NOKEN ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN PAPUAN TRADITION1

SISTEM PEMILU NOKEN DI PAPUA: DEMOKRASI DELIBERATIF DALAM TRADISI ORANG ASLI PAPUA

Cahyo Pamungkas Pusat Penelitian Sumber Daya Regional – LIPI [email protected]

Abstract Studies of the noken system from the legal approach have been thoroughly investigated, particularly in the 2009 and 2014 elections and the 2014 presidential election in Papua. Several studies of state’s law explain that the noken system is legitimate according to Indonesian laws due to cultural characteristics of Papuan following Melanesian traditions. Different from those studies, this paper examines the noken system according to Habermas’ theoretical framework of deliberative democracy. This study argues that the noken system is strongly powerful as various cultural communities of native Papuans discuss it. The discussions are discursive practices and contestations to determine political decisions, such as certain political figure or political party to be voted in the election. The essence of the noken system is, therefore, a community's participation via consultations and discussions in deciding political choices collectively. Using literature review, the author discusses the implementation of the noken system in Papua province related to the concept of deliberative democracy. Findings indicate that the implementation of noken system reflects the practices of deliberative democracy, proposed by Habermas, at the village community level. In some cases, however, Papuan elites, who unilaterally decide all votes without any discussions and consent of their community, manipulate the noken system. Theoretically, the noken system shows that democracy is not only legislative procedures, but also an art of maintaining collectivism and social integration. Keywords: noken system, deliberative democracy, Melanesian tradition, cultural democracy Abstrak Studi-studi mengenai legalitas penggunaan sistem noken dalam Pemilu 2009 dan 2014 dan pemilihan presiden 2014 di Papua telah banyak dilakukan. Beberapa studi menyatakan bahwa sistem noken tersebut sah dalam sistem hukum karena menyesuaikan dengan karakteristik budaya orang Papua yang mengikuti tradisi Melanesia. Berbeda dengan studi tersebut, tulisan ini melihat sistem noken dalam perspektif demokrasi deliberatif Habermas. Studi ini berargumen bahwa sistem noken masih sangat kuat karena banyak didiskusikan oleh berbagai komunitas budaya orang asli Papua. Musyawarah dalam sistem noken merupakan praktik diskursif dan kontestasi untuk menentukan keputusan politik, seperti kandidat atau partai politik dalam Pemilu. Inti sistem noken adalah partisipasi masyarakat melalui konsultasi dan diskusi dalam menentukan pilihan politik secara kolektif. Dengan tinjauan pustaka, artikel ini membahas pelaksanaan sistem noken di Provinsi Papua terkait konsep demokrasi deliberatif. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan sistem noken menggambarkan praktik demokrasi deliberatif di tingkat masyarakat desa. Namun, dalam beberapa kasus, sistem noken dimanipulasi oleh elit Papua, yang secara sepihak memutuskan semua suara tanpa adanya diskusi dan persetujuan dari komunitas. Secara teoritis, sistem noken menunjukkan bahwa demokrasi bukan hanya prosedur legislatif, tapi juga seni dalam menjaga kolektivisme dan integrasi sosial. Kata kunci: sistem noken, demokrasi deliberatif, tradisi Melanesia, budaya demokrasi

1The earlier version of this paper has been presented in the international conference conducted by Consortium of Indonesia Political Research (CIPR) on August 25-27, 2015.

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 219 Introduction act as the bridge between traditional and modern political system. A general election using the noken or popularly known as the noken system, is the Studies on the noken system have been opportunities of a tribal chief or a prominent conducted for some time from a formal legal tribe figure to be granted with authorities to perspective. Those studies examine whether the represent his or her whole community. Within utilization of the noken system is acceptable the noken system, the vote is decided through a based on the Indonesian Constitution and other convention determining certain political parties laws on general election (Arizona, 2010; Hadi, or candidates. Such electoral system can be 2013; Maladi, 2010; Sastika&Widodo, 2015). observed in particular district (kecamatan) and Most of those studies argue that such a particular regencies (kabupaten) in the area of Pegunungan electoral system is legal before the law. The Tengah Papua, which is utilized in the elections sections 1 article 18 b of the 1945 Indonesian of provincial governor and heads Constitution says: “the state recognizes and (bupati) and of congressional members of each respects regional governmental units, which are level of Representatives’ houses. The noken exclusive in nature and they are under particular system has created a prolonged debate since the regulations.” In addition, section 2 indicates, political reform in 1999 due to legal reasons. "the state knows and respects customary law This system contradicts the Indonesian election community groups along with their traditional law allowing only one man for one vote. rights as long as they live by the social However, for many Papuans, election is not only development and principles of the Indonesian a political process, but also a cultural Republic Unitary State as ruled by statute." phenomenon leading to a social process (Sodiki, Since the noken system is used in Papuan 2009: 1-2). Therefore, the practices of election Province with a special autonomy status, it is should be adapted to their cultural traditions. regarded legitimate. The Indonesian Constitutional Azim and Siregar (2014: 94) said that some adat Court has even stipulated the legitimacy of the customory law forbids individual political noken system as a recognition over the local decisions, so they need to make communal wisdom lived by customary communities in decisions through open public consultations. The Pegunungan Tengah. The stipulation is adoption of the modern law in many countries explicated within the Court's verdict No. 47- turns out frequently to be incompatible with the 48/PHPU A-VI/2009 on the mechanism of the cultural conditions of customary communities. noken system use in Papua, on June 9, 2009, For example, the application of American law over the case of the Yahukimo regency electoral onto the communities of Micronesian Islands in dispute in 2009. Pacific has caused much suffering to local Different from those legal studies, this people for there is an unbridgeable gap between study focuses on the meaning of the noken their customary law and the modern law. The system within the cultural traditions of Papuan law, which has been appropriate to the culture of natives. Some people say that the system came Americans, turns out to be not suitable to the from outside of Papua, and Papuan natives of Micronesian culture (Maladi, 2010: 451). mountainous areas have to adapt themselves to Approaching the simultaneously local an electoral system. Nevertheless, some other head election in 2017 and 2018, including Papua indicates that the substance of the noken system Province, the debate on noken system rises is characteristic of Melanesian tribal traditions again. Vulnerability index of local election emphasizing collective action of the community demonstrates that some elections of local heads in politics. In fact, some elites manipulate the in Aceh and Papua are vulnerable of political system that result into undermining the violence. In this issue, noken system is claimed Melanesian cultural values and the legitimacy of by some legal expert as one of several causes of such an electoral system as a democratic political violence during the elections in Papua.2 procedure.3 To comprehend the meaning of the Therefore, this paper aims to describe to what extent the noken system can bring the peace and 3Melanesian here refers to all the native tribal or ethnic groups in Papua land. Besides the 2http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/02/1 physical characteristics such as curly hair and 1/0836299/Noken.dan.Ikat.Praktik.Adat.dan.Kerawa relatively black skin, the main identity of Melanesian nan.Pemilu. can be observed from their collective ownership of

