalism is common perception of moral and technical infallibility of state officials and church bureaucrats. Ensuing problems of poverty do no fall into governmental and pastoral domains, but failure of the Roeng to catch up with sophisticated management of welfare and salvation. Kairos and Developmentalism have equipped the officials with moral and ethical immunity, while technicalmoral fallibility integrates into domain of developmental-pastoral objects. Tuang resides in domain of truth-knowledge, in institutions and particularly, in their routine performative acts. Spaces of encounters between Tuang and Roeng, in government and in Church affairs, are marked with distinguishing self-presence and excluding acts that sustain identity and agency of the two patronage subjects.
Conclusion
Conclusion of our study is twofold. First, Manggaraian case of governmentalized patronage offers sufficient illustration of how democracy and human right promotion must addresses local specificity of problems, needs and challenges. It is instructive to capture the interplay between institutions, actors, mechanism and procedures in which certain power-relation operates. At stake is the fate of the subjects whose identity and agency are worth critical exposure. Our case is to disclose actual grounding of human exploitation and submission upon which efforts at genuine emancipation begin.
Second, theoretical contribution of this study is its modest attempt to conceptualize patronage politics in its actual and symbolic entirety. Patronage practice as Manggaraian politics of governmentality reflects urgency of taking into account different concept of power with strong explanatory capacity to address the living relations between human subject, institution and environments which are historical and sociological. Absence of attention to historical and social origins of patronage practice will end in totalitarian conclusion of human behavior, or superficial argument of institutionalism.
Frans Djalong. Research Thesis. 2010. MA in Human Rights and Democracy in Southeast Asia (MA HARD SEA, Gadjah Mada University, Oslo University, Norway)
Reference
Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Manggarai. Manggarai dalam Angka 2008. BPS Kab. Manggarai, 2009.
Bagian Dokumentasi Penerangan Kantor
Waligereja Indonesia. Sejarah Gereja Katolik Indonesia. Ende, Flores: Percetakan Arnoldus, 1974
Bagul, Dagur A. Kebudayaan Manggarai sebagai Salah Satu Khasanah. Surabaya: Uhbara Press, 1999.
Bagul, Dagur A. Prospek dan Strategi Pembangunan Kabupaten Manggarai dalam Perspektif Masa Depan. Jakarta: Penerbit Indomedia, 2004
Bana, Lina Kanis (ed) Makna Bertapak. Jejak Langkah Membangun Manggarai.Yogyakarta: Penerbit Lamalera, 2009. Hal 105-112
Bastian Wielenga. “Liberation Theology in Asia”, dalam Christopher Rowland (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology.New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999, hal 39-60
Christian Smith. The Emergence of Liberation Theology: Radical Religion and Social Movement Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Cornelissen, Frans SVD. 50 Tahun Pendidikan Imam di Flores, Timor dan Bali. Ende, Flores: Percetakan Arnoldus, 1978
Erb, M, Beni R dan Anggal W. “Creating Cultural Identity in an Era of Regional Autonomy: Reinventing Manggarai?”, dalam Maribeth Erb, Priyambudi Sulistiyanto dan Carole Faucher (ed) Regionalism in Post-
Suharto Indonesia. London: Routledge Curzon, 2005
Erb, Maribeth. “Between Empowerment and Power: Ther Rise of the Self-Supporting Church in Western Flores, Eastern Indonesia”, Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2006). Hal 204-29.
