Javanese Culture, Bureaucratic Formalism, and Child Participation
in Development Planning
Sri Yuliani and Rahesli Humsona
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: Javanese Culture, Bureaucratic Formalism, Children Participation.
Abstract: It is not easy to involve children in development planning in a Javanese culture region. This research aimed
to find out the effect of Javanese culture on children capacity to participate actively in development planning
and the capacity of bureaucratic apparatus to support the active participation of children in development
planning. The informants were selected purposively consisting of Surakarta Children Forum’s members,
local government institutions, and related NGOs. Data analysis employed an interactive analysis
encompassing: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The result of research reveals that
Javanese cultural values concerning the relation of children to adults and the meaning of power affected
children’s capacity of participating actively in development planning discussion. In Javanese culture, adults
have dominant position in public decision making so that children voice their aspirations reluctantly and not
confidently in development planning forum. The center of power in Javanese culture is superior; this view
contributes to the stronger bureaucratic formalism so that government apparatus conceives that children
participation in development is limited to fulfill bureaucratic rule only rather than based on the commitment
to fulfill the children’s right in order to accommodate their aspiration in development program.
1 INTRODUCTION
Children and youth are important resources to achieve
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda in
2030. The world population dominated by young
people become the key factor to economic growth,
life quality improvement, and social welfare and
justice. The number of world population up to 2017
was 7.6 billion, 42 percent of this total number is
children and youth. Nearly 40% of world youth
population lives in developing countries (1.8 billion
children and 1.1 billion youth). Approximately 87%
of children and youth living in the developing
countries faces limitation access to resources,
education, training, job opportunity, and business
opportunity (World Population Prospects, 2017;
Youth Participation in Development, 2017).
As a third part of the world population, youth’s
interests and voices should be accommodated in
development program. Regarding to that matter,
United Nations had established Convention on the
Right of the Child (2017) which is in Article 12 states
that the countries ratifying the convention should
obligatorily ensure the children’s right to express
their opinion freely about everything pertaining to or
affecting the children, corresponding to children’s
age and maturity. This policy becomes a foundation
to recognize child participation right in development
planning to design development program according
to children’s rather than adults’ need perspective.
The Convention on the Right of the Child is the
UN’s convention ratified by nearly all states in the
world (except USA and Niger). However, in reality
many countries have not fully implemented the
mandate of the convention (Harper and Jones, 2009;
Asker and Gero, 2012; The State of the World’s
Children, 2016). Children’s right to participate and to
be heard for their voice in development planning is
fulfilled only to comply with the regulation and
procedure or formality’s demand (Checkoway et al.,
1995; Day et al., 2011; Yuliani et al., 2017) or
Arnstein (1969) calls it tokenism in which children
has as if been given opportunity or medium of
channeling aspiration, but has not been given the
opportunity of formulating their own opinion. This
model is not really participative.
Yuliani, Haryanti and Humsona’s study on the
participation of Forum Anak (Child Forum) in
Development Planning Discussion in Surakarta since
2012 until 2017 identified that the participation of
Forum Anak in development planning can be said as
still on quasi participation level, according to Arstein
334
Yuliani, S. and Humsona, R.
Javanese Culture, Bureaucratic Formalism, and Child Participation in Development Planning.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 334-338
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

(in Hart, 1992), recalling that despite its
establishment in 2008, until today – 2017 – not all
Child Forum are involved and listened to actually for
their voice in all stages of Development Planning
Discussion.
Children participation is affected by many factors.
One of which is social-cultural background.
Therefore, in relation to children’s capacity of
making decision in development planning or policy,
Sinclair (in Brady, 2007) recommends the social
environment factor to be taken into account.
Alderson (2008) stated that children’s
understanding and competency are determined more
by experience, culture and family life than by their
age. Moreover, Hart (1992) states that the child's
freedom of expression and participation in
community issues may often be contrary to the child-
rearing attitudes of the child's parents or caretakers.
Child participation in development planning in
Surakarta is inseparable from the effect of Javanese
social-cultural values, particularly the relation
between adults and children and Javanese view on
power highly respecting the position of leader.
Anderson (2007) states that power in Javanese culture
is emphasized more on power concentration rather
than on the problem of how the power should be used.
Javanese cultural perception on the meaning of power
does not support democratic culture development and
Weber’s rational modern bureaucracy.
This article will analyze further the effect of
Javanese culture on children capacity of participating
actively in development planning and bureaucratic
(governmental apparatus) capacity to implement
children’s participation program in development
planning.
2 METHODS
This research was a descriptive qualitative research.
