Elite and Empowerment of Local Communities: The Dilemma Between Participation and Mobilization in The Era of Democracy

This article discusses the role of local elites in stimulating community participation in various development programs. As is well known, the Serut Hamlet area in Bantul Regency is fostered by private institutions, while the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village is a village that grows for the benefit of the community's economy. This is where the challenge of empowerment will emerge, namely the many activities that only end in a momentary 'project'. By using a qualitative approach in the form of case studies, our study shows that the contribution of the elite in the empowerment process can be said to be quite large. As it is known, the formal elite, in this case the head of the tourism village management and the hamlet head, are the owners of sufficient power to open and close access to empowerment activities. This is reinforced by the ability of the elite to "care for" the sustainability of activities through various means, namely optimization and mobilization. This elite ability is what makes it a determining factor in the success of community empowerment projects.


Introduction
This paper elaborates on the existence of elites and participation in the community empowerment process. This is important to elaborate on to see the empowerment process from another side, namely from the elite side because they can play through the power to achieve their interests. Elites are deemed necessary and capable of being agents who contribute to the progress of society because of their political position because they can be at the forefront of relationships as well as in moving society.
Through this text, the author elaborates on the involvement of elites in local community empowerment schemes in Bantul and Sleman districts in mapping patterns that can occur in various community empowerment activities.
The discourse on community empowerment and development is often linked to the active role of the community in improving their conditions. This has implications for the majority of studies that place great emphasis on the participation and active role of the community in development. The community is considered as a subject that greatly contributes to the empowerment process that comes to its territory. The assumption is that the community is the target of a program, and they are the main players as well as the determinants of the success of the local empowerment program.
In addition to the community entity that becomes the discourse, other perspectives see the existence of the elite as an important figure in the community empowerment process. As it is known that the plurality of society will be managed by a formal entity that carries out social arrangements for the sake of achieving order. This entity is represented in various formal actors, such as the Head of the RT, the Head of the Hamlet, the Village Head, and other formal actors who play a strategic role. They become actors that are targeted by external and internal regional parties in the context of regional development. Although here the active participation of local communities is important, the consent of the formal actors is also an equally important dimension.
This text in more depth will use the second perspective in elaborating the progress of two villages in the Yogyakarta Special Region, namely Serut Hamlet in Bantul Regency and Blue Lagoon Tourism Village in Sleman Regency. Serut Hamlet was declared by the Housing Resource Center (HRC) as a pilot hamlet in the field of participation and organic agriculture (HRC, 2007). Meanwhile, the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village is a village that has won the favorite category of developing tourism villages in the 2018 District Tourism Village Festival Sleman. The two loci are considered attractive based on the main argument that the advancement of these two regions cannot be separated from the role of the elite who "want" to play their central role.
The elaboration of the advancement of the two areas of innovation was carried out using descriptive qualitative methods. The role of the elite and the advancement of a region is a specific topic and has clear boundaries so that case studies are considered as the right tool (Yin, 2003). The use of various data through in-depth interviews, observations, and document studies is optimized in providing descriptions of the realities occurring in both regions.
Essentially, elites emerge as a consequence of layers of hierarchical relationships between small groups that control resources and other groups that cannot control resources. They can play a greater role and influence because of the advantages they have, which other groups of individuals do not have, and this in turn will join a group known as the elite group (Haryanto, 2017). Furthermore, elites are formed when legitimacy is built trying to influence every political decision (Kaplan, 2010).
Elites who exercise power can have implications for changes in the local political economy. Access control or elite resources is formed by their capacity to operate at various scales and the ability of several groups to adapt to changes in the political economy (Geenen & Cuvelier, 2018). At least this needs to be done so that the elite can maintain its existence. Besides, leadership development and capacity building can be used in empowering communities and encouraging change (Wahid et al., 2016).
Changes in this phase can be part of the desire of the masses, or initiation from the elite. Thus, power and cooperation becomes a necessity for elites who want to make changes.