220 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 noken electoral system, this paper uses the regimes, military dictatorship. Furthermore, deliberative democracy theory elaborated by such governmental system have several Habermas for assessing to what extent general limitations, including no electoral system for a election manifests reasonable discourse, public power succession, the absence of electoral opinion formation and the spread of political justice, the extreme restriction over political participation. parties, and no freedom of the press. Referring to Schumpeter, Huntington gives a categorization of Theoretical Framework democracy according to their procedural system, i.e. a definition of freedom considering the The word “democracy” comes general election feature. Such definition is etymologically from the Greek a particular. It is oversimplified, for democracy should contain a compound word, composed of demos meaning larger and idealistic connotations. “people” and Kratos"power." In a literal way, democracy refers to a governmental system in Huntington (1995: 5) accentuates more which the people are the holders of the supreme on modern methods that are institutional sovereignty. President Lincoln defines democracy procedures for gaining political decisions that as a government regime, which is from the individuals influence the decision-making people, by the people and for the people through a competitive struggle in winning (Lincoln, 2009). The people’s sovereignty and people's votes. Both Huntington and Dahl base the accountability of the government before its their definition of democracy on its procedural inhabitants are two fundamental characteristics system, i.e. general election which is fair, and of democracy (Zevedai, 1956: 12). In its they set general election as the primary indicator development, democracy is given with various to decide if a state is democratic or not. If the meanings and definitions, but the "supreme general election is the essence of democracy, it power held by the people" is the primary is then that the departure point of the democratic indicator to be assured that a political system is process is the replacement of the non-democratic a democracy. political regime with a government voted democratically. Procedural democracy is Robert Dahl (1992: 161) describes a frequently defined as a political process democratic political system as one in which all characterized by the translation of individual members regard themselves and others as being judgment into sound decisions. It is confronted at the same position and status in politics for against substantive democracy that includes every one of them is equally sovereign, holds substantial justice principles (Dowding et al., equal power and is an institution necessary to 2004: 19). govern themselves. According to him, the democratic indicators of a state are: (a) the The experiences of British democracy government is run according to established laws indicate that in reality, it is not the general such as legislations and constitutions; (b) the election giving people the opportunity to governmental process is under a real control of manifest their power; but it is the political the society, the presence of a general election parties connecting themselves to the people’s which is free, periodic and enabling each citizen desire (Iver, 1984: 179). Dahl (1992: 33) insists to vote and be voted; (c) the existence of that general election is both the political majority principle; and (d) the warrant over the institution and practice that make possible the democratic civil society rights in political, formation of a representative government that economic, social and cultural realms. becomes the ideal and maximal manifestation of a democratic government in the modern era. Democracy is always compared in its General election functions as a means for gaining discourse with the non-democratic system. political legitimacy, political representation, Huntington (1995: 5) mentions non-democratic running the power elite circulation, and governmental systems such as absolute monarchy, providing political education for people (Haris, bureaucratic kingdom, oligarchy, aristocracy, 1998: 7-10). In theory, political parties regimes with the limited general election, participating in general election function to personal despotism, communist and fascist make sure that there are representation, conversion and aggression, integration, leadership land and the use of communitarian way in decision- appointment, consideration and formulation of making.

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 221 policies, and control over the government system. Habermas (1992: 54) offers a democratic (Macridis, 1988: 27). model enabling people to participate in the making of legislations and political policies. The people's sovereignty as the essence Such democracy assures that the civil society is of democracy can come true if the deliberative involved fully in the law making through democracy becomes the basis of social discourses. However, this democracy is not as interactions. Deliberative democracy theory the moral republic of Rousseau, where people analyses the ways political decisions are made are directly legislators. The most determinant in and how those decisions are effectuated so that deliberative democracy is the law formation citizens obey them voluntarily. One among the procedure, in which the law information is core concepts of deliberative democracy is the influenced by dynamic discourses within the reasonable discourse, i.e. forms of the society. In the perspective of such democracy, communicative act with validity claim as the the state is no longer the only party making the problem base. It means that some reasonably law and political policies in a public sphere. accurate and factual evidence should support an Mass media and civil society organizations also argument discussed. In a rational discourse, an have roles in making the laws and public argument should be based on logic, ethics, or policies. The public arena becomes thus an area other justified basis (Hardiman, 2009). for negotiations for preparing and directing Habermas distinguishes powers into legislations discursively. official and communicative ones. The The use of people sovereignty in administrative authority vested in political deliberative democracy is an effort in making institutions is not a subject that controls the people freedom a communication process. society, but merely a differentiation of social Along with the state's and the capital's powers, is acts. Communicative power shows the formed a communicative power through sovereignty of a social unit; such sovereignty networks of civil society public communication would develop through speaking and working (Suseno, 2004: 3). Media, press, non- one to another. Communicative power is formed governmental organizations, mass organizations by an unreformed public sphere and springs and other institutions hold communicative from a thoroughly intersubjective structure of an power of civil society. Those institutions undistorted communication (Hardiman, 2009). participate in the public sphere through the Political power, in Habermas’ perspective, is discourses production, where the state and its fundamentally discursive for it is an aspect of power apparatus are forced to be responsive to human acts. Such a power is not concentrated in civil society discussions expressed in the public political institutions or a group of persons, but is domain. The question is: when is it that the situated within antihuman acts and diverges onto people hold their sovereignty? In the perspective all over the society. of deliberative democracy, freedom is extant not A democracy can be named deliberative because people gather along with their bodies at if the reasoning process of a public policy is a certain place, as Rousseau thinks, but it is due examined first through a public consultation or to the presence of public communication. In in Habermas’ word through a public discourse such context, a representative democracy is still (Hardiman, 2004). In deliberative democracy, needed, but it is viewed through a different individuals are active as citizens to communicate point, i.e. in order to assure that the role of in such a way that has its effects on the public communication becomes more and more decision-making inside a political system significant. (Hardiman, 2005). The political regime uses Habermas develops a democratic model different language from the civil society; sensible to contexts, the one that takes into therefore, the communication standards in the account changes that occur within the society. In political system need to be fully understood in the words of Hardiman (2009), democracy order to comprehend the citizens' aspirations. cannot be implemented into complex societies. Formation of opinion and use of people Democratization has to grow within the society sovereignty are two fundamental notions of and has its internal forces as its propulsion. The deliberative democracy. Habermas (1992: 54) deliberative democratic model has the following assumes that a legalist state cannot be characteristics: (a) the importance of argumentation, maintained without a radical democratic political (b) participant inclusiveness, (c) freedom from

