| Summary: | This study discussed the background emerged a policy on indigenous land
and customary rights over land regulated through Central Kalimantan Governor
Regulation No. 13 of 2009. A policy, ideally, emerged to address the issues in the
society and to achieve common goals through compromise and consensus. But
infrequently a policy was chosen due a purely political nature and forgetting the
primary purpose as a solution to the issues faced by the society. Sometimes, a
policy was emerged to satisfy the aspirations of parties to benefits authorities
much and it often emerged simply as 'cradle' merely to calm the public without a
clear road map for implementing the policies aiming in real to improve the
community welfare.
Therefore, a public policy considered as a political option of the holders of
power. Based on these statements, an interesting thing to examine regarding
indigenous land policies issue was the background emerging the policy by
considering the factors affecting the government choice to set the contained policy
and interests behind the emerging of the policy.
To examine the background which emerged the policy on indigenous
lands, it was used a qualitative research approach by policy analysis study, which
was useful to investigate social phenomenon and human issues to generate
descriptive data of written or spoken words from people and their observed
behavior. By using the study type, it gained an objective picture of the actual
circumstances which emerged the land policy in Central Kalimantan, which then
transformed into decision-making driving factors and determination policy taken
by Government of Central Kalimantan Province.
The results of this study identified 4 (four) factors classified into two
categories: internal and external factors. The Categorization was based on its
influence on policy formation. Based on these categories, the internal factor was
the existed escalation of conflict, and the external factor was the existed of
organized reaction of indigenous peoples, the political commitment of the
Governor and the ineffectiveness of prior legal rules.
|
|---|