Chronic Disease of State Corporatism in Indonesian Village Government

of legal construction of the village regulations. This legal method of study was a nomological type with a stat-ute approach. The technical analysis used was content analysis. The results showed that the legality of the village government status, which is state-corporatism containing in norms of the provision of Number 1, Number 2, Number 7, Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 6 paragraph (1) of the Law 6/2014 is not synchronous vertically to the 1945 Constitution. The results of the legitimacy study also revealed that Articles 12, 19, 19 (b)(c)(d), 69 of Law 6/2014 concerning the Authority and Changes of the Status of Urban Villages ( Gesellschaft ) into Common-Village ( gemeinschaft ) implies horizontal disharmony to the Law 30/2014 concerning Government Administration. Therefore Law 6/2014 needs to be revoked and replaced with an organic law derived from Articles 18, 18A and 18B of the 1945 Indonesia Constitution.


INTRODUCTION
The status of the village government regulated by Law 6/2014 concerning Villages is considered illegitimate as a formal public institution based on the principle of decentralisation. The status of the Village Government raises constitutional issues because it is indicated to be [306] Modernism (technocrats), and Structuralist-Radicalism toward regulating and managing the village. 5 On the other hand, the administrative law perspective has tried to look at the village government institution case from its ratio-legis and its legal implication on legal ideals.
Most literature studies on village government institutions have been patterned on technocratic and socialist perspectives, which focuses on the "taken for granted" that village government institution is part of the local-state Government or local-government system with decentralisation principles, which is incorrect. 6 The average studies on village government issues focused on the simple principle of its legal system but not on the issues of legal harmony in the context of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution. The studies of village government legislation have far skipped on the criteria and principles adequacy of the formation of Law 6/2014. 7 The studies on village government issues did not give much attention to legal-historical perspectives, so they overlooked the regime legal politics to village government institution positioning. 8 The standard studies of local Government had not provided practical benefits to knowing the illegitimacy in the practice of incorrect good local governance at the village level when it was formed, devolved and delegated to the context of the village government level 9 . The significant studies of legal harmony have not paid attention much to knowing the disharmony of Law 6/2014 vertically to 1945 Indonesia Constitution and horizontally to other laws. 10 However, this study has focused more on the relatively comprehensive analysis of the legality and legitimacy of Law 6/2014 on the village from the perspective of state administrative law. 11 This study focuses on the context of village administrative law, historical Law and Law formation principles.
Based on the problem, the research questions are proposed as follows. Are the institutional arrangements norms of the Dinas Village regulated by RI Law 6/2014 has fulfilled the clear objective principle (beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling); the right organ principle (beginsel van het juiste organs); the implementable principle (het beginsel van uitvoerbaarheid); the principle of correct terminology and systematics (het beginsel van duidelijke terminology en duidelijke systemetiek); the principle of legal certainty (beginsel van rechtszekerheids); and the 5 DPD RI Komite I, Kembali Ke Mandat: Hasil Pengawasan DPD RI Atas Pelaksanaan UU No. 5/2014Tentang Desa, 1st ed. (Jakarta: Komite I DPD RI, 2017 principle of implementability in accordance with individual abilities (het beginsel van de individuele rechtsbedeling).
The general objective of this study is to map the adequacy of the elements of legality and legitimacy on the ruling (rechtregel and wetregel) of the status of village government institutions so that it can be utilised to improve the correctness of the village law arrangement in the future. The specific objective of the study is to answer whether the norms for regulating the institutional status of the Village Office regulated by Law 6/2014 have fulfilled the parameters of legality and legitimacy according to the principles of establishing legislation. This study is considered necessary because until now, the regulation of the status of village government institutions has been indicated to be disharmonious among the laws that implicate inefficient and ineffective to village development. 12

RESEARCH METHODS
This study used a normative legal methodology using three major approaches. Those are the Statute, the Conceptual and the Historical Approach, which were proportionally integrated into their analysis. This legalism methodology employs a study of organic legal documents as the primary legal material related to the institutional status of the Village Government. Likewise, the secondary legal materials include academic texts, draft laws, various scientific articles in journals related to village government institutions, related paperwork, study reports, and research on the village government's institutional and legal structure. The tertiary legal material in the form of a list of indexes of Constitutional Court decisions and legal dictionaries were also utilised as a reference for verification and standard nomenclature regarding the norms arrangement of village government institutions.