222 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 being forced, and (d) consensus. The procedure Dani tribesmen call noken with "su". Biak tribe of such model includes the unorganized and members call it "inokson". Marind tribe in informal formation of opinion within the civil call it "mahyan". No matter society. the name, it is always made from the tree barks and has a sacred and important meaning in the Deliberative democracy can be understood cultural structures of those Papuan tribes according to communitarian perspectives (Muzaqqi (Arizona, 2010). 2015: 133-135). Democracy generally can be observed in two different level, cultural and The Papuan native originally makes procedural. On the cultural level, democracy is a Noken (Tebay, 2014). Among the Papuan part of everyday life culture or fatsoen reflected natives, noken is perceived as the symbol of in tolerant, open, egalitarian, mutual trust, good life, peace, and fertility. This underlies the responsible, etc. On the level of political prominent status od wood bark nooken within procedure, democracy is a mechanism of the native Papuan cultural structures. In his or decision making, the way to select leaders, and her tradition, not everyone is allowed to plait the the articulation of public interest. In the liberal tree bark into noken. It is only indigenous democracy, contestation, liberalization and Papuan women, who are legitimate in making participation based on individualism and noken, and those women have to be not yet individual freedom. However, in communitarian grown up and not yet appropriate to marry. democracy are based on communalism. In Papuan men are forbidden to do the making for deliberative democracy, the mechanism of noken is deemed as the source of a woman’s voting to select a leader or a public decision is womb fertility (Arizona, 2010). not via voting or representative consultation, but Noken has both economic and cultural via direct participations involving the whole functions. Papuans use those noken, bags of tree members of community such as consultations, bark, for carrying food and their horticultural dialogues, or discussions. crops as well as holding their baby (Suryawan, This paper is based on the qualitative 2014; Bintang Papua, 22 March 2014). Noken approach by exploring the case of noken election has a noble meaning and is inextricable from system in Papua. Data were gathered from Papuan natives both male and female. literature studies and interviews in . Furthermore, noken has culturally become an Firstly, the issue of noken election in Papua was identity symbol indicating the tribe or clan of the investigated through mass media. Then, some one who carries it. While Papua consists of articles on deliberative democracy were reviewed. seven cultural areas, i.e. Mamta, Saireri, After that, cultural dimensions of noken and Doberai, Bomberai, Mee Pago, La Pago and Ha- historical aspects of the noken election system anim, each of those seven areas has its were identified. Some interviews on social respective individual noken. Economically, practices of noken election system were noken can be exchange by its owner into other conducted during a visit to Jayapura in 2015. goods such as foods and clothes (Walilo, 2016). Finally, all findings were analyzed by using Noken was used in various customary deliberative democracy as a theoretical rituals, such as pre-wedding ceremony of Dani framework. people in Wamena. Before wedding, the parents

of woman will bring their daughter to the house Findings of man. During the event, the woman should use  History of the noken electoral system noken and shell for a decoration.4 The noken symbolizes of maturity, purity, and adultery of Noken is a kind of plait bag, the women so it means the woman is ready to traditionally made by Papuans from tree bark. It marry. In fact, the use of noken for resolving is used by Papuan natives in their daily life, both political problems has been a new phenomenon by those living in the mountainous and those since the integration of Papua into Indonesia in dwelling in the littoral areas. Since 2012, the 1969. The cultural tradition of most Papuan UNESCO has recognized noken as a cultural natives in decision-making suggests a convention heritage protected and recorded within the representative list of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity (Gloria & Harto, 2014). 4https://zipoer7.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/ Papuan tribes name noken in their languages. pernikahan-adat-suku-dani-di-papua/

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 223 involving the whole community chaired by a election, the 2013 gubernatorial election, and in tribe chief. The decision process is carried out in the 2014 presidential election. The system is in a collective way in the cases of tribal wars, accordance with the Constitutional Court ruling holding a usual ritual, etc. Wenda et al. (2014: no. 47-81/PHPU.A/VII/2009 and conforms to 174) expound that in Papuan society social the culture of those Papuan traditional societies, system, decision-making is conducted through who inhabit the customary areas of Mee Pago the noken system and sistem ikat lidi (coconut and La Pago. The customary area of Mee Pago leaves stick band system).5 Within these two covers the regencies of Nabire, Dogiyai, Deiyai, systems, the community is called to gather and Paniai, Intan Jaya and Mimika. La Pago convene under the leadership of a tribal chief. common areas include regency of Puncak Jaya, Nevertheless, in such a convention, the principal Puncak, Nduga, Jayawijaya, Lanny Jaya, holds the supreme authority and is the decision Mamberamo Tengah, Tolikara, Yalimo, Pegunungan maker for he is an authoritative man within the Bintang and Yahukimo (Sastika and Widodo, customary structure of Papuans (Bintang Papua, 2015). The practice of the noken system can be 6 March 2014). found in those 16 regencies due to geographical factor, population dispersion of mountainous When a referendum or a general election areas inhibiting people descending the hills to was introduced to Papuan current society, they vote, and information access limitation. had not understood the one-man one-vote system. In the 1969, the referendum for deciding whether Papuans wanted either to integrate into  Noken Electoral System in Practices Indonesia or to have their own independent state Father Neles Tebay (2014) describe the for example was held through a representative use of the noken system in a general election can system. The 1025 native Papuans representing be described as follows. The first step is the the whole Papuans convened to make their general election socialization including the decision. In 1971, the Indonesian government introduction of candidates for regional chiefs introduced a general election into Papua for and presidential elections, and or socialization choosing members of the national and regional about political parties and candidates for houses houses of representatives. At that time, the of representatives. The day the candidates have voting mechanism in Pegunungan Tengah was been established, Papuans who live in made through a discussion among prominent mountainous areas begin to involve in both figures of their customary society. The decision formal and informal discussions on their votes, resulted from a convention chaired by a tribal in spontaneous or planned manner. Formal chief reflects the political aspiration of discussions are held in honai or customary community and is recognized as legitimate by houses, courtyards of religious facilities, or the government (Wenda et al., 2014). Taking community halls. Discussions in honai sare into account the authority of tribal chiefs, the chaired by the tribal chiefs; meanwhile, those in general election in Pegunungan Tengah used the other places are guided by leading figures such noken system, where the community members as religious leaders, teachers, and civil servants. decide to give their votes to a party or a In each discussion, the whole community candidate and put into a noken. However, Lani members share information on the backgrounds tribe, especially those who dwell in Mee Pago, of candidates, covering their jobs, place of Yalimo, and Pegunungan Bintang common origin, personal characteristics, values that they areas, has a different tradition: their tribal chief's struggle. If the candidates come from their own authority is validated only in things that have home area, the question is what the candidates something to do with ritual ceremonies (Wenda have contributed to their community or area. et al., 2014). The second step is the choice making Since the 1998 post reform era, the based on such discussions. After gathering noken system has been used in the 2009 general information, society begins to have a clear picture about the candidates to be voted. Each voter commences to decide personally, which 5In sistem ikat lidi every community member take one stick and put it in a bamboo that belongs to certain candidate. Then electoral committee will account the number of stick in every bamboo.

