Abstrak
Dalam setiap Pemilihan Kepala Daerah (Pilkada) pasangan calon yang bersaing diperhadapkan dengan dua penalaran yang berjalan secara pararel, namun ambivalen. Dalam konteks ini ada dua nalar yang ambivalen, yakni : (1) nalar aktifis yang demokratis dan (2) nalar politisi/yang pragmatis. Ke dua nalar tersebut bertentangan dalam mempersepsi pemberian – penerimaan, yang oleh para aktifis divonis sebagai tindakan money politics. Sebaliknya para politisi mempersepsi pemberian materi dan non materi sebagai pewujudan silaturahmi dalam masyarakat. Tujuan penulisan artikel ini ialah untuk mengungkap bekerjanya dua nalar ambivalen yang melatarbelakangi kemenangan elite politik dalam Pilkada Kaltim. Untuk mengkaji penelitian ini penulis menggunakan metode pengumpulan data: wawancara, diskusi kelompok, studi literatur dan observasi lapangan (kualitatif). Adapun perspektif studi ini menggunakan paradigma konstruktif (aktor) dalam rangka menguak bekerjanya nalar politik dibalik kemenangan elit dalam Pilkada. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan elite politik mampu mengelola nalar aktifis dan nalar politisi sebagai keniscayaan untuk memenangkan kontestasi dalam Pilkada. Pengelolaan terhadap dua nalar yang bertentangan tersebut penulis sebut dengan istilah politik ambivalensi. Temuan studi ini menawarkan pemikiran alternatif tentang konseptualisasi politik ambivalensi dalam Pilkada. Kata-kata kunci : nalar aktifis, nalar politisi, politik ambivalensi Abstract When elites compete in the elections, then they undoubtedly confront with two perspectives that can not be avoided, namely: (1) normative / idealistic and (2) the pragmatic / contextual. On the one hand they have to portray themselves as a democrat, but on the other hand they have to meet the demands of the community. Those two perspectives are crystallized into a reasoning which runs simultaneously, but ambivalent. In this context, there are two reasons that are ambivalent, namely:(1) The activists/ democratic reasons and (2) political / pragmatic reasons. Both reasons are contrary to the perception of provision - acceptance, which is convicted as an act of money politics by the activists. In contrary, politicians perceive the provision of material and non-material as a realization of the relationship in the community. Purpose this article is about the workings of the two ambivalentreasonsthat background elites’victory in the electionsin East Borneo. To examine this article, the author used data collection methods of interviews, focus group discussions, literature studies and field observations (qualitative). The perspective of this article used constructive paradigm (the actor) in order to reveal the workings of the political reasoning behind the elites’ victory in the elections.The findings of this article indicate that elites are capable of managing logical activists and political reasonings as a necessity to win in the election contestation. The management of these two contradictory reasonings is called a political ambivalence by the author. Elites utilize nobility reasonings embodied in patron-client relationships to affect inland, coastal and urban communities. Elites hold social engineering and offer issues of common enemies in order to create a sense of belonging. The findings of this article offer alternative ideas about the conceptualization of political ambivalence in the elections. Key words: activists reasons, political reasons and political ambivalence