Furthermore, elite power management is used to maintain elite power and legitimacy. Control of the distribution and allocation of these resources can be seen from the lack of openness to space and actors, as well as the concentration of places of power and conflict. Of course, with the centralization of space and actors, a person can become an elite and maintain his power. Apart from that, there is another view that the elite can consolidate. At a time when elite capture is uncertain, the process of consolidation will continue to be transformed through social struggles and grassroots institutional innovation (García-López, 2019). The success of the consolidation will affect the synergy between the elite and the grassroots, and vice versa. Therefore, grassroots as seed nodes have better performance than elites in terms of spreading effect (Li et al., 2019). Thus, the sophistication of elite power over the masses will affect the resultant empowerment process carried out.
In the context of community empowerment and development, there are often spaces that are not filled by the state. This space can be entered by actors with the hoods of community development and empowerment. Therefore, these local community leaders are usually quite familiar with the problems faced, especially those who have concerns about social problems (Marin, 2015). At the same time, networking with the government to promote democracy and ensure participation in policy planning and implementation is considered quite important (Wahid et al., 2016). The camp is optimistic that community-based development contributes to a gradual process of transforming local power relations, with donors acting as a catalyst (Fritzen, 2007). It is used to reach out to communities, raise aspirations, involve the masses, and provide incentives to local governments to empower local communities and be accountable for their input (Dongier et al., 2003). Therefore, the government must guide the community to build a more adaptive and rigorous multidimensional poverty framework in targeting community-based welfare programs (Han & Gao, 2019). For this reason, it is necessary to change the centralized model from project planning and distribution of benefits to a more decentralized direction, for example in the decentralization of renewable energy projects in developing countries (Fathoni et al., 2021).
However, normalization, romanticization and depoliticization of poverty legitimize social inequality and divert attention from the state and its responsibility for poverty reduction (Nisbett, 2017). Apart from the shift in responsibility, the relationship between the state and the elite is also based on business interests. In this case, the use of public space as part of fulfilling human security is often defeated by business and political interests (Kurniaty, 2014). Furthermore, the idea of empowering the poor, in a language that is evocative but often vague is used in community-based development work (Alsop, 2005). Therefore, elites are always active in shaping their local communities by contributing to shaping discourse, interacting in various arenas and even making strategic decisions including material considerations (Søholt et al., 2018). Thus, the consequence that arises is that the government must pay attention to the roles and interests of local elites in developing community-based development projects (Liu et al., 2016).
The existence of elites as actors who have more abilities, especially in terms of reading and taking advantage of opportunities, of course cannot be separated from the local social, economic and political context. Indonesia has experienced a dramatic shift in formal governance arrangements since the fall of President Soeharto and the closure of a centralized and authoritarian regime in 1997 (Fritzen, 2007). However, Indonesia's democratic transition is anything but linear (Erb et al., 2013). Meanwhile, a different group of analysts paint a picture where institutional forms have changed, but power relations have not changed (Fritzen, 2007). Furthermore, decentralization with a layer of democracy can still be easily manipulated by the central and local elites (Silver, 2005). Thus it can be said that post-reformation, elites are not only concentrated centrally but have spread to the regions and have more space.
Furthermore, ongoing decentralization and regional autonomy have shown a social impact on the existence of elites. Decentralization in Indonesia not only gives greater power and authority to local governments, but also increases the dynamics of local political constellations (Kurniaty, 2014). A clear caveat about decentralization embedded in my argument is that we are witnessing the rise of historically driven subnational inequalities in local representation and redistribution, which is further exacerbated in the case of low equilibrium performance (Wilfahrt, 2018). The ineffectiveness of institutions in developing countries is largely due to weak law enforcement mechanisms, which is exacerbated by the vacuum of institutions, where these institutions act as a check on elite behavior and influence how elites emerge and compete with each other (Nakpodia & Adegbite, 2017). Furthermore, the risk of decentralization has provided unexpected benefits for some communities, even on the other hand it has the potential to exacerbate inequality between villages in other communities (Wilfahrt, 2018). Therefore, local communities are rarely empowered to imagine, and create, a better future (Bourgeois et al., 2017). How the diversity norms of rural elites influence how differences are positioned and handled through a process of inclusion/exclusion against retention and acceptance, with rural areas as a possible space to build local resilience (Søholt et al., 2018). Besides, the degree of diversity in influencing policy outcomes is determined endogenously by the strength of the rich elite because the poor in the regions are divided into several groups with different preferences for public goods, while politicians from different groups can form coalitions (Bandiera & Levy, 2011). It also makes power relations asymmetrical but promises something unstable (Sovacool, 2019).