224 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017

Mee Pago & La Pago

Map of Papua land6 candidate he or she likes to vote. The nominees' will gather, debate, and then agree on a political names are delivered to the others as well in decision. Because the tribe has debated, so there order to examine their appropriateness and to get is no longer secret in the community about their feedbacks. This way, all candidates mentioned collective decision. by voters undergo a fit and proper test done by The following exposition describes the whole community considering their social examples of the noken system use in criteria. The result of the convention is the name Pegunungan Tengah of Papua, reported within of the candidate whom they choose and the vote mass media and anterior studies. In a session of numbers they give for the candidate (Raharusun, lawsuit trial in the Constitutional Court on the 2014). dispute of governor election on March 6th, The description6 of Father Neles Tebay 2013, a witness of the Karubaga district of is supported by Santoso (2014: 4-5) who Tolikara told the court that a mutual decision mentions an example of the noken system taken on the evening of January 28th, 2013. The practice. A tribe consulted among themselves community had held a convention chaired by the which party or candidate they will vote before tribal chief and had their conclusion that they the Election Day. In a modern general election, voted for Lucas Enembe was originally from this activity is against the election procedure and Pegunungan Tengah. Their decision manifested principle due to elections always base on in the voting day on 29 January 2013; the individual decision. Nevertheless, such electoral committee gave them ballots, their important decisions, including a general election chief represented their voting. That day, the that influences tribal life, the tribe should chair of the Political Commission of the collectively decide. For example, the election of Regional House of Representatives of Tolikara provincial governor or head of regency has a came and begged them to give their votes to serious impact on their future life. Habel Sue, but the community refused to fulfil Consequently, the whole members of the tribe their demand (Bintang Papua, 6 March 2014). A witness from Itadipa district of Intan 6http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8spnG_OvmvM/ Jaya gave a different testimony. He told that in WVsZJDODMPI/AAAAAAAAAtE/8DYPix7pFUg the evening of 28 January 2013, all customary WMO3op4VqubQDntVU8wbyACK4BGAYYCw/s1 leaders convened to have a discussion 600/Papua-600x330.jpg

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 225 determining the candidates to whom they would following reasons. First, all candidates couples give their votes. In the morning, those leaders were deemed unsupportive to their interests, and informed the community before the witnesses none of them had ever made any development belongs to candidates’ number 3, Lucas program in Pegunungan Tengah. Second, the ten Enembe, and number 4, Wellington Wenda. couples of candidates were from their home They said that the convention had decided to communities in mountainous areas, and they all give the votes of the district community to were their relatives, so that it was hard to decide Lukas Enembe because they had also given their to whom they would give more or less votes. votes to Enembe in the previous governor Other bigman accepted such a proposal, and election in 2005, and thus the votes were given other leaders agreed to have the same decision. to Enembe. However, other customary leaders Panggabean (2014) indicates that related to the considered to another candidate, Welington use of the noken system; tribal chiefs expounded Wenda, due to he was originally from Intan that customary communities did not know the Jaya. In the consultation, the whole members regency head candidates directly. Besides, the agreed that they would distribute votes equal way of choosing within the election was not between Lucas Enembe and Wellington Wenda familiar with them, and some of them had no (Bintang Papua, 6 March 2014). knowledge whatsoever about it. The customary communities handed over consequently their The use of noken system depends on the votes to the decision of their tribal chiefs, which strong leader in a community, the so-called a big candidates they would give their votes in a man. In Panggabean's (2014) report, in a local regional head election. Papuan natives, who live language, their word for big man is in Pegunungan Tengah, were assured that their "menagawan" (reliable person). The menagawan leaders, i.e. their tribal chiefs, would never put status is not inherited through bloodlines but their communities into difficulties, so that their achieved by a person based on his conducts and choice was the one of their community. acts for winning a competition for such a status. Someone would achieve menagawan status A further investigation makes clear that when he has safe manners and actions, and has a political decision made via noken system is contributed much in serving his community. individual policy decisions that bound together People would recognize a bigman for his to the larger community decision resulting in a grandeur and would obey him. Besides, he has collective decision of the community. Noken is not only been victorious in wars but also for his merely a symbol of such a consensus. A tribal works for improving his communities’ welfare. community who live in a village or district can In some cases, a big man is an intervillage’s have a consensus to collect all their ballots into a leader, excellent in making arguments and noken and hand them over to individual negotiating and building unities among villages. candidates or dividing them to their trusted Most bigman hold a political position or are candidates. village chiefs, and they represent the tribal Tebay (2014) analysis indicates that in community when negotiating with district or noken system, people's consensus over their regency governments (Panggabean 2014). political choice decided before the voting day. Panggabean (2014) writes his experience Different from the modern election system, over the noken system practice in the regency noken voters do not keep their consensus head election of Timika in 2013. In many cases, secretly over the candidates to whom they give before the election, the so-called big man, which their votes. They tell the consensus to the others. generally a tribal chief, from a village gave The consequence is that people will surely know visits to other villages. In those visits they which candidates or parties given votes by a shared information on the candidates' community before the electoral day. The backgrounds, and discussed whom they were electoral day is simply the time where they going to vote, would they give their whole articulate their common consensus. Elections in communities' votes to the best candidates they Pegunungan Tengah run transparently based on consider as having an active willing in their public agreement that includes all personal struggling for their interests, or would they decisions of voters. People do not hence mind divide equally their votes to all candidates where the voting places would be. The piercing couples. The big man expressed his proposal to of ballots can be done at the polling sites, but the share their votes equally to all couples for the

