Applying Kingdom ’ s Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No . 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region

Kingdon’s Multiple Streams, a framework to analyze agenda-setting process is widely considered as a ‘universal’ theoretical framework because of its flexibility to be applied. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the validity of this ‘universal’ term.By using the case of the establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region, this research aims to apply and examine the Kingdon’sframework. The research has been done by using the qualitative method. Interviewing key persons and interpreting written documents are main techniques in data collection process. As the result, this framework remains applicable in the Yogyakarta case. There are 3 factors that brought Yogyakarta issues into the central government’s agenda encompass problem, policy, and politics. Politics is the most dominant factor indicated byYogyakartans strong political movement and Sultanate of Yogyakarta’s political approach. In addition, Sultanate of Yogyakarta canalso bediscussed as a policy entrepreneur. As the conclusion, this research has a significant contribution to Kingdon’s multiple streams framework which is still able to explain social phenomena in policy making studies although there are some concerns that need to be explored further, particularly regarding the role of media and policy entrepreneur.


INTRODUCTION
In the democratic era, every policy is usually created to solve certain public problems.In the real world, government as the policymaker is not able to solve all matters which arisein society.It is in line with the condition where the public demands have been continuing to increase.In this regard, there are only several problems which are prioritized by the government in the policy-makingprocess.To successfully take precedence over, several actors from outside government attempt to boost certain issues (Halligan in Peters and Savoie, 1995).This kind of circumstance happens because the government also has limitation to pick up social problems.Hence, actors outside government also play an important role to influence policy-making process even though they do not have authority to make a decision in policy-making.The Kingdon's work on multiple streams framework asserts that policy-making process is not always linear as a traditional concept explained.It means that there are many dynamics in this process where the ambiguity and uncertainty conditions exist as Kingdon Bastian Widyatama States and some of the European and Asian countries.Moreover, Cairney and Jones (2015) confirm that multiple streams framework is a well-known theory but little applied.Therefore, this study presents to fulfill the vacuity of the application of Kingdon's work by applying this framework in Yogyakarta case.
The establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region can be lifted as a proper case to apply multiple streams framework.It cannot be separated from the fact that this Law needed more than 10 years to be authorized by the central government since the problem emerged in 1998.That was the year when Sultan HamengkuBuwono IX (Sultan HB IX) died which led to the political polemic (Sesung, 2013).Moreover, during those years (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012), many political dynamics occurredfrom proposing policy drafts to negotiation between two leaders, the president of Republic of Indonesia (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) and the governor of Yogyakarta (Sultan HB X).
According to the brief explanation above, it is not easy to enter particular issues or problems into the central government's agenda.Hence, there should be some factors that are able to promote those issues on the government's agenda.Later, the government can pay attention to the public issue and consider it as a problem that should be overcome through public policy.The Kingdon's multiple streams framework will absolutely help the author to find out the factors that may have affected the agenda-setting process.
In this regard, the general objective of this paper is to apply and examine the Kingdon's multiple streams framework by using Yogyakarta case.More than that, this paper is also intended to give an academic contribution towards Kingdon's work.

LITERATURE REVIEW
A policy is an essential thing to be created in a bid to obtain certain goals.However, there are many definitions of public policy.Thomas Dye defined public policy as something chosen by the government to do or not to do (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995).The government becomes the most important stakeholder in decision making because of its authority and function.In detail, there are phases of the policy-making process that usually identified as policy cycle.Those encompass agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, policy assessment, policy adaptation, policy succession, and policy termination (Dunn, 2012).
Agenda setting is the most substantial phasein policy-making process because it will determine the problem that will be discussed.From many problems that exist in social life, only a few of them are able to get into this first step.It happens because government as decision maker also has limitation to accommodate all societal needs.This circumstance depends on how the government considers certain condition or issue as a problem that needs to be solved immediately.If not, then the issue cannot enter into policy cycle and the government will not provide any solution to resolve it.In detail, agenda-setting is the process by which the owner of the agenda (government) organizes activities in the priority scale based on the interests of the proprietor of the agenda (Santoso, 2010).Some scholars also explain agenda setting as a process to determine the main problem in order to be addressed by the government (Jones, 1977), a selection process of matters be overcome by the government (Meltsner, 1976), and a process of searching and filtering issues (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984).Government as the decision maker will examine any problem or issue that has been accepted as aproblem by the public in agenda setting.Therefore, the competition of various interests to get priority in the public agenda often a fierce battle, where each interest must fight for getting priority (Birkland in Fischer at.al, 2007).
To understand how an issue is able to enter into the government's agenda, there is a well-known theoretical framework named multiple streams.This explains how an issue can be considered a public agenda through three streams i.e. problem stream, policy stream, and political stream (Kingdon, 1984).Problem stream is a process to identify and define the issue which is perceived to be serious and critical to be addressed by the government as a policymaker.Policy stream is involved in the process of formulation and adopting policy alternatives or solutions.Then, politics stream consists of three major components encompass national mood, organized political interest, and the government's dynamics.Political events such as demonstration, the voice of interest group, and election highly enable to influence policy outcome.
The main argument is those three streams need to occur simultaneously and converge together at a critical point or 'policy window' if a mere problem wants to be transformed into concrete policy.Nevertheless, problem and politics streams are considered can significantly influence government's agenda, while the alternatives to solve the problems come from policy stream (Sabatier and Wolman in Zhou and Feng, 2014).This framework comes from the reason that the policy-making process is often irrational and dynamic because of the ambiguity in policy environment (Zahariadis, 2003).
In more detail, ambiguity can be defined as the condition in which government does not really know the problem that should be overcome.It also happens in public where they are not able to specifya problem.The multiple streams framework actually is the development of Garbage Can Model that explainedthe condition where there are many actors, objectives, and views in the policy environment.So, it will contribute to how policy is made in ambiguity environment as mentioned above (Turpin and Marais, 2004).Therefore, this framework is able to examine some issues such as how policymakers' attention is captured, how problems are formed, and the problem-solution matching process (John, 1998).Bastian Widyatama