Informants were selected purposively consisting of
administrators and members of Forum Anak in 5 Sub
Districts and 1 Forum Anak at City level; Dinas
Pemberdayaan Masyarakat, Pemberdayaan
Perempuan, Perlindungan Anak dan Keluarga
Berencana (Community Empowerment, Women
Empowerment and Child Protection Agency);
Bappeda (Local Development Planning Agency of
Surakarta City); Forum Anak builders and
facilitators; and NGOs. This research also employed
secondary data source taken from documents,
archives, government regulations, newspapers,
magazines and etc, either printed or electronic. Data
collection was conducted using observation, in-depth
interview, and focus group discussion. Data analysis
was carried out using an interactive model of analysis
(Miles and Huberman, 1992) consisting of three
components: data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Child Participation in development
planning and Bureaucratic
Formalism
Child participation is the involvement of a child in
decision-making processes relating to their lives,
which is implemented based on the awareness,
understanding and maturity of the child's thinking
(Article 12 of the Convention on the Right of the
Child). Participation right relates to political affairs or
an individual’s or a community’s right as an actor in
governance. Hart (2002) mentions participation a
foundation and an indicator of measuring democracy.
Participation is the citizen’s basic right.
According to Stoecklin and Bonvin (2014)
participation is not only right but also process and
instrument of developing capability and facilitating
the fulfillment of human rights. Elstain (in Roche,
1999) states that children are not considered as the
part of politics so far. Children are positioned to be
the one instructed, requiring guidance and
overseeing, as they are still considered as incapable
of solving their own problem. Such perception is not
in line with participation concept and children’s right
assumed to have an ability of expressing their own
need and interest.
The adults’ view on children as adolescent who
have not been able to make public decision cause the
development policy and program “adult focus”
(Griffin in Roche, 1999; Matthew, Kirby, and Bryson
in Cavet and Sloper, 2004; Frank, 2006; Sinclair in
Brady, 2007; Alderson, 2008). Therefore, the form of
active participation of children, according to Shier (in
Thomas 2007) can only occur when adults are willing
to share power by means of delegating or transferring
some of their power to children.
Cultural value factor becomes a main inhibitor in
involving children in development planning
deliberation. Children participation concept and
children right in the Convention on the Right of the
Child tending to reflect on democratic Western
culture will likely in contradiction with traditional
culture highly appreciating leaders and elders and will
position children onto the position considered as
Javanese Culture, Bureaucratic Formalism, and Child Participation in Development Planning
335

incapable of making their own decision (Hart, 1992;
Frank, 2006; Day et al, 2011).
In traditional bureaucratic perspective, involving
children in public decision making is something
uncommon. However, as the law demands it,
government apparatus should implement it merely to
fulfill procedure, while its substantial function is
unnecessarily obeyed. It is called as bureaucratic
formalism.
Formalism is a characteristic of bureaucracy in a
developing countries, Eisenstadt (1973) calls it
Neopatrimonial a mixture of traditional Patrimonial
type of domination with modern rational bureaucracy
(Weber, 1978). Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith (2004)
defines Neopatrimonial as an administrative system
that seem to be modern and bureaucratic. Crounch
(1979) explains that modernization process in
Indonesia has not been able to remove the elements
of traditional cultural values completely. Instead,
traditional thinking and behavior even affect strongly
the bureaucratic and political institutions. Riggs
(1985) calls Neopatrimonial bureaucratic type as Sala
Bureaucracy. Sala Bureaucracy is the prismatic
community bureaucracy or the transition from
traditional to modern community as characterized
with heterogeneity, overlapping and formalism.
Heterogeneity is characterized with the silent
implementation of kinship and primordial bonds in
bureaucratic management. Overlapping is
characterized with the mixing of family affairs and
office affairs, and there is no firm border between
private and public affairs. Meanwhile, formalism is
incompatibility of what is written in formal rule to the
real practice.
3.2 Participation of Forum Anak
Surakarta in Development
Planning: Capacity and Obstacles
Forum Anak (child forum) is a communication forum
managed by children and guided by government used
to be a medium for children to participate in
development planning. The membership of Forum
Anak Surakarta consists of 12-18 year adolescent
living and having activities in Surakarta. Currently,
Forum Anak has been established in the whole 51
villages and 5 sub-district in Surakarta. However, in
reality, not all child forums have enough capacity to
participate actively in Development Planning
Discussion (Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan
or Musrenbang). There are some obstacles disabling
the capacity of Forum Anak to function optimally.