226 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 results have to follow the consensus made by the Ketua Panitia Pemungutan Suara) asked the community. voters to rise and line up before the nokens according to their choices. They are doing so, Voters do not have to come to the the Chairman counted their number and then polling sites, for ballots piercing can be distributing the blank ballots into the nokens executed by anyone who represents them. Some according to the voter's number counting. If all numbers of customary communities do not ask the voters lined up before only one candidate their tribal chief to do the perforating because couple, it means that the whole community they honor the tribal chiefs as highly respected voted only to one couple of candidate. Then, he cultural leaders. Therefore, the chiefs do need to made the voting report and sent it to the district handle of technical things. Those who are electoral committee. After that, the district assigned to pierce the ballots according to the electoral committee account the whole votes, the communities' consensus are those trusted by a sent it to the regency electoral committee. person from the customary community or a member of confidence of the electoral The bound noken system was used in committee. If the election result is conforming elections in 51 districts in Yahukimo. Before the to their agreement, the community will not be Election Day, voters from the neighbourhood furious and protest it. A consensus of people, led by their tribal community chiefs and village symbolized by the noken, reflects political officials gathered to decide to which candidates participation and emancipation (Tebay, 2014). the votes of their community would be given, entirely or distributed according to a certain The noken systems can generally be proportion. The other day, the chair of electoral distinguished into two kinds considering the committee wrote the voting report and counting way the votes are given, i.e. bigman (bound) certificate at the voting site and sent it to the noken and hung noken. The big man noken is district electoral committee. Then, the result of used by letting a prominent or trusted figure to election in district level would be sent to the represent the whole community to vote, such as regency electoral committee. a tribal chief. The first kind of noken system is done by doing a voting where the whole ballots In the elections of representative’s are handed over to a big man who represents all houses members at all levels in 2014, the use of the voters included within his tribe. In the the noken system posed problems, for it has not second kind of noken system, electors of the yet stipulated by any law. The chair of the community can be informed of the consensus KPUD of Papua, Adam Arisoi, explained that gained through a common convention, to what the noken system could not be used in political party or candidate their votes are going legislative election of 9 April 2014, for the to be given, how many of their votes are for a Constitution Court ruling indicates that the certain party or candidate. Such a tradition is noken system can be utilized only in the legitimized by the General Election Commission elections of regional government chiefs. (KPU, KomisiPemilihanUmum) of Papua’s Nevertheless, the Chief of , ruling indicating that the tribal chief is allowed John Wetipo, argued: "Although the noken to do the ballot piercing representing his people system of the legislative election does not have (Peraturan KPU Papua no. 1/2001). Although any legal basis in Jayawijaya regency, it will be the noken system is used, but the KPU still used, for it has become part of the culture of provides ballot boxes at voting sites (Peraturan Pegunungan Tengah people living dispersedly in KPU Papua no. 1/2012). 15 regencies.” He insisted that the noken system in Pegunungan Tengah had very long been Mirin (2013) describes how the "hung there, and it was considered valid by the noken" and "bound noken" systems were used in communities of Pegunungan Tengah in Yahukimo regency head elections since 2005. decision-making (Bintang Papua, 28 February Within the hanging noken system, before the 2014). A further investigation would show that voting boxes are placed empty nokens with the noken system has a secret solidarity value in pictures of the candidates over them. At a securing the interests of the customary village, a number of nokens is provided community, for the community is confident that accorded to the number of the candidate. When the system provides them greater chance that the all invited voters had been present at the place, regional leadership and their representatives at the Committee Chairman of Voting (KPPS, any level of legislature are those they choose.

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 227 According to Uropdana (2014), the secrecy An analysis made by Raharusun (2014) philosophy of noken system for Papuan natives demonstrates that that noken system can be seen is nothing but their discovery over the Papuan in different perspectives related to the customary community’s self-esteem and human development of democratic political system in dignity. It is considering the real development Papua. First, noken is a symbol of cultural program that does not seem to work on Papuan entity; therefore, it has to be respected, natives in the fields of political participation, appreciated and maintained as a part of the bureaucracy, educational and health services and national cultural treasury. The presence of noken infrastructure. should not be politicized for short terms political interests, such as in regional leadership and In general, most Papuan native live in legislative elections, especially in the 16 Pegunungan Tengah, prefer to use noken system regencies in Pegunungan Tengah of Papua. in both national and local elections. The Second, noken has been used as a democratic practices of such elections mean that the instrument, i.e. for a general election. For such government provide Papuan native a space for necessity, the use of noken as the substitute of expressing their cultural identity. In Indonesian ballot box should never be manipulated into a modern post-reform politics, it has two meaning. political means for claiming to represent the Firstly, the noken system means that the completely Papuan tribal communities, for such government accommodates Papuan cultural act would surely endanger the progress and practices into modern political system. civilization of democracy in Papua. Third, the Secondly, the government recognizes that noken system can be considered as not general election in Papua should adapt cultural educating many Papuan natives to live a modern and traditional values. In addition, candidates or democratic system. It is because the government political parties selected via noken system tend should taught tribal communities the importance to close to their constituents because tribal of their constitutional rights, obligations, and communities acknowledge their record of responsibility as citizens. accomplishment. Therefore, besides accommodating Papuan culture, the noken system is an Father Neles Tebay has told a problem appropriate way to find the best quality leaders of noken system.7 He says that there is a or political parties according to perspective of character difference related to the practices of Papuan native. noken system between east and west Pegunungan Tengah. In Eastern Pegunungan  Problems of Noken Electoral System Tengah or La Pago area, the role of big man, in particularly tribal leaders is very strong, so the The Constitutional Court’s has legalized whole members of tribal community achieve the use of noken. The decision can be one decision. The strong position of tribal chiefs considered as a recognition and respect form is vulnerable for political manipulation in the towards cultural variety and plurality of present day Papua when political contestation is Indonesian society. The decision can be in line with capital contestation. However, in interpreted as a legal norm for allowing the Western part of Pegunungan Tengah, mainly in noken system in the regencies of Pegunungan Mee Pago areas, the role of big man is moderate Tengah Papua (Raharusun, 2014). However, the and he usually give community members implementation of noken system often makes freedom to choose, not only one decision. Father many problems even tend to political violence. Neles give an example, during the 2014 Multazim (2016) in his journal article tell about presidential election; the use of noken system in pro and contra against noken electoral system Dogiyai resulted into vote’s distribution between among Papuan. Some elites support the system Jokowi and Prabowo. Such a distribution was a because such system is suitable with Melanesian result of consultation between tribal groups in cultural traditions. However, some refuse the the regency of Dogiyai. noken system due to its inability to deliver a political education for Papuan people that no In reality, some Papuan elites have used longer live in ancestral time. The main the noken system for fulfil their political principals of election, i.e. direct, general, free, interest. For example, in the 2017 local head secret, fair and just, cannot be found in noken system. 7Interview with Father Neles Tebay in Jakarta in 13 July 2017.