Erb, Maribeth. “True Catholics: Religion and Identity in Western Flores”, dalam Frank Michael (editor) Religion and Identity (Sentiments religieux et identites culturalles),Special Edition, Histoire et Anthropologie
Asies 2 (2003), hal 125-60
Erb, Maribeth. “Negotiating History: Myth, Power and Ethnicity in Manggarai (Flores, Eastern Indonesia)”. Paper presentasi hasil penelitian pada Asean Inter-University Seminars on Social Development, 13-15 November 1993, Kota Kinabalu-Sabah
Erb, Maribeth.”Shaping a ‘New Manggarai’: Struggles over ‘Culture and ‘Tradition’ in an Eastern Indonesian
Regency”, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46, 3 (2005). Hal 323-34
Gerald West. The Bible and the Poor: a New Way of Doing Theology, dalam Christopher Rowland (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Liberation Theology.New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999, hal 129-152
Gibellini, Rosino. The Liberation Theology Debate. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1987
Gustavo Guiterres Theology of Liberation. New York: Orbis Books, 1973
Hargens, Boni. “Bosisme Lokal dan Pergeseran Sumber Kekuasaan di Manggarai”, dalam Boni Hargens (editor)
Kebuntuan Demokrasi Lokal di Indonesia. Jakarta: Parrhesia Institute-Jakarta, 2009. Hal 109-136
Hargens, Boni. Kebangkrutan Agama dan Politik: Kasus STKIP St. Paulus Ruteng.Jakarta: Gendis Desain & Printing, 2005
Jegalus, Nober. “Hak Perlawanan Rakyat”, dalam Eman J Embu dan Robert Mirsel (editor) Gugat Darah Petani Kopi Manggarai. Maumere: Penerbit Ledalero, 2004. Hal 224-47
JIPC-OFM Indonesia. “Mencegah Tanah Manggarai Hancur”. Kertas Posisi JIPC-OFM Indonesia. Jakarta (2008).
Jondar, Aloysius dan Tangi, Hironimus. Mutiara Pembangunan. Christian Rotok, Bupati Manggarai. Surabaya: Lutfansah Mediatama, 2007
Neuner S.J. dan Dupuis S.J. (ed) The Christian Faith. In the Doctrinal Documents of The Catholic Church. Dublin: The Mercier Press, 1973.
Pusat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Bersatu Membangun Habitus Baru dalam Bimbingan Roh Kudus menuju Gereja Keuskupan Ruteng yang Mandiri, Misioner dan Memasyarakat. Ruteng, Flores: Penerbit Puspas Keuskupan Ruteng, 2008
Pusat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Garis- Garis Besar Pedoman Kerja Keuskupan Ruteng 2008-2012. Ruteng, Flores: Penerbit Puspas Keuskupan Ruteng, 2008
Sahdan, Goris. “Korporatisasi Politik Negara di Aras Lokal. Studi Dominasi Birokrasi dalam Politik di Kabupaten Manggarai Pasca Orde Baru. Tesis S2, 2009 (Tidak diterbitkan)
Sekretariat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Garis-Garis Besar Pedoman Kerja Keuskupan Ruteng 1996-2005. Malang: Percetakan Dioma, 2006.
Sekretariat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Kumpulan Surat Gembala dan Edaran Khusus Uskup Ruteng. Ruteng, Flores: Percetakan Sekpas Keuskupan Ruteng, 1997.
Sekretariat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Sidang Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng 1988. Ruteng, Flores: Percetakan Sekpas Keuskupan Ruteng, 1992
Sekretariat Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng. Sidang Pastoral Keuskupan Ruteng 1990. Ruteng, Flores: Percetakan Sekpas Keuskupan Ruteng, 1992
Toda, Dami N. Manggarai Mencari Pencerahan Historiografi. Ende, Flores: Penerbit Nusa Indah, 1999.
Verheijen, JAJ. “Sketsa Sejarah, Kebudayaan dan Watak Manusia Manggarai”, dalam A Hagul (ed) Manggarai: Kemarin, Hari ini dan Esok. Ruteng, Flores: LKM, 1989
Heryanto Ariel and Nancy Luzt. Development of “Development”’. Indonesia, Vol. 46 (Oct., 1988), pp. 1-24
Toby Carrol. Delusion of Development: The World Bank and the Post-Washington Consensus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010
Toby Caroll. Social Development as Neoliberal Trojan Horse: ‘The World Bank and the Kecamatan Development Program in Indonesia’, Development and Change, 40(3), 2009
Olle Tornquist. ‘From Research to Practice:Towards the Democratic Institutionalisation of Nodes for Improved
Representation’, in Tornquist (eds), Rethinking Popupar Representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan , 2009, pp 223-234
Gerry van Klinken. “Patronage Democracy in Provincial Indonesia”, in Tornquist (eds), Rethinking Popupar Representation. New York: Palgrave macmillan 2009 141-59
Harris, John. “Introduction: New Local Politics of Democratization”, in J Harris, Stokke Kristian and Olle Tornquist (eds) Politicising Democracy. Houndsmill: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, p 1-28
Eisenstadt, S.N dan Roniger, Louis. “Patron-Client Relation as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 22, No. 1, (Januari, 1980), hal 42-77
Eisenstadt, S.N. dan Lemarchand R (ed). Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development. London: Sage, 1981.