To answer the research question, this study has reconstructed the legal history of Village Government institutions since IS-1738, IGO 1906, IGOB 1938, Law 22/1948, Law 1/1957, Law 19/1965, Law 5/1979, Law 22 / 1999, Law 32/2004, and Law 6/2014. Based on the legal-history construction, an evaluation of the legal-structure status of the village government institution was also carried out until the legal-substance regulation norms according to Law 6/201. 13

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS Legality and Legitimacy of the Village Government
The basic concept used as an instrument of analysis of the status of village government institutions is Law 6/2014, covering the concepts of legality and legitimacy, 14 Regional Autonomy Theory, 15 Authority Theory, 16 and Legislative Theory. 17  proper regulations can be associated with the principles of Good Corporate Governance to illustrate the earnest efforts to establish the correct and proper legislation. Valid in the constitutional sense and the legitimate sense of its use, 18 the product of true and fine is referred to as constitutional and good Law or legal and legitimate Law. 19 According to the common-law system, 20 measuring legal or legality is determined based on scientific method or legislation. Conversely, the term legitimate implies 'Good' because it fulfils the community's benefit requirements. Thus, the notion of the legality-legitimacy principle in Law 6/2014 concerning the Village arrangement means whether this Law fulfils the principle of legality and legitimacy criteria elements in the formation of legislation. Legalitylegitimacy of Law 6/2014 can be carried out through the Statute and Conceptual Approach approaches reflected in the formulation of the principles stipulated in Law 12/2011 concerning the Establishment of Laws and Regulations to determine whether there is a synchronicity and legal ambiguity in the institutional arrangements of the Village Government.
Lawrence Mier Friedman believes that the effectiveness of law enforcement depends on the good and bad conditions of the legal structure, in addition to legal substance and legal culture. 21 Legal structures, namely the permanent framework of a legal system that keeps the process within its limits. The State applies Law 6/2014 about the village to improve the welfare of the village community. However, this village law leaves a fundamental problem concerning the status of its institutions which are outside the system of government bureaucracy according to the principle of decentralisation as stipulated in Law 30/2014 concerning Government Administration, so the status is unclear: whether a local-state Government, local-self-government, self-governing community, as a combination of them or state-corporatism. 22 The ambiguity of the status of the Village Government is not following the constitutional Law, namely the Law that regulates "the state in silence," and the Law of governance, namely the Law that regulates "the state in motion". 23 In constitutional Law, the problem of 'authority' is fundamental to the division of authority as a state in a state of movement. 24 The state corporatism model in village government is actually not a government regime but a state-formed socio-political organisation regime. In this model, the State only forms social and political organisations using the mobilisation method for political and economic interests. Thus, Village Government is not a local-state Government, nor is it a local-self-government. Therefore, the Village Government is not an executor of the Central Government policy and also does not regulate and manage decentralised government affairs. 25 Such status raises a problem: Is the Village Government regulated by Law 6/2014 in its implementation fulfills the clear objective principle (beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling); the right organ (beginsel van het juiste organs); the principle of implementability (het beginsel van uitvoerbaarheid); the principle of correct terminology and systematics (het beginsel van duidelijke terminology en duidelijke systemetiek); the principle of legal certainty (begins with van rechtszekerheids); and the principle of implementability in accordance with the individual ability (het beginsel van de individuele rechtsbedeling).
In forming legislation, it is necessary to be guided by the principles of forming excellent and ideal regulations. This follows the opinion of I.C. van der Vlies in his book Handboek Wetgeving namely formal and material principles. 26 The formal and material principles relevant to this study are: clear objective principle (beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling); the right organ (beginsel van het juiste organs); the principle of implementability (het beginsel van uitvoerbaarheid); the principle of correct terminology and systematics (het beginsel van duidelijke terminology en duidelijke systemetiek); the principle of legal certainty (beginsel van het rechtszekerheids); and the principle of implementability in accordance with the individual ability (het beginsel van de individuele rechtsbedeling).