228 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 election of Intan Jaya, Governor Enembe expressed equally by Uropdana (2014), he said pressured some tribal chiefs to vote for his that some part of Papuan people especially who favour candidate. Then, some tribal leaders have their own political interests feel that the refused it and launched tribal wars against the noken system is not democratic because it tribes supporting the governor candidate.8 The hinders the democratic change process to the common phenomenon is that some tribal modern general election system. In addition, the communities become merely an object of system creates some anxiety that some numbers political interests of some Papuan political of voters for certain candidates within the noken elites. This phenomenon marks the distortion of system election and outside their voting areas noken system from ideal democratic way into an will disappear. instrument achieving the power. If the situation In Wenda et al.'s perspective (2014), the were let be running in prolonged terms, such use of noken is considered problematic for politicization over the noken system would within the civilization history of Papuan natives. unfortunately give birth to those politicians who It is due to noken had never been used as an have no vision about their Papuan-ness and instrument for choosing a tribal chief in tribal Indonesian-ness (Raharusun, 2014). democracy of mountain people. A tribal leader Wenda et al. (2014) give an example within the tradition of Papuan natives is from the 2013 Papuan provincial governor appointed because he holds a firm legitimacy election in Kanggume district of Tolikara. In the from the customary community of Papua. One voting day, the district chief claimed to among the heritages of Pegunungan Tengah represent the completely customary community Papuans is the tribal chief institution. The failure symbolically did the voting for them in hidden of the Indonesian government in developing collaboration with village leaders without any modern democracy in Papua can be seen in the cognition of local conventional community on legalization of the noken system election since 27 June 2013. In such case, the tribal chief was the 1971 general election. In some cases, such not involved, but there were local elite members an election system can, unfortunately, create who did not want that their society developed in horizontal conflicts within the customary democracy. They for their vested political community of Pegunungan Tengah. interests in systematic and structured way The main problem of noken system exploited the noken system and estranged the according to Kurniawan Zein, the research customary community from the modern director of LP3ES (Social and Economic democracy realm. Institute for Research, Education, and Besides, it is feared that the customary Information) Jakarta, is some tribal chiefs often community of Papua would undergo some manipulated the practices of noken system. setback and find immense difficulty for They register all of community members into developing themselves in democratic civilization. It official electoral committee at their respected is time for the customary community of Papua villages. Then, the electoral committee as well to show that political condition in Papua has as the village head do not verify the registration changed if compared to that in 1969 where and follow the tribal chiefs. In reality, native Papuans were not given any chance to community members in Pegunungan Tengah express their political aspirations according to Papua are dynamics related to demographical one-man-one-vote principle. Taha Al Hamid changes so it can increases or decreases from indicated in an FGD organized by the LIPI time to time.10 Therefore, the main problem is (November 2014)9 that the noken system will, not on the consultation among community unfortunately, legitimate the assumption that members but on the administration processes at referendum or modern democratic political the beginning, the validity of community system is incompatible with traditional practices members registered by tribal chiefs that is of Papuan natives. Such a thought was uncontrolled by the electoral committee.

8Interview with Thaha Alhamid in Jakarta in 31 July 2017. 9Focus Group Discussion on Comparing 10http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2013 peace processes between Aceh and West Papua in /08/20/sistem-noken-di-papua-dinilai-punya- November 2014. kelemahan

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 229 Although the use of noken system system should be understood as the evidence seems ideal as the way to accommodate Papuan that the national state recognizes the way cultural tradition into modern political system, Papuan natives give meaning to general election. some scholars and activist countered the It is equally the case in the Court's 2011 ruling practices of noken system. Firstly, some on a regency head electoral dispute in Lany scholars, mainly those who studies political Jaya. The ruling stipulates that noken system sciences, have criticised the use of noken system general election is a form of state because of contradiction against the main accommodation to the local wisdom of the principal of election in a modern democratic customary community of the tribes in system. Secondly, several Papuan activist, like Pegunungan Tengah in having their general Thaha Alhamid, the secretary general of Papua election. For the Court, an election done with an Presidium Council, disagree the use of noken acclamation or people consensus is an election system because such a system does not give model which is suitable to the local culture and Papuan people a political education equal with custom that have to be well understood and their fellow Indonesian brothers. Thirdly, some respected (Hadi, 2013). scholar from Papua respect the noken system but The legislative general election for most come up with an idea that the government Papuan native tribes in Pegunungan Tengah is a should improve and supervise the practices of joyful party. For example, a tribal chief in noken system in order to avoid political Yahukimo gathered the full members of his tribe manipulation. for discussing how the election had to be

conducted. The discussion decided the chief  Discussions who would do the marking of the ballots for the Based on aforementioned findings, the parties to which they had decided to give implementation of democratic system based on individual numbers of votes. In the Election individual freedom via general election, Day, the chief did the marking, and his according to Dahl (1992) and Huntington community had their stone burning meal (1995), finds difficulties in some regencies of ceremony. The ballots were then distributed and Papua land. For example, the way to elect leader put into the nokens of the political parties. A in tribal communities is not conducted by voting tribal chief explained that although the noken based on individual freedom, but by public system deviated from the general election law, consultation involved by the whole community. but it was more important that the election did In addition, the principle of secret election is not not leave hostility among people in the appropriate in Papuan tradition that their customary community. That is why such decision is always made collectively. Either deviation against the legal electoral system is let direct or representative elections are contradict be going and considered normal in Yahukimo against Papuan cultural tradition that live in regency and some other regency in Pegunungan communitarian way. Therefore, the concept of Tengah (Hadi, 2013). direct democracy is difficult to analyse the The noken electoral system can be general election in some regencies in viewed considering the relation between the Pegunungan Tengah Papua. The concept of constituents and their representatives. Busroh democracy that is relatively close to Papuan (2008, cf. Arizona, 2010) indicates that in tradition is deliberative democracy (Habermas, democratic practices there are three sorts of 1992). However, the whole concept of people’s mandates to their representatives or deliberative democracy cannot be used to leaders they choose in general election. Firstly, analyse due to the different socio-cultural imperative mandates, i.e. the representatives are context between European and Papuan societies. bound to the commands of their constituents. Communitarian based democracy that a variant The mandate has to do the mandate. Secondly, of deliberative democracy might be more free mandates, i.e. that the agents are free after appropriate to study Papuan democratically way. the election. It means that they do not have to do In addition to the modern law, Indonesia their constituents’ instructions. There is no also recognizes the application of customary accountability to their constituency. Third, laws that develop in every cultural community representative mandates, i.e. that after the in Indonesia. The 2009 ruling of the election, the mandates are given to the Constitutional Court that legalized the noken institution that work in parliament.