Some studies confirm that the post-reform elite can be viewed in a more diverse manner (Bayo et al., 2018). This is where the studies of Indonesian elites experience a shift no longer formalistic and centralized, but instead are increasingly open to the variety of elite figures and the variety of power spaces they have. Institutionally, there are four institutional domains where actors (including the elite) can take part, namely quadrant I (formalist-elitist), quadrant II (consociational regime), quadrant III (socio-culturalist regime), and quadrant IV (plural-compromise regime). In summary, quadrant I elites tend to exercise formal institutional control through regional elections, and on the other hand the masses are positioned as the barns of votes. Transactional politics are used by elites to control resources, for example what happened in Aceh where religion was the basis for raising votes. On the other hand, in quadrant II, the (informal) elites are deliberative and deliberate to enter the formal domain, as happened in Jayapura. In quadrant III, the informal elites can anticipate so that the formal elites remain under their control. The figure of Kyai in Sidoarjo in the santri community for example. They play a central role because they become the pivot that models the behavior of the masses beneath them. In quadrant IV, there is a consensus among the elites by way of division of political positions and at the grassroots level to build harmony between ethnic groups. In Ambon, for example, this is of course inseparable from the historical context of the past, so that the elite need to compromise to secure their power. Based on this study, it appears that it is not easy to simplify the history of the Indonesian elite. Each place has its uniqueness, which cannot be separated from its respective socio-political context. Studies of Indonesian local elites at least provide a frame, that elites can be seen from various quadrants (Bayo et al., 2018). In the electoral context or terms of development, the elite and the masses are a necessity and are dependent regardless of the type of relationship.
This paper deliberately takes a slightly different point of view. In the context of development, the author realizes how central the role of the elite is, so it cannot be denied that one of the consequences that arise from the existence of elites is limited participation. This is because community forums, referendums, and community participatory monitoring have been designed to limit elite capture and increase community engagement, they have had only limited success (Beath et al., 2018). Therefore, the elites try to control the available resources to control the allocation and distribution of these resources. Also, elites tend to influence people's choices in assessing existing policies. This influence can be exercised through existing spaces in society, or through the creation of artificial spaces deliberately created by elites to achieve their interests.

Methods
The approach used in this research is a case study. A case study is a research method that examines some or all of the potential aspects of a particular unit or series of cases. Meanwhile, the research method used by researchers is descriptive qualitative research methods. In qualitative research, an important factor that must be considered is the validity of the data. To determine the validity of the data, this study uses a data triangulation model. Furthermore, the data analysis method used is interactive data analysis, which is an analysis carried out in an interactive form on the main components that are interrelated with each other: (1) data reduction is defined as the process of selecting focus on simplification, abstracting and transformation of "rough" data "arising from notes written in the field; (2) data presentation, this subprocess is a form of "presentation" which is interpreted as a set of structured information that gives the possibility to draw conclusions and take action; (3) making conclusions or diversification, in this sub-process, researchers begin to interpret actions that give meaning to the data or information that has been presented (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Result and Discussion Position Elite in the Social Structure of Society
The study of elites is nothing new in the realm of political science. The elite is an entity that exists in society, and is usually contrasted with 'mass', both of which have different powers. The elite occupies a fairly central position on the advantages inherent in itself. This has made it possible for the elite to have 'more' power when compared to other entities (Sastroatmodjo, 1995). This advantage makes the elite a figure who has more power when compared to his followers.
How central the elite position is due to its power base, for example science, economic and social capital, expertise, education, and so on. Thus, the elite will usually have a mention based on their power base, for example the economic elite, the political elite, and so on. They play their role in a diverse regional scope, so that they are also known as local elites, national elites, and so on. All this shows that the elite has a scope of power and operationalization that can differ from one another.