Village Government's Legal Structure
It is believed that the legal-structure Village Government institution is not in the line of the local government bureaucracy based on either the deconcentration principle or the decentralisation principle. As for the legal substance, the findings of nine norms of the articles in Law 6/2014, which are counter-productive, are directly related to the regulation of the institutional status of the Village Government. Through content analysis of the norms of Law 6/2014, the main weakness of the institutional, legal structure of the Village Government lies in the formulation of norms in the formation of village institutions that are ambiguous in their legal status in the legal structure of Indonesian governance. Institution of Village Government is not local Government and -local state government. The reality of the Village Government institutions is managed by the Village Head, assisted by the Village Secretary and village officials, and the employment status is not included in the State Civil Apparatus according to Law 5/2014 concerning the State Civil Apparatus. 27 Law 6/2014 explains that the Village Government combines self-governing communities with local-self-government. Such regulation is precisely the confusion of the juridical foundation because it has no legal basis for 25 Abdul Gaffar Karim, Kompleksitas Persoalan Otonomi Daerah Di Indonesia (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar Offset, 2003). 26 I.C. van de Vlies, Handboek Wetgeving (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1987). See also Indrati, M, F. S. 1998. Ilmu Perundang-undangan Dasar-Dasar dan Pembentukannya, Kanisius, Yogyakarta. 27 Kridasakti, Sudarsono, and Nurcholis, "Analysis of M-P-F-a-a-C (Meaning -Positioning -Functioning -Authorising -Actuating -Controlling) on the Village Government Institutional Arrangement." [310] regulating good governance functions. 28 General Provisions Article 1 of Law 6/2014 mentions that: "Villages are customary villages and villages or what is called by other names, from now on referred to as villages, are legal community units that have territorial limits that are authorised to regulate and manage government affairs, interests of local communities based on local community initiatives, origin rights, and/or rights traditionally recognised and respected in the system of government of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia".
Based on the theory of local-government legal subjects with territorial boundaries and the authority to 'regulate' and 'manage' government affairs are formal autonomous regions formed by the central Government. However, Customary/Non-Bureaucratic-Village are not autonomous regions as local-self-government; 29 Because the head of the village is a major, there is no council, does not have a state civil apparatus, does not regulate and administer decentralised government affairs, and has the authority to draw local taxes. 30 This situation shows that the element is not fulfilled by the principle of correct terminology systematics (beginsel van duidelijke terminologie en duidelijke systemetiek).
General Provisions Article 2 of the Law 6/2014 mentions that "the Village Government is the administration of government and the interests of the local community in the system of government of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia". The General Provisions are not formulated from the government bureaucracy system at the village level and scope. Law 6/2014 should put the village government as part of the government bureaucracy on it. However, the village government is not part of the superior Government (regency/city and province). The position of the village government is the same and congruent with the position of the haminte (indigenous-people local Government) as regulated in the IGO 1906 juncto IGOB 1938. Therefore, the status of the village head and the personnel are not government official, and the village apparatus is not a civil service as stipulated in Law 5/2014 concerning the State Civil Apparatus. This situation also shows that the element of accuracy in terms of terminology and systematics is not fulfilled as to the principles of het beginsel van duidelijke terminologie en duidelijke systemetiek. Thus, what is called a "village government institution" is not a legal government regime but a state-formed socio-political regime that is so-called state corporatism. The State forms social and political organisations at the village level that are used for political and economic interests using the mobilisation method. Village Government is neither local-state-government nor local-self-government. Therefore, the Village Government is not an executor of the Central Government policy and does not regulate and manage decentralised government affairs. 31 Village Regulation is a regulation made by the Village Government with the Village Council Body. It is also supported by the General Provisions Article 7 of the Law 6/2014, mentioning that "Village Regulation is a statutory regulation stipulated by the Village Head 28 (2022) after being discussed and agreed upon jointly by the Village Consultative Body." The Village Regulation does not have the basis of the law enforcement because if Village Regulation is compulsory, then the State's institutional status must be a formal organ instead of the faulty governance unit or so-called pseudo-government. 32 Law 12/2011 regarding Regulations on the Establishment of Legislation states that village regulation is not mentioned as legislation. This situation shows that the fundamental element of the correct objective of goal (beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling) and the proper organ (beginsel van het juiste organ) have not been fulfilled. This fact affirms the contra-productiveness of the institutional design of the village as state-corporatism.