Problem Stream
A problem sometimes comes from certain issues that are not really defined as a public problem in which many people do not sensean issue as their problem.Therefore, if the problems come from a specific group of people, they must have the skill to alter an issue into a public problem.They have to understand that in order to reach government's attention, the problems must be urgent and significant (Birkland, 1997).The problems fade from government's view if people pay attention to the problems only for short period time or temporarily.If correlated with policy entrepreneurs, they can take a role to transform certain issue or their interest into a public problem to get legitimacy ofthe public and attract the government's attention.It means that they have to convince the government that the issues they articulate are urgent and significant.

Policy Stream
In this process, some actors such as government, advocates, and academics compile a list of alternative proposals to solve the problems.Hence, this stream is also called as solution stream.It means that policy communities are able to provide alternatives to the government in order to respond the problems.In this term, policy entrepreneur can also be seen as an actor who provides a solution to government.Moreover, government as a decision maker has authority to choose the highly favored one that might be provided by some actors.In the case that there is no specific list of alternatives provided by policy communities, the government is capable to adapt and modify certain policies that have the same issue.

Politics Stream
The last, politics stream consists of two major components encompass national mood and organized political forces.Kingdonemphasized that this stream is one of the most pivotal streams which can strongly influence the government's agenda.Even if there is an actor who has access or link directly in governmental bodies, the bargaining process will be more powerful.Slightly different from policy stream which builds consensus by persuading, the political stream builds consensus through bargaining (Jenkins, 1995).Related to the policy entrepreneurs, they can effectively influence government to pay attention to certain issues if they have a link with persons inside governmental bodies.

Policy Window and Policy Entrepreneur
Policy window can be defined as a chance or opportunity for certain issues to be considered as solemn problems that need to be solved immediately (Kingdon, 1984).This policy window opens when 3 streams mentioned above could work simultaneously.If one of those streams is absence, it will be difficult to elevate an issue to government's agenda.Due to the period of policy window to open is short, the policy entrepreneur needs to seize the opportunity to facilitate the work of 3 streams in one time (Kendall 2000;Petchey et.al 2008;Oborn et.al 2011 in Zhou andFeng, 2014).Therefore, policy entrepreneur should act quickly to utilize such condition or the opportunity to promote the issues in government's agenda will pass (Zahariadis, 2007).
This framework also stresses the existence of policy entrepreneur who can encourage the government to approve certain problems as its agenda.In addition, policy entrepreneur can be defined as an actor who is willing to invest time and energy to champion an idea or a proposal in order to make certain issues move on the agenda and into a position of enactment (Kingdon in Budiarto, 2009).Another definition, policy entrepreneurs are actors who with tenacity, knowledge, and power try to further their own policy end in government's agenda to solve certain problems (Kingdon, 1984;Jones, 1994).
There are three qualities for an actor to be considered as successful policy entrepreneur such as influential to speak for others, persistence, and must be well-known for its political Bastian Widyatama connections or negotiating skills.In many studies, policy entrepreneur is able to play its role in both problem and policy stream, even in politics stream (e.g.Crow 2010;Houston & Richardson 2000;Lindquist et al. 2010).To reach the policy outcome, policy entrepreneurs should have a strong figure to boost the issue.It means that it is notable for policy entrepreneur to have bargaining power against the government as a decision maker.