This article will use this perspective in analyzing regional progress. The author observes how elites exercise their power in the process of community empowerment which leads to regional progress. Elites in this case will be represented by formal actors who occupy strategic positions in the region. The Hamlet Head and the Head of the Tourism Village Management are several institutional positions attached to a person to lead and carry out the function of advancing an area according to common interests. This position will be a marker of their legality in making decisions that bind all members of society, and can even lead them to exploit the masses (Bottomore, 2006). This text will not use the phrase "exploitation of power" as a verb in describing the relationship between the elite vs the masses. This text will use the phrase 'if power' in describing the relationship between the elite and the masses. In the context of community empowerment, elite power can be seen in various ways, from the initiation process, execution to the evaluation of a program. This text will specifically elaborate on how the elite operates their power in the process of initiating community empowerment activities. Initiation is considered a crucial point because it is in the early phase of the program. In other words, the program will be implemented if there is an initial process of "acceptance" or "rejection" from the authorized entity.
Although the elite perspective will be dominantly used in this text, the author does not ignore the degree of community participation as an aspect related to elite power training. Participation is an important element in the community empowerment process because it places the community as the subject or actor of activities for them. For proponents of local democracy, public participation in solving problems is important. This mechanism directly becomes an arena for the community to voice their aspirations as well as being part of the expansion of the political space of the community to contribute to development. It is at this level that followers of the concept of communitarian democracy will see the dimensions of expanding the public space, activating the role of social groups, citizen forums and group networks as very important aspects. Not only that, a tolerant, open, egalitarian, mutual trust and care for each other are valuable social assets. Here, adherents of an elite perspective will believe that government performance is very important because ideally, it will provide opportunities for participation and control by the public in government (Jamil Gunawan, 2005).
Exercise of elite power can directly affect community involvement because elites can determine whether or not to open the tap for maximum participation. Classifies participation as a form of mobilization and autonomous participation (Huntington & Nelson, 1990). The two are not easily distinguished, but the development of participation can slip in the direction of mobilization. At least there is a participation 'ladder' where each rung describes the level of citizen participation in a program (Arnstein, 1969). This idea emerged based on studies of various federal programs in the United States. Source: Arnstein (1969). The eight steps indicate a level of participation which can generally be described through eight steps, namely manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. In general, the work describes how community involvement influences program planning. This paper provides a theoretical framework, namely looking at community involvement in deciding a program. Also, these writings can be used for advocacy as well as to understand how to involve the community as equal partners.
The eight ladders are grouped into three terms, namely: non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. In the nonparticipation group, there are at least two steps, namely manipulation and therapy. This category does not open opportunities for participation because it is only used to provide information to citizens. Meanwhile, informing and consultation have a stronger gradation of participation than the previous group because citizens have the right to hear and convey their aspirations, but they also cannot ensure that their aspirations are heeded. Almost in line with the two, placation is a phase where residents can voice their aspirations well, but decisionmaking remains with the policymakers.
Steps 1 to 5 indicate the lack of opportunities for citizens to fully participate in decision making. This is different from stairs 6-8 which place citizens as active subjects, grouped as citizen power. In this group there are three ladders, namely partnership, delegated power and citizen control. The partnership allows citizens to negotiate and be involved in activities, while delegated power and citizen control place citizens to play a dominant role in decision making, even in managing activities.
Although it appears to simplify citizen participation, Arnstein's eight steps are considered helpful in describing the level of citizen participation. The gradation of participation may be caused by various factors, one of which is the role of the elite which will be elaborated on in this paper.

Elite and Community Empowerment: Learning FromSerut and the Blue Lagoon
Serut Hamlet in Bantul Regency and Blue Lagoon Tourism Village in Sleman Regency are two interesting loci to be elaborated on. The title Dusun Serut as a pilot hamlet in the field of community participation, as well as the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village as a developing tourism village are pieces of evidences to support the elaboration of this research. The advancement of the two regions is the result of the empowerment process.
