Local Public Sphere for Discursive Public Service in Indonesia: Habermas Perspective

Democracy is an important issue in the practice of public administration. Until the contemporary situation, democracy is a process that is constantly maintained to accommodate public aspirations. In the context of the democratic process, local public services could be determined by opening the deliberative public sphere and increasing public participation to think together what public services to be provided. This paper is an effort to explore the challenges, opportunities and possibilities of the terms of the acceptable public services for more stakeholders in Indonesia. In contrast to the practice of citizen charters that tend monologue in determining the services contract, the idea of local public sphere, public organization opens dialogue with all stakeholders including the public service users. Habermas ’s thought about public sphere be an inspiration in building the model of discursive public services. Historically, Indonesia has actually alreay had a concept of “musyawarah mufakat” (consensus) that is similar to deliberative democracy. Therefore, the prospect to create the public service policy that formulated together is possible. To open the possibility the theory into praxis, then the adaptation of Habermas’s thought is formulated on a local scale, namely in the regions in Indonesia. Here, public sphere articulated with media or forum for all elements stakeholders for discussion and deliberation in defining public services. Now days with the development of technology, the opportunities will open widely. Beside to modernize and simplify the structure of the service process, technology can facilitate access to interact between the government and the public to create discursive public services.


Introduction
Public service is an important part that can't be separated from the social life between public and the state. Quality of public services provided can be a parameter level of the organization of the governance. Indonesian people has a bad history of public services quality in the New Order (Orde Baru) regime, which the worst bureaucracy momentum in Indonesia. After the New Order regime in 1998 cave, goverment made some efforts to improves in public services. But there is an interesting note, the results of research conducted Agus Dwiyanto et al (2002) which shows the performance of the public service performed by the bureaucracy after reformation era are not many experiencing significant changes. Accountability, responsiveness, and efficiency in public services is still low. In the contemporary situation, the practice of corruption is still dominant in the body of the government bureaucracy. According to Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) in 2014 increased by 12% the amount of corruption from the previous year as many as 560 cases of alleged corruption (The Wall Street Journal, 2015). This indicates that Indonesia can't be free from the old disease, called corruption.
The survey results integrity KPK shows that public service quality Indonesia recently reached the score becomes 6.84 from 10 to central institutions, and 6.69 for unit public services in the region. The score integrity in characteristic quality in public services, such as whether there exists a bribe, there is whether this process of naming a Standar Operating Procedur (SOP) the similarity service with SOP that is, information, justice and service speed and simplified public complaint (Direktorat Aparatur Negara: 2010).
Public services are closely related to the implementation of good governance. Kaufman (in Kumorotomo, 2007) conducted a survey in hundreds of countries shows elements of good governance, among others fulfill the political rights of citizens, the state's ability to control bureaucratic corruption, make conducive regulations, and the ability in public service. Than it is in line with the spirit of New Public Service paradigm initiated by Denhart and Denhart (2003) on the importance of the role of democracy in the administration and public service organizations. Especially after decentralization began, local governments have to compete to perform and make initiation of reforms in the public service according with the public voice.
Public services is not living in a vacuum, it dialectically necessary adaptive to the spirit of the age. Ideally it is not time for ABS (Asal Bapak Senang [The Important thing is the boss happy) typical New Order bureaucracy. Public organizations must not provide services to the leaders but fulfill the constitutional rights of public as citizens. But unfortunately the reality shows different things. The process of public services that the government is still addressing the people as passive costumer that limit citizens partisipation (Maani, 2010). People are marginalised of their own rights. Many medias in Indonesia report in some local areas there are people who refused treatment by the hospital. This is certainly an irony, amid calls for democracy in the services, people just do not have sovereignty to access public services.
To encourage quality of public services, some local goverments initiated adopt citizen charters as a form of contractual agreement in the standardization of public services. Obviously, it needs to be appreciated as an important innovation in the implementation of public services in Indonesia. Citizen charters put service users as the most important element. Therefore public organizations as service providers invite stakeholders and users to dialogue together define the various procedures and service standards, including the rights and obligations of the various stakeholders.
Citizen charter was first introduced in England in the time of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher led government. In this case it is better we need to understand the context of the current political economic policy Thatcher became prime minister. For Thatcher no such thing as society there are only individuals. The premise of Thatcher thought is a free market economy. Then some of the critics gave the title as neoliberal. Thatcher believes the market will work efficiently if left free. Policies that were made since it first became Prime Minister in 1979 was highly controversial, such as financial deregulation, free markets, low taxes, and block all the trade union movement at the time. So the idea of citizen charter can not be separated from the context of the rationale of the "iron lady". Borrowing explanation Gaster (1995: 100), citizen charters only focused approach to the relationship between service providers and individuals as users. Citizen charter is basically a social contract between the bureaucracy and the customer that can ensure quality of service. Assumptions in this charter advocating citizen as a user in the service rather than as members of the organic community. Relationships is between the provideruser, the consequences of participation which opened not emancipatory. In this paper, the authors trying to deconstruction the idea of the citizen charter and give antithesis of it. The authors use Habermas thought about public sphere which opens up the possibility of a more emancipatory society involvement.