RESEARCH METHOD
The method that is used in this research is qualitative because thisis fit to interpret any data from many sources.Even it enables the author to gather description data, either written or spoken from the unit analysis which becomes the research object (Moleong, 2008).In this regard, data is collected by using field research.It means that author conducted an in-depth interview with some actors as representative of Sultanate of Yogyakarta.The data from interviewees will be the most pivotal thing in this research, while written documents, picture, and statistic are applied to the complementary data (Lofland and Lofland, 1984).
Furthermore, the author also utilized written documents as secondary data.Existing studies, mass media, and the Law No.13 of 2012 itself will surely be complementary data besides interview result.According to those data sources, there are 2 main steps that were carried out in data collection process.First, the author collected data from written documents such as mass media, existing study, policy drafts, and others.Second, the author conducted an in-depth interview with some key persons.The function of the latter step was to confirm the earlier data that author obtained from written documents.

ANALYSIS
The long journey of the establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 could not be separated from factors that boosted DIY issues into the central government's agenda.There are 3factors which played important role in the agenda-setting process encompass problem, policy, and politics.In this regard, problem, policy, and politics streams happened Moreover, that moment could be the starting point how the polemic on the privilege of Yogyakartaemerged.As the implication, Sultan HB X became the single candidate for governor position and inaugurated by the president through Presidential Decree.Due to this political situation, DPRD DIY considered the filling mechanism issue as a problem that should be overcome by the central government (Novasari, 2010).Interestingly, there was an assumption that the main problem of Yogyakarta was not the status of 'special' itself, but the status and position of Sultan HB X and PakuAlam IX in the governmental system (Marcelina, 2014).
The filling governor mechanism problemwas escalatedto the next level onthe debate between appointment and election.The appointment and election issue caused a horrendous schism in Yogyakarta society.There were 2 groups known aspro-penetapan (pro-appointment) and pro-pemilihan(pro-election).Pro-appointment is those who agreed if enthroned kings in Sultanate of Yogyakarta and Puro Pakualaman (called PakuAlam)would be inaugurated automatically as governor and vice governor of Yogyakarta.On the opposite side, pro-election argues that the governor and vice governor position should be elected directly by thepublic as it is undertaken in other provinces (Ardiyanti and Darmawan, 2014).In addition, they assert that public has right to elect and to be elected.

Policy Stream: Appointment vs Election
In the case of Yogyakarta, there were some policy drafts (RUUK DIY) that had been sent to the central government in a bid to deal with the problems.All policy drafters were agreed that privilege of Yogyakarta should be arranged appropriately by Law so that this regionis able to have its legal foundation.Mostly, those policy drafts had the similar alternative to surmount the problem.However, the distinction between them was the filling governor and vice governor mechanism.In this regard, policy draft from Department of Politics and Government (DPP), Gadjah Mada University had different notion where Bastian Widyatama the governor and vice governor should be elected by people whilst Sultan and PakuAlam have a higher political position than the governor.
Furthermore, the various types of RUUK DIY could be categorized into 3 perspectives.First is conservative.Conservative group is those who wanted to preserve the feudalistic culture of Sultanate of Yogyakarta.They suggested Sultan and PakuAlam become the governor and vice governorautomatically.Second is transformative.They made serious effort to do change in Yogyakarta governmental system by combining political aspect as a contributive and constructive domain.In detail, they wantedthe two kings still have the highest position in Yogyakarta although the governor and vice governor would be opened for public.The third is critical-liberal.They argued that change should always happen in accordance with the 'trending politics' which is ongoing currently.Hence, they also wanted to conduct an election for the governor and vice governor position (Rosari, 2011).
Many policy drafts that appeared in public affectedthe complexity of how the central government would decide the fix one.However, in 2010, the central government decided to send RUUK DIY on its own version to national assembly (DPR).In that version, the central government still suggested undertaking election process (Kompas Online 16 th December edition, 2010).The Secretary of State said that the policy draft from the central government was the final one and he hoped that various types of policy draft could enrich the discussion in DPR (Republika Online 10 th December edition, 2010).In short, the central government persevered to keep going in its political standpoint in which governor and vice governor position should be elected.On the other hand, most Yogyakartans and policy drafters aspired to conduct appointment rather than election process.This kind of situation led to the high political tension between Jakarta (capital city) and Yogyakarta.