Serut Hamlet is part of an agricultural area located in Palbapang District, Bantul Regency. This area is led by RahmadTobadiyana, otherwise known as Pak Toba. He has served as the Head of Serut Hamlet since 1992. At that time he still held the status of a student, and was active in the KarangTaruna Bantul Regency with various activities he participated in. Thus, Pak Toba had various networks for his position as the Public Relations of the Bantul Regency Youth Organization at that time. Long story short, various activities, networks, and personal characters have led him to be elected as the Head of the Hamlet. This is where Pak Toba exercises his power in managing the Dusun Serut area.
Initially, the development of Serut Hamlet seemed to be running like other hamlets, until the earthquake on May 26, 2006 that occurred in DIY. This region is included as a severe area because of the extraordinary material and non-material losses. Many houses collapsed in the earthquake. This became the starting point for the revival of Serut Hamlet because at that time many NGOs were offering post-earthquake recovery assistance.
The arrival of HRC as an institution engaged in the housing sector is not something that suddenly emerged. Initially this institution wanted to assist at the district level, but from the government side directed it to assist at the village level. At that time, Palbapang Village felt quite a hassle, so they directed HRC to assist at the hamlet level. As a result, only one hamlet wanted to be assisted by HRC, namely Dusun Serut. The acceptance of HRC as a community empowering actor in the field of housing arrangement cannot be separated from Pak Toba's accusation as the head of the hamlet. Pak Toba can be said to be the only hamlet head who took the initiative to accept the offer of this program without holding discussions with the residents.
The acceptance of the programs offered by HRC cannot be separated from Pak Toba's consideration as the head of the hamlet in improving the area he leads. The participatory zoning program has become a program that is considered useful in managing the construction of houses for residents after the earthquake. For this reason, Pak Toba then coordinated with the heads of RT and RW to carry out the zoning program. It was they who in the next activity was involved in the arrangement of the Dusun Serut area as representatives of the residents of each RT. Pak Toba invites the figures to discuss and formulate a regional development plan as outlined in the following map: The process of accepting the regional arrangement program in Serut Hamlet can illustrate how big the role of the elite in activities. Elites are considered as people who can be invited to playon (run fast) when compared to the masses. For this reason, Pak Toba only involves trusted people in the implementation of the zoning program. This program produces land use maps that will guide the direction of regional development. During its development, Pak Toba was invited/mobilized to implement and be involved in regional development programs offered by partners.
Slightly different from what Pak Toba did, Suhadi at the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village carried out his function by initiating the innovation of a tourist attraction into cultural and agricultural tourism. With a background as a military apparatus, namely the non-commissioned officer of the village, Suhadi initiated a tourist attraction in the area to become cultural and agricultural tourism. This innovation is considered as a form of empowerment to reduce the number of unemployed in the village.
This innovation is not a process that runs quickly because various social dynamics occur. Initially, Blue Lagoon was a spring that was only used by residents for their daily life. Suhadi as one of the village elite views that this object can be managed to increase village income. For this reason, Suhadi encouraged the youth to participate in developing this spring. By optimizing the abilities of youth, this area has been developed by providing parking lots, ticketing, marketing, and so on.
Community empowerment through tourist villages is not an easy thing for the elite to do, because it takes efforts to change people's habits in maintaining the beauty of tourist attractions. Springs are not only used for daily life, but are also managed and marketed to the general public. This is where the challenges of the empowerment process are faced by relying on youth and local communities to participate in providing and maintaining accommodation and tourism support facilities.
This innovation in transforming a spring into cultural and agricultural tourism has provided various benefits for the village, the general public and individuals. The cultural and agricultural tourism innovations in the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village have also helped develop the natural potential and the existing community, so that they can contribute to improving the welfare of the community. Although this innovation still seems elite centric, the innovation in cultural and agricultural tourism initiated by Suhadi has won various awards for the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village. One of them is the title of favorite winner in the developing tourism village category in the 2018 Tourism Village Festival in Sleman Regency.