Method
In a systematic, the method used in this paper is library research and content. analysis. Data was collected find secondary data and information dissemination of scientific meeting

Result and Discussion
Some local areas in Indonesia have started doing inovations citizen charters in the implementation of public services. Especially in some areas of Central Java and East Java. As a new approach, it is certainly worthy of appreciation. But epistemologically, the concept of citizen charters low relevance to the spirit of mutual cooperation (gotongroyong) is typical of Indonesian society. As alluded earlier, the citizen charter presupposes a provider-user relationship. In other words, society is only the user, consequently the power of emancipatory is low. The spirit of citizen charter relevant to the development paradigm of public administration as New Public Management (NPM) or other designations market-based public administration, the post-bureaucratic paradigm and entrepreneurial government. Terms were basically describes the phenomenon is an alternative for the way traditionalbureaucracyin conducting business public (Denhardt and Denhardt: 2003).
Osborne and Gaebler (1992) summarizes their approach in some dictum; Government directs that acts as a catalyst rather than rowing the organization; Government belongs to the people who gave the authority rather than the servicing; Competitive government inject competition in the provision of services; Government driven by the mission rather than the rule; Results-oriented government.
As an alternative idea in the development discourse paradigm of public administration, NPM has a novelty that needs to be appreciated, but in the context of social public services, this was a problem is. Discuss this issue it is worth referring Denhardt and Denhardt on the concept of New Public Service (NPS). NPS is one of the roots of the theory of democratic citizenship. In theory democratic citizenship, governments have an obligation to ensure the rights of individual citizens through various procedures. Denhardt and Denhardt said, "The role of government is to the make sure that the interplay of individual self-interest operates freely and fairly. Which, then citizens involved in government policy determinations. In that spirit, borrowing a phrase Mansbridge (1994), they referred to as "public spirit". On the important point is where the public service as a derivative of the emancipatory public services.
Public service is an important issue how to discourse about government and public relations. In NPS, Public services that are carried out did not place its citizens only customers such as the paradigm NPM. Citizens is a fundamental state which government is responsible for ensuring various interests of their needs. Denhradt and Denhradt said that citizens not only "customer", but the "owner". The citizens is not as customers who choose things according their have been willing. In contrast, the citizens of demanding that the government provides something that according to them is important. On the other hand the government is generally responsible to the citizens as a constituent; Not to the "customers" are confined to their personal interests only. And finally the main orientation of the state is not profit or citizen satisfaction, but is accountable as a public organization regulated by law.

Public Services and Local Government
The quality of public services in every area are different according to the nature of the society. Moreover, with the condition of Indonesian society that is plural, it will present a different public services depends on the uniqueness of each. In this case Hoessein (2001: 5) explains: "Given the diverse conditions of the local society, the local government and local autonomy will be diverse as well. Thus the function of decentralization (devolution) to accommodate the aspirations of the plurality of local society will also be diverse. Decentralization (devolution) gave political variety and structural variety to deliver local voice and local choice. " Reviewing Hoessein explanation in advance, the goal of decentralization to improve the quality of public services within the framework of this democratic model should really uphold the values of democracy and independence that is rooted in local society. Through their representatives, the public can determine the expected service quality criteria in various fields: education, health, transportation, economic, social, cultural, and others. The citizens can determine areas of service that need to be given priority; how to determine the priority; by whom and where services were provided; how to care effectively, efficiently, representing the public needs and interests, and many other criteria that need to be explained. Hence the determination of all of these criteria in a model of democracy is determined society itself. It is certainly not easy and is highly dependent on changes in vision, mission, strategy, and implementation of the local government in making government policy. So far, there is a tendency that quality of public services is determined by the government or institution that provides services, not co-between provider with the user, customer, client, or citizen as community service users; which reflects democracy and independence.

