Sekapuk Village in Ujungpangkah, Gresik Regency, has often been celebrated as a beacon of rural transformation in Indonesia. Popularly dubbed as the "Miliarder Village," it serves as a testament to how effective leadership and community engagement can redefine the socio-economic landscape of a rural area. Sekapuk's development was driven by innovative governance, leveraging local resources and community-based tourism to achieve financial independence and social progress. However, as with any transformative journey, Sekapuk now finds itself at a critical crossroads. The leadership vacuum following the end of the former village head's tenure, coupled with allegations of financial mismanagement and asset misuse, has raised pressing questions about governance, accountability, and the sustainability of its progress.
This writing explores the challenges faced by Sekapuk Village in recent months, delving into the intricate interplay of governance failures, social tensions, and the impact of leadership instability. Furthermore, it highlights the broader implications of these issues on social transformation and community development. It also provides recommendations for overcoming these challenges to ensure that Sekapuk remains a model for rural revitalization.
The Origins of the Crisis: Leadership Vacuum and its Implications
The root of Sekapuk's current challenges lies in the absence of definitive leadership. The former village head, whose tenure ended in January 2024, played a pivotal role in spearheading the village's transformation. However, the delay in appointing a new leader has created a governance vacuum, leaving critical decisions and ongoing initiatives in limbo. Leadership is fundamental to the success of any community transformation effort, serving as the unifying force that guides collective action and steers progress. Without a figurehead to provide direction, Sekapuk's social and economic programs risk stagnation.
In Sekapuk's case, the absence of leadership has also exacerbated underlying tensions within the community. The lack of clear authority has left unresolved disputes to fester, particularly regarding the management of the village-owned enterprise (BUMDes). The prolonged leadership vacuum has weakened the institutional structures that once supported community-driven progress, creating a fertile ground for discord and discontent.
Allegations of Mismanagement: The BUMDes Controversy
Central to the unfolding crisis in Sekapuk are allegations of mismanagement surrounding the village-owned enterprise, BUMDes. Initially established as a vehicle for economic empowerment, BUMDes was instrumental in turning Sekapuk into a self-sustaining village. The enterprise managed various sectors, including local tourism, agricultural processing, and retail businesses, contributing significantly to the village's income.
However, concerns about transparency and accountability have now come to the forefront. According to residents, the former village head operated BUMDes with minimal community involvement, making unilateral decisions that undermined trust and equity. Specific accusations include:
Unilateral Profit Allocation: It was reported that profits from BUMDes operations were disproportionately allocated, with the former village head allegedly demanding shares as compensation for his role in conceptualizing and developing local tourism projects. This practice not only breached community trust but also created a precedent for inequitable resource distribution.
Asset Mismanagement: Allegations have surfaced that key village assets, including certificates of land ownership and vehicle BPKB documents, were used as collateral to secure loans for BUMDes. These loans, totaling approximately IDR 3.8 billion, were reportedly used to meet unrealistic revenue targets set by the former village head. Residents claim that these debts were incurred without proper consultation or approval, leaving the village at financial risk.
Lack of Financial Transparency: Audits conducted by the local inspectorate revealed significant discrepancies in financial reporting. For instance, a project budgeted at IDR 500 million for infrastructure development was reportedly executed for only IDR 300 million. Such discrepancies have raised suspicions of embezzlement and improper allocation of funds.