Suhadi's progress in developing a tourist village has led him to the political benefits he has received. Suhadi now appears as a new elite in the influential Blue Lagoon Tourism Village. This is because, Suhadi succeeded in mobilizing and providing economic benefits for the people around the tourist attractions.
Based on his success in innovating and leading the surrounding community, Suhadi has been trusted as the head of the tourism village manager. Now he is a central figure in the formation of policies in the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village. Suhadi is considered capable of solving various problems in the village area. First, there has been no attempt to make watershed objects and springs as tourist objects that provide economic benefits for the community. Second, there is no awareness of the community around tourist objects to maintain the beauty of watershed objects and springs. Third, there has been no initiation in moving the community to jointly manage watershed objects and springs. Fourth, efforts to establish partners are still low. Fifth, the quality of facilities at tourist objects is still low.
These various problems are considered to be easily resolved by optimizing tourist objects through community empowerment. Elit has initiated a program to create a tourist village and use it in managing tourist objects. The benefit of tourist objects can be optimized by the manager in improving the welfare of the community. At the same point, this increase has consequences for increasing public participation in tourist objects. Besides, even though Suhadi is the initiator or chief manager, the management of tourist objects still pays attention to the role of the community. This results in managers acting selectively to choose partners in developing tourist objects, so as not to marginalize the role of the community and the beauty of the tourist attraction. This can be seen when the construction of tourist attraction facilities is carried out jointly by the community around the tourist attraction.

Elite and Degree of Citizen Participation in Empowerment Programs
The two case studies above lead to one big explanation, namely the relationship between the elite and the degree of community participation. The area planning program in Serut Hamlet and the management of Blue Lagoon Village as cultural and agricultural tourism are two studies that have been elaborated using the perspectives set out at the beginning of this text. The investigators' elaboration shows that both cases have distinctive characteristics. This is illustrated in the following  The  table  shows several differences between Serut and Blue Lagoon. The contribution of the elite looks different from each other, but already have the same ideas: they have sufficient power to open or close the participation because of their needs. They have several arguments on why they need to close or not. Huge participation tends to be effective or ineffective in the same way if they didn't manage it.
The zoning program in Serut Hamlet indicates the dominance of elite involvement in the process of receiving and implementing the program. The hamlet head, as the formal elite in the hamlet realm, is the actor who has authorized the zoning program in his area. Furthermore, he mobilized the second layer of elites, in this case RT, RW and community leaders to carry out area arrangements starting from drawing the population map at an early stage to planning hamlet development. The head of the RT is considered to be a representative of the people living in Serut Hamlet. They are considered as actors who know and know the people in their area.
The involvement of RT and community leaders illustrates the ladder of participation in the form of placation. As stated by Arnstein (1969), placation is part of the ladder of participation where they can vote but decision making will return to the elite. However, on the other hand, the absence of the general public can be called informing because the general public is only informed about the results of the zoning process. The results of the arrangement of the area were posted in several openings as a form of publication to the public.
The innovation of Blue Lagoon Tourism Village as cultural and agricultural tourism shows community involvement in the process of managing a tourist village. Suhadi, as the noncommissioned officer for village guidance, is the initiator in the development of tourism village innovation. This innovation has provided benefits and changed the social life patterns of the community around the tourist attraction so that the community then gave Suhadi power as the head of the tourism village manager.
Furthermore, Suhadi's involvement in innovating the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village then did not marginalize community participation. The pattern that was formed at the beginning of the activity was placation, where at that time the community could voice their aspirations. The majority of the people at that time were unemployed so they had an interest in increasing economic capacity. This in turn encourages them to enter the next stage, namely delegated power because they are the ones running the tourism village program. This is where the participation of the community around the tourist attraction leads to autonomous participation after the tourist attraction is crowded with tourists. Village communities, especially youth, are aware that progress. Existing development due to the benefits of the optimization of tourist objects. This form of awareness, for example, is that the youth take turns to manage the tourist attraction. This then makes it easier for the development of tourist objects, which requires coordination between surrounding communities in managing the facilities and the beauty of the tourist attraction. This means that the management of the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village then makes an effort to make the community aware of the benefits of optimizing the potential that exists in this tourist attraction. The two cases show different characteristics of participation. In Serut Hamlet, participation is deliberately mobilized in response to zoning activities to make it run more effectively. This activity comes from a third party, so that the elite plays an important position to ensure the sustainability of the program. Thus, the placation ladder continued with informing is an option so that program acceptance and implementation run more efficiently.