Eisenstadt, SN. Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neo-Patrimonialism. California: Sage Publications, 1973
Eisenstadt, S.N dan Roniger, Louis. Patrons, Clients and Friends. Interpersonal relations and the structure of trust in society . new york. Cambridge university press.1984
Scott, James c. “The Erosion of Patron-Client Bonds and Social Change in Rural Southeast
Asia”. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (November, 1972), hal 5-37
Christina Rojas. “Governing through the Social: Representations of Poverty and Global Governmentality”, dalam Wendy Larner dan William Walters Global Governmentality:Governing International Spaces. London:
Routledge, 2004, hal 97-114
Ferguson, James. The Anti-Politics Maschine: “Development”, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994
Foucault, Michel. “Politics and Study of Discourse”, dalam Graham Burchell dkk (ed) The Foucault . Governmentality”, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Hal 53-72
________“The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom, dalam ________“The Subject and Power”, Critical and Inquiry, 8 (Summer, 1982), hal 777-789
________“About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Two Lectures at Dartmouth”, Political Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Mei, 1993), hal 198-227
________ History of Sexuality. Volume I: an Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books, ________ Religion and Culture. New York: Routledge, 1999
Laclau, Ernesto dan Mouffe, Chantal. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy toward a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985
________ “Discourse”, dalam Robert Goodin, Philip Pettit dan Thomas Poge (eds) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy
________“Discourse”, dalam Robert Goodin, Philip Pettit dan Thomas Poge (eds) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, hal 541-546
________ On Populist Reason. London: Verso, 2005 Mandani, Mahmood. Citizen and Subject:Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996
Mouffe, Chantal. On the Political. London: Routuledge, 2005
________ ”Citizenship and Political Identity”, October, Vol. 61. The Identity in Question
________ “Decision, Deliberation, Democratic Ethos”, dalam Philosophy Today, 41, 1
Nadesan, Majia Holmer. Governmentality, Biopower and Everyday Life. London: Routledge, 2008
Newman, Saul. “The Place of Power in Political Discourse”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April, 2004), hal 139-157
Stavrakakis, Yannis. Lacan and the Political.London: Routledge, 1999 Zizek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of
Ideology.London: Verso, 1989
Benda- Beckmann, Franz von dan Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von. “Identitas-Identitas Ambivalent: Desentralisasi dan Komunita-Komunitas Politik di Minangkabau”, dalam Henk Schulte Nordholt dan Gerry van
Klinken (eds) Politik Lokal di Indonesia.Jakarta: Yayasan Obor, 2007, hal 543-576
Benedict, Anderson R. Language and Power: Exploring Political Cultures in Indonesia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990
Dhakidae, Daniel. Cendekiawan dan Kekuasaan dalam Negara Orde Baru. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2003
Mundayat, Aris dkk.”State and Civil Society Relationship in Indonesia: A Society-Oriented Reading in Search of Democratic Space”, dalam Approaching Conflict and Democracyin South and Southeast Asia. PCD
Journal, vol. 1, No. 1 & 2 (2009)
Nordholt, Henk Schulte. “Decentralization in Indonesia: Less State, More Democracy?”, dalam John Harris dkk (eds) Politicizing Democracy. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, hal 29-47
Priyono AE dkk. Making Democracy Meaningful: Problems and Options in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: PCD Press, 2007.
Samadhi, Willy Purna dan Warrouw, Nicolaas. Demokrasi di Atas Pasir. Yogyakarta: PCD Press, 2009
Sidel, John T. “Bossism and Democracy in Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia: Toward an Alternative Framework for the Study of Local Strongmen”, dalam J Harris, Stokke Kristian dan Olle Tornquist (ed) Politicising Democracy. Houndsmill: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, hal 51-71
Doktrin/Dogma Lumen Gentium (1964)
Doktrin Pastoral Gaudium et Spes (1965)
Surat Ensiklik Pacem in Terris (1961)
Surat Ensiklik Popularum Progressio (1967)
Surat Ensiklik Laborem Exercens (1981)
Surat Ensiklik Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987)
Surat Ensiklik Centensimus Annus (1991) Surat Apostolik Octogesima