Internal obstacles coming from children are: firstly,
the children’s inadequate awareness and limited
ability of articulating their aspiration and interest in
Musrenbang forum; secondly, children’s reluctance,
less self-confidence, fear of speaking before adults.
Children also feel that the voice of a child is less
considered by adults (Yuliani et al., 2016; 2017).
External obstacles coming from Surakarta City
Government’s support are: firstly, city government’s
bureaucracy still views the establishment of Forum
Anak as the prerequisite or formalization to fulfill the
rule’s demand only, rather than to fulfill the
substantial function of Children Forum. Secondly,
DPRD (Local Legislative Assembly) has not
considered the importance of children participation in
development planning. Its attention focuses on
physical or infrastructure development. Thirdly, the
builders of Forum Anak have not functioned
optimally yet because most builders are recruited
from city government servants, most of which have
been old, preoccupied with main duty in bureaucracy,
and understand poorly the children’s realm and rights.
The quality of Forum Anak builder affects Forum
Anak readiness to participate actively in Musrenbang.
3.3 The Effects of Javanese Culture
and Bureaucratic Formalism on
Child Participation
Many obstacles in optimizing role and capacity of
Forum Anak indicate the discrepancies of role and
interest between children and adults (bureaucratic
apparatus and DPRD) in interpreting the importance
of children participation in development. In
bureaucratic perspective, children participation in
development planning has not been considered as
urgent. The builders of Forum Anak consider that
facilitating Forum Anak is their additional duty, as
their main duty is in bureaucracy. Meanwhile, DPRD
views that the priority of public interest is given more
to the physical infrastructure development rather than
on the fulfillment of children rights to participate in
and to enjoy the result of development.
Internal and external obstacles inhibiting children
participation in Musrenbang is inseparable from the
strong effect of Javanese culture highly respecting
parents, adults and leaders. Javanese cultural value
considers the male adults’ position high as patron.
Family head and male adult figure should be
respected. In Serat Wulangreh by Paku Buwono IV
(Harsono, 2005), there are five individuals to be
respected obligatorily: (a) parents or fathers and
mothers, (b) parents in law, (c) eldest brother, (d)
teacher, (e) king. Children are obligatorily subjected
to any decision or rule the parents make.
(Endraswara, 2003).
In Javanese culture, women and children should
obligatorily be submitted to decision and rule made
by adults. It is also true for the position of children in
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
336

development planning discussion. Children do not
understand the children’s right in development
planning, as democratic value in the relation between
children and parents is not internalized since earlier
in both family and society scopes.
Internal obstacle arises when children are not
commonly involved in public decision making forum,
so that they do not know what they should say in
Development Planning Discussion. In Javanese
culture, children are not conceived as an independent
individual entitled to voice their opinion, aspiration,
and interest in public decision. In public forum,
children’s interest is represented by adults. Such
norm makes children having no bravery to express
their wish and even to criticize their parents’ or the
adults’ decision because it is considered as not proper
or modest.
External obstacle includes the poor support from
city government apparatus to encourage children
participation in development inseparable from
Javanese culture. Democratic culture is not in line
with an aristocratic and paternalistic culture of
neopatrimonial bureaucracy. Children participation
in development planning is the form of power
distribution in public decision making, a very
democratic concept. An aristocratic power does not
know a medium of listening to opinion and critique
from servant and children. The tendency of
bureaucratic apparatus to support Forum Anak’s
participation in Musrenbang merely to meet the
regulation’s demand is one of characteristics of Sala
Bureaucracy namely formalism (Riggs, 1985).
4 CONCLUSIONS
This research concludes that the presence of
Convention on the Right of the Child encouraging the
recognition of children right and participation in
development planning has not ensured that the
children rights can be fulfilled in many countries that
have ratified the convention. Convention on Children
Right’s assumption about children’s world and
freedom of expression is a part of western democratic
culture, thereby in its implementation in contradiction
with the Javanese values tending to be authoritarian
and superior-oriented. To realize the children’s right
to participate in development planning, the measures
to be taken are to reinforce the children’s capacity in
order to show the adults their positive contribution
when they are involved in development planning and
to make the stakeholders (particularly government
apparatus as the power holder) aware of the
importance of public administration based on
democratic values and appreciation to human rights.
REFERENCES
Alderson, P., 2008. Young children's rights : exploring
beliefs, principles and practice, Jessica Kingsley
Publisher. London.
Anderson, B. R. O’G., 2007. The Idea of Power in Javanese
Culture, in Claire Holt (ed.). Culture and Politics in
Indonesia, Equinox Publishing (Asia) Pte Ltd.