Meanwhile, in Blue Langoon Tourism Village, empowerment activities are activities that were born from the initiative of a resident to improve the economic capacity of residents. For this reason, placation continues with delegated power to become a 'chosen' style because of the interest in raising the economy together with shared capital.

Conclusion
Community empowerment through various programs is dynamic and interesting to elaborate on. The various titles pinned to various hamlets, villages, and even districts indicate that there are aspects that are favored by the region. However, behind the progress in a region, there are elite and mass entities that can contribute to the progress of the region. With this perspective, the author has elaborated the process of structuring the area in Serut Hamlet and the management of Blue Lagoon Village as cultural and agricultural tourism.
The elaboration of the empowerment process in the two regions has concluded that there is a strong elite involvement in the initiation process and program implementation. Elites have power over the authority inherent in the positions they have. They have the opportunity to accept and mobilize the community to be involved in a program. At this point, public participation can slip towards elite mobilization. This is in contrast to democracy advocates, who emphasize the importance of public participation.
By using an elite perspective, while at the same time not leaving the element of community participation, the author elaborates on the realities in Serut Hamlet and Blue Lagoon Tourism Village. The reality in Serut Hamlet shows that the elite, in this case the hamlet head, only involves the second layer elite in the process of regional planning. This reality shows placation because the second layer elite can give their voice as a form of representation of society. However, on the other hand, the general public is not involved in the zoning program, which may indicate the informing ladder. The general public only accepts the final result of the zoning process in the form of a map affixing publication at several points.
The innovation of Blue Lagoon Tourism Village as cultural and agricultural tourism shows community involvement in the process of managing a tourist village. Suhadi, as the noncommissioned officer for village guidance, is the initiator in the development of tourism village innovation. This innovation has provided benefits and changed the social life patterns of the community around the tourist attraction so that the community then gave Suhadi power as the head of the tourism village manager. Furthermore, the pattern formed in community participation is autonomous participation. Village communities, especially youth, are aware that the progress of existing development is due to the benefits of optimizing tourist objects. This means that the management of the Blue Lagoon Tourism Village then makes an effort to make the community aware of the benefits of optimizing the potential that exists in this tourist attraction.
Studies in both regions have shown a strong elite involvement in the empowerment process. This cannot be separated from the motive behind the choice of the mode of participation. The efficiency motive in accepting third party assistance is the driving force for the Serut Hamlet elite to choose the placation-informing ladder. Meanwhile, the choice of the placation-delegated power ladder in the development of Blue Lagoon Tourism Village can occur because it requires full community involvement to increase economic capacity.
This study can at least provide a more critical perspective on the community empowerment process, where the existence of the elite is no less important than the community. The elite has the power that can be the driving force for the community empowerment process through various programs, as well as choosing the right participation model in achieving goals. On the other side, the elite can be seen as a powerful actor who already knows the character of the mass/society. They decided the best way to reach the mission, although the elite-driven participation.

About Authors
Hanantyo, is an alumnus of the UNSOED Bachelor of Government Science and Masters in Politics and Government of Gadjah Mada University. Currently active as a researcher as well as a Lecturer in Government Science at the University of AMIKOM Yogyakarta. Having an interest in the topics of decentralization and regional autonomy, community empowerment, and local politics.
Desiana, is an alumnus of the Department of Politics and Government and a Masters in National Defense from Gadjah Mada University. Has been a research assistant at the Research Center for Politics and Governance (PolGov) DPP Fisipol UGM in 2016-2018, and has been a Lecturer in Government Sciences at AMIKOM University Yogyakarta in 2018. Has an interest in the topics of border governance, local politics, project management, CSR governance, and human resource management.