230 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 The terms of constituency in the noken theorized by Habermas. We can analyse and electoral system have many similarities with the find out that noken general election has the basic necessary ones. It can be observed at the cultural characteristics and values of a deliberative background of Papuan natives. For dealing with democracy. It is thus necessary to discuss the daily problems in a customary community, ideal public sphere. several institutions are formed that do certain Arendt (1958), Fraser (1992), and functions. Certain positions in a conventional Taylor (2002) have considered public domain in system, especially the joint chief position, are political perspective. Presetyo (2012) indicates genealogically hereditary. However, in certain that these all thinkers share the same view that tribes, a chief is appointed by certain prominent public sphere has a significant role in figures in their community taking into account strengthening the democratic realm; for it is an the person’s capacity. The chief has the area lived by the civil society acting as the authority to make decisions over the matters that mediators between the state and the individuals. have impacts on their community interests. Public reasoning through such a public sphere Nevertheless, in practice, community members controls a formal political system. Habermas are always invited to discuss the problems (1989: 36-37) and Thomassen (2010: 41) before the tribal leadership issues the decision. describe three features of an ideal public sphere. Similar to what can be found in many First, public domain is a place for social parts of Indonesia, consensual convention contacts that assumes that equal status of (musyawarah) is a democratic form that everyone for social status seems irrelevant there. manifests within the Papuan customary The concepts of personal status and position are community. According to Arizona (2010), such replaced by the notion of wisdom value seen convention as the substance of democracy is a within good arguments. Second, the unifying form of Habermas' deliberative democracy. In a value that makes people meet in a public sphere constitutional Papuan convention, everyone's is not impressive, but the value that everyone voice is always heard. Dissents and criticisms in equally uses the "interest less reasoning”. The Papuan people tradition make a method for justification of an argument in a public sphere is explaining the matter and gaining the standard whether an argument defends public interests or solution. Such convention is carried out in such not. Third, a public sphere has to be inclusive; a way that in dealing with outsiders they have for the only requirement for participating in it is unanimous voice and perspective. Such an that the person has the capacity of using his or agreement becomes a strategy used by Papuan her rationality. natives in maintaining their political stand. In the context of noken system practices If consensual convention is no longer among tribal communities in Pegunungan used as a method of solving communal Tengah Papua, free public sphere is an problems, the community will become fragile influential factor to the noken system. and easy to be dominated by an oligarchy that Generally, the influence of tribal chiefs is grows and develops there. Such a government dominant to unite the whole community within the customary community will create members. The problem arises when some distrust against customary institutions, so that interest groups outside of the community, such the community will tend to delegate their as a big business or political elite, approach aspiration to their leadership or elders. If the tribal chiefs and conspire with them. If it occurs, community considers that conventional systems the distortion of noken system is unavoidable. are incapable of making the decisions, they will To keep the free public sphere, the adat council come to have dialogues with outsiders that have of Papua (Dewan Adat Papua) should observe, been chosen by the precedent convention. supervise, and evaluate the implementation of noken system. It is necessary to prevent such a Deliberative democracy is characterized distortion of meaning from the noken system. In by the presence of a free public sphere that addition, the national election commission has to fosters the formation of practical discourses, make sure that local electoral committee work opinions and people’s sovereignty. The properly according to democratic principles. deliberative democracy characteristic that can be seen in noken general election is that the Consensual convention found within the existence of a free public sphere like the one customary community of Papua in the context of

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 231 noken system can be observed as an noken electoral system proves that consensus in implementation of the fundamental principles of Papuan democracy is still maintained although deliberative democracy. Noken general election Indonesia has adopted a modern democratic is an instrument for making a political decision political system. This cultural based election collectively within a communicative public shows that consultation not an irrational idea, sphere. Such a convention for making a political but it is a parallel with the growing practice of decision is an arena for creating a rational modern democratic system (Azim & Siregar, discourse that involves every member of the 2014: 96). customary community. The Noken system election requires a public sphere that demands Conclusion status equality, where someone’s existence in Considering the discussion above, we the convention is evaluated from his or her may conclude that noken general election makes argument. They would discuss together us understand a gap between modern democratic particular interests of the members or the system and traditional practices that grow and leadership within the customary community put develop within the customary community of under the priority shared interests. Papua. Noken general election is a bridge for I would like to give a case told by Papuan natives especially those living in Father Neles Tebay during the 2014 Presidential Pegunungan Tengah to participate and election in Dogiyai, Papua.11 In a public contribute to the citizenship life of Indonesia consultation, all tribal leaders discussed how the through the general election. The noken system distribution votes would between Joko Widodo is indeed violated the main principles of and Prabowo Subianto. They achieve one democracy requiring a public, direct, free and agreement that votes for the former is more than secret general election. However, the use of the for the latter (70:30) due to Prabowo has scheme shows that it contains justice principles involved in human right abuse during the se- within the cultural perspective of Papuan called Mapenduma military operation in natives. Pegunungan Tengah. However, the head of As a theoretical implication, noken regency, whose from Welfare and Justice Party, general election reflects, in one hand, the the supporter of Prabowo came in and asked the application of deliberative democracy principles, distribution of vote equal between two according to Habermas thoughts, due to the candidates. The tribal leaders meeting then force consensual convention manifests a public him out and all votes went to Jokowi because sphere. The convention is the arena for creating they felt irritated and insulted by the demand of practical discourses where argumentation has a the regency head. From the story, I believe that higher position than social status within the if the government keep a free public sphere as customary community. The noken system is an part of the noken system, the result of noken alternative to the liberal democracy that proves system would be reasonable and according to incompatible to Melanesian cultural characteristics, most Papuan aspiration. particularly in West Papua. However, in the Tracing in more detail, this cultural other hand, such a general election system stirs practice of democracy Papua is nothing new in critical questions on the development processes Indonesian society and even rooted in several of democracy and civilization of Papuan natives. ethnic groups before colonial period. According The existence and legality of the noken general to Hatta and Yamin, a decision-making system election are feared to legitimate the lagging of in Indonesian democracy emphasizs the concept mountainous Papuan natives in adapting to a of consultative (musyawarah) sourced from modern democratic system that has developed religious or traditional teachings (Azim & and grown in other regions of Indonesia. Siregar, 2014: 96). Sukarno considered democracy Even though the noken system in some that will be applied in Indonesia is a people cases is still misused by some Papuan political democracy, i.e. it has to base on consensus, elites to fulfil their interest, such a system can representative and deliberative. The decision of act as the bride between the modern and constitutional court in 2009 about the legality of traditional practices if the government seriously improve the practices. For example, electoral 11Interview with Father Neles Tebay in committee should conduct the registration Jakarta 13 July 2017.

232 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 process of voters, but a tribal chief chairs the Dowding, K., Goodin, R.E & Pateman, C. (Eds). consultation. As consequent, the number of (2004). Justice and Democracy. Cambridge: bullets voted is according to the real data Cambridge University Press. accounted by local government. Furthermore, Eko, S. (2008). Revitalisasi Demokrasi Komunitarian. during the accounting processes, including In dalam: Bacaan Forum Warga Kaukus recapitulation, should be transparent and open (Vol. 17). using information technology. The most important thing is the national government and Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the Public Sphere: the national electoral commission should make A Contribution to the Critique of sure that the electoral process is according to Actually Existing Democracy. In Craig main principles, transparent, fair and just. Both Calhoun (Ed). Habermas and the Public institutions cannot restrict the consultation Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press. processes and its result. However in the future, Presetyo, A.G. (2012). Menuju Demokrasi they have to provide tribal communities political Rasional: Melacak Pemikiran Jürgen education gradually so the tribal communities Habermas tentang Ruang Publik. Jurnal would adapt the direct election system. Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik 16 (2), November 2012: 95-186. Reference Gloria, Nuvola, and Syafri Harto."Diplomasi Arendt, Hannah. (1958). The Human Condition. Indonesia Terhadap UNESCO Dalam Chicago & London: The University of Meresmikan Noken Sebagai Warisan Chicago Press. Budaya Indonesia Tahun 2012."Jurnal Arizona, Y. (2010). Konstitusionalitas Noken: Online Mahasiswa (JOM) Bidang Ilmu Pengakuan model pemilihan Masyarakat Sosial dan Ilmu Politik 1, no. 1 (2014): Adat Dalam Sistem pemilihan umum di 1-15. Indonesia." Hadi, S. (2013). Pengakuan Model Noken JurnalKonstitusiPusakoUniversitasAnda Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi las 3 (1).A collaboration between the Tentang Pemilukada Lanny Jaya Papua Republic Indonesia Constitutional Court dan ImplementasinyaTerhadap Sistem and the Constitutional Research Centre Pemilu Di Indonesia (Ph.D diss., of the Law Faculty of the Indonesian Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta) University. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation Azim, M. F & Siregar, S.S. (2014). Menimbang of Public Sphere: An Inquiry into Gagasan Musyawarah Dalam Pemilu Category of Bourgeois Society, Thomas Nasional Di Papua. Turast: Jurnal Burger (terj.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Penelitian dan Pengabdian 2 (1), Januari-Juni 2014: 93-108. Habermas, J. (1992). Beetwen Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Taylor, C. (2002). Democracy, Inclusive and Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Exclusive. In R. Madsen, R. Sullivan, Press. W. Swidler & S.M. Tipson (Eds.). Meaning and Modernity: Religion, Haris, S. (1998). Struktur, Proses dan Fungsi polity and self. Barkeley, CA: Pemilu: Catatan Pendahuluan dalam University of California Press. Menggugat Pemilihan Umum Orde Baru: Sebuah Bunga Rampai. Jakarta: Dahl, R.A. (1992). Demokrasidan Para Pengkritiknya. Yayasan Obor Indonesia. Translated by A. Rahman Zainudin. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia. Hardiman, F.B. (2004). Kritikideologi: Menyingkap Kepentingan Pengetahuan Bersama Dahl, R.A. (2001). Perihal Demokrasi: Jurgen Habermas. Buku Baik, 2004. Menjelajahi Teori dan Praktik Demokrasi. Translated by A. Rahman Zainudin. Hardiman, F.B. (2005). Demokrasi Deliberatif: Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia. Teori, Prinsip dan Praktek. A paper presented in the Third Meeting Forum and the Civil Society Deliberative Empowerment Program Forum