Moreover, Article 6 paragraph (1) states that "Village consists of Customary Villages" does not have a juridical basis. It is unclear what the Village and Customary Village means unless the understanding of Article 6 to Article 95 is understood as a Village under Law 5/1979, Law 22/1999, Law 32/2004, and Government Regulation 72/2005. Customary Village is not explained in the General Understanding, so the material object arrangement in Article 96 to Article 111 of Law 6/2014 is unclear. Suppose the Customary Village means a legal community unit as stipulated in Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In that case, the village arrangements in Articles 96 up to Article 111 must deviate from the Constitution because these Articles regulate, organise and give attributive authority to the indigenous peoples' institutions. The contents of Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution is that the State recognises the unity of indigenous peoples who are still alive.
Indonesia's Constitution does not contain the norms of rules about 'Village' or what is referred to as the terms " Formal Villages, " which is not supposed to be derivated through Article 18 B paragraph (2). According to Indonesia's legal history since the days of the Dutch, Japanese, and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia today, the institutional status of the village has never changed from out of the formal government regime: the social and political legal entity formed by the State with ordinances and laws as a state-corporatism practice. This situation indicates that the element of clear objective principle is not fulfilled (beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling), the principle of the proper organ (beginsel van het juiste organ) is not fulfilled, and also the fulfillment of the principle of correct terms (het beginsel van duidelijke terminology en duidelijke systemetiek).
Article 12 Law 6/2014 mentions that "The Regency/City Regional Government can change the status of the Sub-Regency Office (Kelurahan) into a Village based on community initiatives and fulfil the requirements specified following the provisions of the legislation." Based on this article, the village government and sub-regency status and types are not equal, so they cannot be overthrown just like that in the government structure. Based on Law 23/2014, the village is the sub-regency technical implementation unit as a regency/city apparatus, while the Village Government is a semi-government unit. 33 Viewed from the sociological aspect, the characteristics of the Village Government are community members (gemeinschaft  (a), referring to what is meant by "the right of origin", is the right that is the surviving heritage and the Village initiative. However, if this provision is related to Article 34 (1)  The issue of the legal structure is that the Norms of Article 19(b) of this government regulation are not following the facts in the field. The authority referred to in Article 19(b) Government Regulation No. 43/2014 is not clear enough because the principle is not an authority based on the principle of decentralisation or based on the recognition principle. Therefore, 74.956 villages did not regulate and administer these complex and various matters. This happened because the Central Government had never submitted these matters. If a Village Government has one or more of these affairs based on the project, it can be assured that the village would be unable to take care of it. It is due to a shortage of village institutional 34 Soekanto. 35 Soekanto, Mengenal Sosiologi Hukum. see also Nurcholis, H. 2018 "Village authority includes authority based on authority assigned by the Government, Provincial Government, or Regency/City Government and other authorities assigned by the Government, Provincial Government, or Regency/City Regional Government following the provisions of legislation".
The legal-structure problem is that the authority possessed by the Village Government creates a blur system in the governance of the bureaucracy. The kind of authority given (attributive) to village government institutions is unclear. Is the authority given a delegation type or medebewind. If the type is delegation, the problem is from whom. Is it the Government of the Central Government superior to the village as a local-state government, the Government of the local-self-government superior to the village as local self-government, or the Government of local self-government to the village as a self-governing-community? This situation shows that the principle of systemic precision is not fulfilled, starting with the het beginsel van duidelijke systemetiek, the clear principle of purpose (het beginsel van duidelijke doelstelling), and the principle of legal certainty (het beginsel van rechtszekerheids). Thus village, with its status as a pseudo-government, negatively implicates its bureaucratic performance and public services. Article 69 Law 6/2014 regarding the Village Regulation states that: "The type of regulation in the village consists of Village Regulations, joint rules of the Village Head, and Village Head regulations... The draft Village Regulation on the Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget, levies, spatial planning, and Village Government organisations must be evaluated by the Regent/Mayor before being determined to be a Village Regulation etc." The legal structure issue is that the status of the Village Government is as "Pseudo Government Units", so the illegal Village Government makes laws and regulations as stipulated in Law 12/2011. Law 12/2011 -there is no mention of Village Regulations legislation. The Village Government has not been able to make Village Regulations because of the limited institutional resources. This situation indicates that Article 69 does not fulfill the correct systemic principle (het beginsel van duidelijke systemetiek), the right organ principle (beginsel van het juiste organs), and the legal certainty (beginsel van rechtszekerheids), and implementability (het beginzelen van uitverbarheid) and executable (beginzelen van de individuele rechbedeling). Village government institutions as state corporatism only bring about bureaucratic complications and are contra-productive to public services.