Singapore
Arnstein, S., 1969. Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen
participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35, 216-224.
Asker, S., Gero, A., 2012. The Role of Child and Youth
Participation in Development Effectiveness. A
literature review. The Institute for Sustainable Futures
at University of Technology, Sydney, and ChildFund
Australia.
Brady, B., 2007. Developing Children’s Participation :
Lessons from a Participatory IT Project. Children &
Society. Volume 21 pp.31-41.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., Goldsmith, A. A., 2004. Good
Governance, Clientelism, and Patrimonialis: New
Perspective on Old Problems. International Public
Management Journal. 2004; 7, 2; ABI/INFORM
Global pg. 163.
Cavet, J., Sloper, P., 2004. The participation of children
and young people in decisions about UK service
development, Social Policy Research Unit, University
of York, Heslington, York, UK
Checkoway, B., Pothukuchi, K., Finn, J., 1995. Youth
participation in community planning: What are the
benefits? Journal of Planning Education & Research.
14, 134-139. Sage Publications.
Convention on the Rights of Children, 2017. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Professi
onalInterest/crc.pdf .
Crounch, H., 1979. Patrimonialism and Military Rule in
Indonesia. World Politics. Volume 31 / Issue 04 , pp
571 – 587.
Day, L., Sutton, L., Jenkins, S., 2011. Children and young
people's participation in planning and regeneration: a
final report to the Ecorys Research Programme 2010-
11. UK: Ecorys. Retrieved from:
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace.../children_planning
_regeneration%5B1%5D.pdf
Eisenstadt, S. N., 1973. Traditional Patrimonialism and
Modern Neopatrimonialism, Sage Publications.
Beverly Hills.
Endraswara, S., 2006. Falsafah Hidup Jawa, Cakrawala.
Yogyakarta.
Harper, C., Jones, N., 2009. Raising the game:
mainstreaming children’s rights, ODI Briefing Paper
56. London, ODI.
Harsono, A., 2005. Tafsir Ajaran Serat Wulang Reh, Pura
Pustaka. Yogyakarta.
Hart, R. A., 1992. Children’s Participation: From
Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF International Child
Development Centre.
Javanese Culture, Bureaucratic Formalism, and Child Participation in Development Planning
337

Hart, R. A., 2002. Containing Children: Some Lessons of
Planning for Play from New York City. Environment
and Urbanization, 14(2), pp.135-148.
Frank, K. I., 2006. The Potential of Youth Participation in
Planning. Journal of Planning Literature. Volume: 20
issue: 4, page(s): 351-371. Sage Publishing.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., 1992. Analisis Data Kualitatif.
UI Press. Jakarta.
Riggs, F. W., 1985. Administrasi Negara-negara
Berkembang. Teori Masyarakat Prismatis, CV.
Rajawali. Jakarta.
Roche, J., 1999. Child : Right, Partisipation, Citizenship.
Childhood. Vol.6 (4): 475 -493. Sage Publications.
Stoecklin, D., Bonvin, J. M., 2014. Children’s Rights and
the Capability Approach : Challenges and Prospects,
Springer Science+Business Media. Dordrecht
Thomas, N., 2007. Towards a Theory of Children’s
Participation. International Journal of Children’s
Rights 15(2):199-218 · June 2007.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society, G. Roth & C.
Wittich. University of California Press Ltd. London.
World Population Prospects The Revision, 2017. Key
Findings and Advance Tables, Bedminster Press. New
York.
The State of the World’s Children, 2016. United Nations,
New York.
Youth Participation in Development, 2017. A Guide for
Development Agencies and Policy Makers. Published
by the DFID–CSO Youth Working Group. Retrieved
from http://www.restlessassets.org/ wl/ ?id= uma
ETRcmVyn2VEpSrxu7JWWkHom5Ryli.
Yuliani, S., Humsona, R., Haryanti, R. H., 2016. Cultural
Barriers in Involving Children in Development
Planning The Case of Surakarta Children Forum.
Proceedings of International Conference on
Integration for Regional Public Management (ICPM
2016). July 2016 473-475. Atlantis Press.
Yuliani, S., Humsona, R., Haryanti, R. H., 2017. The
participation of surakarta children forum in annual
community consultations on development planning as
democratic education media, in Regionalization and
Harmonization in TVET : Proceedings of the 4th UPI
International Conference on Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (TVET 2016). November 15-
16 2016. Bandung, Indonesia. CRC Press. Taylor &
Francis Group. Routledge.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
338