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 233 Implementation Coordination in Regional Riset Kepemiluan, Pusat Penelitian Autonomy Process, in Wisma LPP, Politik (P2P) Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Yogyakarta, 24 August. Indonesia (LIPI) & Australian Electoral Commission, di Jakarta 22-24 April Hardiman, F.B. (2009). Demokrasi deliberatif: 2014 menimbang negara hukum dan ruang publik dalam teori diskursus Jurgen Sastika, D & Hananto, W. (2015) Sistem Noken Habermas. Yogyakarta: Kanisius. Dalam Pemilukada Provinsi Papua (Analisis Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Huntington, S.P. (1995). Gelombang Demokratisasi Konstitusi Nomor 14/phpu.D-xi/2013 Ketiga. Jakarta: Grafiti. Mengenai Perselisihan Hasil Pemilukada Iver, M. (1984). Negara Modern.Translated by Provinsi Papua Tahun 2013). Moertono. Jakarta: Aksara Baru. Jurnalnovum 1 (6). Lincoln, A. (2009). The Gettysburg Address. Sodiki, A. (2009). Konstitusionalisasi Pemilihan Penguin UK. Umum Model Masyarakat Yahukimo, Maladi, Y. (2010). Eksistensi Hukum Adat Jurnal Konstitusi 6 (2) Juli 2009: 1-6. dalam Konstitusi Negara Pasca Suseno, F.M. (2004). 75 Tahun Jǖrgen Habermas. Amandemen. Jurnal Mimbar Hukum Basismagazine, No. 11-12 (53) 53, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah November-Desember. Mada 22, (3): 450-464. Tebay, N. (2014). Sistem Noken dan Macridis, R. C. (1988). Sejarah, Fungsi, dan Demokrasi. Opini Harian Kompas 21 Tipologi Partai-Partai." Dalam Ichlasul Agustus. Amal, Teori-Teori Mutakhir Partai Thomassen, L. (2010). Habermas: A Guide For Politik. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana. The Perplexed. A&C Black. Mirin, J. S. (2013). Implementasi Kebijakan Walilo, L. (2016). Noken Dalam Perspektif Pemilihan Kepala Daerah dan Wakil Perempuan Adat. Dalam http://www. Kepala Daerah Kabupaten Yahukimo sastrapapua.com/2016/11/noken-dalam- Provinsi Papua tahun 2011." Jurnal perspektif-perempuan-adat.html#!/ politico 1 (3). tcmbck Multazim, Z. (2016). Persinggungan Hak Wenda, P.L., Yoman, Y. & K. (2014). Budaya dan Hak Politik dalam Pemilukada Gubernur Provinsi Papia Pemilihan Umum dengan Sistem Noken Tidak Demokratis. Jayapura: Lembaga di Provinsi Papua. SALAM: Jurnal Intelektual Tanah Papua. Sosial dan Budaya Syar'i, 3(2). Wolfson, A. M. (1899). The ballot and Other Muzaqqi, F. (2015). Diskursus Demokrasi Forms of Voting in the Italian Deliberatif di Indonesia. Jurnal Review Communes. The American Historical Politik, 3(1), 123-139. Review, 5(1), 1-21. Panggabean, T. Uropdana, Y. (2014). Sistem Noken: Metode (2014).SistemNokendanBigman.OpiniH Rahasia Menemukan Hargadiri dan arianKompas 18 Agustus. Kepastian Hukum. Artikel pada website Prasetyo, A.G. (2012). Menuju Demokrasi Komunitas Mahasiswa dan Pelajar Rational: Melacak Pemikiran Jürgen Aplim Apom Kabupaten pegunungan Habermas tentang Ruang Publik." Bintang Papua (18 Maret 2014).An Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik16 article from the website of the Aplim (2): 169-185. Apom Students Community of Raharusun, A. (2014). Politisasi sistemnoken di Pegunungan Bintang district of Papua Papua. Opini Harian Sinar Harapan 11 (18 March 2014). Downloaded from: April. http://www.komapo.org/index.php/sosp ol/36-sospol/616-sistem-noken-metode- Santoso, P. (2014). Meninjau-ulang Pemilu rahasia-menemukan-harga-diri-dan- sebagai Medium Inklusi Komunitas kepastian-hukum Adat. Makalah dalam Forum Multilateral

234 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 Zevedai,B. (1956). Democracy and Dictatorship: Their Psychology and Pattern of Life.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (1956). Bintang Papua. “YunusWonda: Noken Alat Sakral Bagi Masyarakat Pegunungan.” 28 Februari 2014. Download from http://bintangpapua.com/index.php/lain- lain/k2-information/halaman- utama/item/13546-yunus-wonda-noken- alat-sakral-bagi-masyarakat- pegunungan (14 May 2015). Bintang Papua. “Sistem Noken Sudah Jadi Budaya Masyarakat Pegunungan.” 6 Maret 2014. Download from http://bintang papua.com/~bintangp/index.php/lain- lain/k2-information/halaman-utama/ item/2224-sistem-noken-sudah-jadi- budaya-masyarakat-pegunungan (14 May 2015).

Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017 235

236 Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, Volume 19 No. 2 Tahun 2017