The Legitimacy of Institutional Status of the Village Government
The interdimensional findings and thE analysis of village government legitimacy are brought forward in this Table 1. The analysis results can be clearly seen from the perspective of legal history concerning the six principles of the formation of legislation. In essence, Table 1 shows the illegitimacy of regulating the status of village government institutions, taking a look from the [314] perspective of the principles of establishing good local-governance legislation. Throughout the history of village regulation, practically, villages have never been placed on the platform of a decentralised local government system. Always put as "Pseudo-Government" or "State-Corporatism". This condition causes 'Chronic-Decease' to cause various development problems in implementing village laws and regulations. Except in the era of Old Order, there were through Law 22/1948 andLaw 1/1957. However, these were never implemented due to the unconducive political situation. 37 However, in the New Order era through Law 5/1979, the State remodelled the village institution back into a system of village government bureaucracy in the form of an institutional model of the Japanese era. The six Law making principles were also fail to comply.

Source: Analysed from the primary source
In table 1 also can be seen that in the village government institution status is continued to be out of the local government system or so-called "State-Corporatism" until today, as through Law 22/1999, Law 32/2004 to the latest Law 6/2014. Even though Law 32/2004 stipulated that the village is a part government unit under the regency/city, its institutional status to date has not wholly entered into the formal structure of the government bureaucracy. 38

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that applied regulation as an instrument of social engineering during the inter-period has failed to comply with the law-making principles of good local governance to bring the village to prosper. The applied regulation as the instrument of social engineering through State-Corporatism to village status during the inter-period has failed to bring relations between Law and regulation in harmony, let alone village prosperity. The village government regulation until today is not justifiable based on the six law-making principles. For example, the clear objective principle, the correct organ principle, the implement ability principle; the correct terminology principle, the legal certainty principle; and the executable principle. The primary material of Law 6/2014, which regulates the institutional status of the Village Government, which is regulated in Provisions Number 1, Number 2, Number 7, and Article 6 paragraph (1) of Law 6/2014, is not synchronous vertically with Article 18 B paragraph (2)  [316] Subregency Office or "bureaucratic-village" status (Kelurahan) becoming common-villages. Viewed from the sociological perspective, the Village Government characteristics are communal (gemeinschaft). At the same time, the Subregency Office (Kelurahan) is patembayan (geselschaft), so the Village Government and the Kelurahan have characteristics that cannot be exchanged for their status. In the same situation, Article 19, Article 19 b, c, d.
Article 69 of Law 6/2014, which regulates the authority, implies horizontal disharmony to Law 30/2014 on Government Administration. The attributed village authority (recognition and subsidiarity principles) possessed by Village Government is, in fact, not an autonomous authority based on decentralisation principles. So Village Governments are not fully part of the government bureaucratic system or so-called 'Pseudo Government'. As prescribed, the model of the Village Government system as the so-called "Hybrid-Village", as a combination of local self-government and the self-governing community (Explanation of the Law 6/2014), this model has severe implications for its inconsistency with the principle of decentralisation for autonomous regions that have created "chronic-disease as for ineffective and inefficiency in law implementation. What can be learnt from the above analysis results is that the political Law of Law 6/2014 is that establishing state-corporatism for village institutional status is a mistake. This study recommends that Articles in Law 6/2014 which is problematic need to be reconstructed based on sincere legal politics, jointly between the Government and the Legislative, considering correct vertical and horizontal legal harmony. The institutional status of the Village Government will be correct-full when it is placed as a symmetrical and/or asymmetrical formal autonomous region as it has the original attributive recognition under Article 18 B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Indonesia Constitution. The Norms in Article 1 -95 of the Law 6/2014, which are not synchronous vertically with the 1945 Constitution and the equivalent laws, must be corrected and reconstructed through the judicial review in Constitutional Court. By far, some other critical legal issues still need attention for further studies. One is the legal standing of village authority in ruling village law and village institutional, the legal status of quasi Government in managing the state budget. Thus, with that complementary various research results, it is hoped that an adequate legal system (Structure-Content-Culture) can be built to manage the village.