VILLAGE MULTICULTURALISM IN BALI IN COUNTRY CONTROL

Bali is a bastion of ideal multiculturalism (Pickard, 1990). The context of this understanding is built on the translation of the philosophy of Tri Hita Karana. The philosophy that places human relations with God, others, and the environment as well as the basis of the relationship of Balinese culture with other harmonious cultures. In some villages in Bali, this harmony runs for hundreds of years, even its presence precedes the existence of the nation-state. After the modern state was present, Bali, with all its tourism attributes, explained the strong character of the country's presence through a variety of interests. The state and regulatory instruments, such as the Village Law, become an explanation of how the pillars supporting the village including the implementation of multiculturalism are regulated in such a way by the State. According to the theory of sovereignty, the state manifests sovereignty in the routine village budgeting instruments as well as asserting ownership of the control of multiculturalism in the frame of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.
Multiculutralism guarantees cultural diversity in which there is equality of citizens in the public arena (al-Makassary, 2007). In this diversity always provides opportunities for the growth of shared space (public sphere). Multicultural societies are characterized by diverse ethnicities and consist of value patterns in either belief systems, ideologies, or cogintif symbols (Ardhana, 2011: 15). Multi-culture is operationalized in the practice of guaranteeing equality in the particularity of ethnic groups and religions constructed by a system of ideas or knowledge of the local community (Goodenough, 1967, Ahimsa-Putra, 2007, Gutomo, 2008).
The manifestation of the state in the Village Law and the running of a multicultural climate need to require in-depth study. This is especially the village budget as the actualization of the village law has idealization of publicity. An idealization that includes deliberative democratic choices with stakeholder involvement, or simply translating the partial interests of local elites so that they are conflict resistant. Several cases surfaced that the utilization of village budgets was elite bias. The underlying reason, lack of knowledge. village officials (Noak, 2016) to the fear of corruption cases that forced them to take the safe way of replicating the central government program, even though the 2019 allocation has increased (Kompas, 5 July 2018).
This research examines the problematic mechanism of village fund budgeting that ensures the maintenance of multiculturalism in the village. Does state control through implementing village regulations actually find idealized nature or even counterproductive by storing conflict resistance due to the inability to respond to specific problems related to multiculturalism at the local level.
Based on the background, this research examines the pattern of utilizing village funds for the development of cross-cultural activities. Cross-culture in this research is directed as a practice of guaranteeing the equality of particularity of ethnic groups and religions constructed by a system of ideas or knowledge of the community. The questions are elaborated on the question, what is the process of preparing budgeting planning, implementation, and monitoring the evaluation of cross-cultural activities (accommodating ethnic or religious equality) that are budgeted from village fund posts in Dalung, Badung and Pegayaman Villages, Buleleng? Is the pattern instructive or participatory? Instructive in the measurement of the process of the village budget budgeting cycle is only a translation of sloganistic deconcentration tasks; or participatory which truly institutionalizes the needs of cross-cultural issues in the village area concerned.
The answer to the question is analyzed by analysis that relates each statement to the reality of the macro structure, namely how the state constructs its control efforts on the harmony of multiculturalism that runs through the process of roiling at the grassroots level, namely the village. So the description of the answers to the problem formulation is not merely described mechanically normatively, but is critically analyzed so that research is able to diagnose the reasons for the inhibitors and their drivers comprehensively. The state exercises control over all forms of development, especially in the development of multiculturalism at the village level, only cosmetically. Which is shown more on instructive patterns. In the public, they seem to provide creative space for each village, but on the other hand they still hold very strong control, especially through financial administrative reporting controls with a variety of overlapping regulations. The policies for developing village rules always change. Sometimes there is still this table and that table which are always the same and inconvenient. The top government, in this case vertical agencies such as sub-districts and offices are considered to be less responsive and accommodating in understanding the characteristics of local problems below, which in the end also includes hindering the development of multiculturalism at the local level, including the potential for the development of multiculturalism activities