Public Services and Habermas Perspective
Public Service rates relations between the government and the socieity. Among These relationships are known as a public participation or community involvement in public policy and government role in public policy, which is in its development, public participation or community involvement was continued to experience the development and changes from time to time. E. Vigoda, as quoted by Subando Agus Margono (in Kumorotomo: 2010) revealed that evolutionary process took place in the context interaction between public administration and the society. She describes the process of initial evolution, where the position citizens as subjects and public administration as rulers, move to as citizens voters and public administration as trustees, then shift more to as citizens clients/costumer and public administration as managers, and for the next citizens as partners and public administration as partners, finally, citizens place on as and public administration as subjects.
Jurgen Habermas, a social scientist second generation critical Frankfurt School, offered about democracy deliberative. Habermas criticized his predecessor who understand rationalisation (Marxian) only as approach reaffirms safety. In fact, Hegel's concept divided into two parts: approach reaffirms so work and communication.
The backgorund of his thoughts is pessimism of Western rationalism in capitalism society. In capitalism age, the ratio just means dominatif through the work just for economic and instinc.
Borrowing the term J. F. Lyotard also observed in a postmodern, which can be a way out of deadlocked modern man in capitalism age is emacipatory communication. Communication that is not master-servant, co-equal, but free from the domination to become the basic deliberatif democracy. Then he actualizes communication in humanity, in the concept of public sphere. Democracy deliberative is derivation the concept of public space in political theory.
In a simple, democracy deliberative is marked with a space to confide, of origin, or criticism of the entire elements of the people, no compromise, in order that all humanity can be absorbed by political system and economic or economic-politics. He dreamed that communicative power through the public networking communication civil society has been created. Policy no longer monopolised by the elitist, both state or even the owner of financial capital, "wild" discourses happens in the society can affect the construction of public services that are required for public.
Locus of Habermas thought is capitalism age Eastern Europe or America. But it does not mean the mindset does not apply to the context of Indonesia. Moreover, Indonesia has pancasila as the basic for democracy. Pancasila democracy to prioritize mutual agreement, and so have common point with democracy deliberative. Democracy deliberative give priority to use how to decision-making that emphasizes deliberation and excavations problems through dialog and exchange experience between public.

Open Public Sphere
Community or society involvement in participate is the core of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy is different with representative democracy, which today applied in Indonesia, which in fact it's just procedural democracy. Public services in the local had a big opportunity in opening the public sphere for discurssive public services. Public Service which is produced from multi-stakeholders, and the most important thing is emansipatory community involvement as the "owner".
The idea of emansipatory community involvement refers to process of communication and decision-making process (to achieve a consensus) in the process of formulation public services, in which the participants will be urged to make communication process in the open, and using approach conference in reach an agreement that values the majority and minority opinions. Practice of the process of drafting public policy or pub;lic service must advance principle of equal and openness in the process so that it is able to process conference that's fair.
Through the balance in the right and authority from the experts or professional, bureaucracy, the commission legislative, and community in the dialog forum, it will create communication is equal. For example, when there is a side which is not yet agreed to, say society or community, the public forum process could not be continued and a deal with a high standard of services public not to be able to be approved by government officials. Here, there is a balance power relations, which in turn will push orientation of the participants forum to propose togetherness, or things that larger from self-interest and groupinterest. Jurgen Habermas's thought about action communicative and consciousness consensus-oriented to become the basis analysis in this paper, in which Habermas considered that communication process should equal in order to achieve an agreement to be able to received all stakeholders, or in other words, Habermas see social integration can only be achieved through the process action communicative that achieve consensus. In this case, Habermas (1984) explains that action communicative should be explained as, "…reach understanding [verstandigung] is considered to be a process of reaching agreement [einigung] among speaking and acting subjects… it has to be accepted or presupposed as valid by participants… a communicatively achieved agreement has a rational basis; it cannot be imposed by either party, whether instrumentally through intervention in the situation directly or strategically through influencing the decision of opponents…" Through a mutual understanding between subject or partisan forum in a communicative can be accomplished. But when there is forcing and lies, and action communicative change just to action and strategic instrumental that will not lead to a consensus, but self-control and to fulfill the goals of self-interest. As explained earlier, implicitly public sphere function significantly, is as a room where public opinion that an authentic and critical of the political and economic power in order to achieve the balance and social equity, can be formed and spread to all citizens, as well as pressurer against forms manipulation public sphere. The manipulation public sphere is that must be monitored by the participants in the dialog forum.
The process of making citizen charter today, in which the society can only be placed in a position that can only give criticism or input, but not created equality. This condition is only process of communication that created-oriented instrumental or strategic, so the public service standards and then it was cretaed is not a product of consensus, but instrumental or strategic pro-self-interest or interests of a number of stakeholders. In other words it was called as manipulation public sphere. So, to ensure holding action communicative in forums formulation of making public service standards, so each participant, whether it's bureaucracy, experts and society must be guaranteed by regulation regarding rights and authority in the forum will equal.
In the context of local public sphere for discursive public service, the first thing that has to be done is revitalizing public sphere. In the current situation, the role of local government more dominant of providing public service. In fact the public also have the same potential as possible to provide public service. Other sectors should continue to precious things, not even be removed, local government because of limited public services to give to the public. Public needs is constantly growing, both quantity and quality, and will not be met by the local government fully. Thus, local government should consider an alternative that supports developing other sectors outside of the Government. Thus the local government should become a facilitator in opening local public sphere for the public to the freedom and autonomy the participants. Public sphere can be implemented a free press, a political party, freedom intelligent person, freedom, freedom to grasp that people freedom demonstrated, freedom in his defense, freedom defended the community, regional autonomy, independence, and justice system of law (Saefullah : 2000).
Local public sphere can be articulated in the form mutual consultation or construct media with all the elements stakeholders, both in the form material or immaterial. In the material thing that could have been attempted is by holding dialog together with all stakeloders like local government and community or society representatives to consults from procedures, service duration and service cost (if needed). Action communicative must continue to be continually encouraged to a consensus is achieved.
Decision in forum for dialog which will be done in local public sphere is then taken to government policy government policy of standard public services. So the process needs analysis of public services is no longer will be done only by the technocrats, but all the stakeholders involved directly.
The public service which is maked by mutual agreement is very different from the role technocrats model because analysts or experts only as a facilitator for the public find their own decisions theirself. This process can simplified as follows:

Source: Adaption from Nugroho (2012)
The role of government here more as a legislator of "public willing". While the role of the analysts or experts could be processor of the process of public dialog order to make public services that it was agreed by consensus. This model is wellknown in Indonesia as musyawarah mufakat. In the villages in the past every decision always maked by the public, a resident of the village, then consults, and achieved consensus. This agreement which is referred to as a discursive public service.
Then, the development of technology today will open more width of the gate deliberative democracy for discursive public service. In addition to modernize the structure and simplifies process service, the technology can make it easier access interaction between the government and the public to create the public service diskursif. For example through the social media line with the real time, or through informatics system that enough, the government can hear many opinion directly from the society. Consequence of the open local public sphere apparatus need to have more emphatic, because later public service is not only contract but a consensus (musyawarah mufakat).

Conclusion
Habermas offers agenda to revitalise public sphere with how to start the process on efforts formation of a consensus rational together and emphasis on public opinion which are critical. The idea local public sphere is expected to public opinion was later will influence the decision-making process of public service standards. The role of government in local public sphere as a legislator of "public willing". While the role technocrats, analysts or experts only as a facilitator for the public find their own decisions theirself. This model is well-known in Indonesia as musyawarah mufakat. The discursive public service that has been formulated together with all the stakeholders hopes will be the standard public services that more qualified and humanist and socially equitable.
As culturally-embeded social practice, public sphere in daily life becomes a local-to-day activities. Therefore the communities or society can directly control the quality of public services provided by the government. The presence various technology can be carrying capacity of local public sphere that was built, to modernize the structure and simplifies process service, and make it easier access interaction between the government and the public to create discursive public services.