Politics Stream: The Yogyakartans Political Movement
The Yogyakartans political movements from 1998 to 2012demonstratedan important role to initiate occurrences in problem and policy stream.In problem stream, the masses successfully identify their own interest as a public problem.They unconsciously blew up appointment and election issue into public where they required their kings become the governor and vice governor automatically.On the other side, they are able to encourage local government and some academic groups to pay attention to theYogyakarta issue.As the result, DRPD DIY and some academics offered policy draft to the central government Afterwards, the political contestation between central and local was an aftermathof strong grassroots movement in Yogyakarta.There was an also strong disparity between Yogyakarta under Sultan HB X as enthroned king and the central government under the president SBY (Rachman, 2014).Moreover, local media also tended to exaggerate the movements of the pro-appointment group in comparison withthe pro-election group.
The domination of the pro-appointment activities affected to the pro-election group which became marginalized.It also took place inthe national level where the national mood was created with the position that all of Yogyakartans supported appointment mechanism and stood against the central government.For example, Kompas as a national media had a tendency to support the pro-appointment group by blowing up the appointment issue compared to another one (Bangsawan, 2012).
It is also noteworthy that the movements of Yogyakartans cannot be detached from the relationship culture between king and people, mainly in Javanese culture (Gatara, 2009).There is a strong relationship between both of them in which they express mutual respect and responsibility.In Javanese culture, people believe that a king is willing to provide prosperity for people.On the other hand, people will serve their king with loyalty.
Related tothe movements conducted by Yogyakartans, this relationship can be the main reason why they voluntarily are ready for their king to fight for the privilege of Yogyakarta.

The President's Controversial Statement: Opening Policy Window
Looking back on the first time the Yogyakarta issue came into view in 1998, each stream denoted its work.Problem stream arose together with politics stream whenYogyakartans conducted a rally in front of DPRD DIY and asked their representatives to fix the filling governor mechanism problem.Then, the policy stream followed those streams in 2002 when DPRD DIY made effort to offer policy draft to the central government.Since that time, those 3 streams turned on but they never found its moment to open the policy window until 2010.This period can be said as uncertainty because the central government never indicated a clear signal to earnestly discussthe Yogyakarta matter.
The president's controversial statement in 2010 could be indicated as the chance when three streams were coupled.Indeed, it was a moment in which president SBY felt depressed.However, his pronouncementsignified a strong political standpoint and a confirmation that the central government still wanted to conduct election rather than appointment process.By then, the political pressure and national mood regarding Yogyakarta problem were getting stronger.As the impact, the discussion on Yogyakarta significantly grew up at the national level and became the most necessary discussion in the central government's agenda to be addressed.Then, this discussion ended in 2012 when Yogyakarta and Jakarta agreed to implement Law No.13 of 2012.Bastian Widyatama Interestingly, Sultanate of Yogyakarta as policy entrepreneur did not bring out any significant political pressure to the central government.In the other words, Sultanate of Yogyakarta is not too active.Hence, this local monarchy institution only holds on to a principle of 'wait and see'.Wait and see means that Sultan HB X and his families would respond all the political situation if they need to respond it.Otherwise, they always 'throw' the Yogyakarta issue into public in order to gain public attention.Even though its roles are not really prominent, Sultanate of Yogyakarta is still consistent with its interest since the problem appeared in 1998.This institution still desires to conduct appointment rather than election.
No matter how it yet can be identified the roles of Sultanate of Yogyakarta in the case of proposing recommendation.This local institution was always asked to provide a suggestion for all policy drafters, including policy draft from academics, local and national legislatures, and other stakeholders.In addition, when policy draft entered in DPR discussion, Sultanate of Yogyakarta (Sultan HB X) was invited to provide notion and explanation regarding Yogyakarta issue.Implicitly, Sultanate of Yogyakarta still struggled to goal its interest in which governor and vice governor position should come from Applying Kingdom's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No. 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region enthroned kings.Sultan HB X affirmed that its interest was also in line with Yogyakartans' interest.
The political process ended when Sultan HB X and SBY had a meeting directly to determine the fate of Yogyakarta.The formal meeting happened in June 2012 after the powerful speech from Sultan HB X in May 2012 (he declared that governor and vice governor post must be from two local monarchy institutions in Yogyakarta).However, such speech rose due to the uncertain political situation regarding the policy draft discussion in DPR.That moment was recorded as the most powerful political approach from Sultanate of Yogyakarta in order to 'tame' the central government's political standpoint.
The political effort from Sultanate of Yogyakarta was not in vain because it activated negotiation process between those two stakeholders.As the result of it, the central government approved Sultan HB X's interest (Ardiyanti and Darmawan, 2014).On the other hand, Sultan HB X likewise agreed if Sultan HB and PakuAlam will not be a member of political party.In detail, Sultan HB and PakuAlam will be appointed by DPRD DIY and inaugurated by the president in every 5 years.

DISCUSSION
The case of Law No.13 of 2012 establishment can be the best example how Kingdon'sMultiple Streams Framework (MSF) is still relevant to be applied.Compared to Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) introduced by Sabatier, Kingdon's work is fitter to depict the case of Yogyakarta.Kingdon argued that the process of agenda setting sometimes happens in ambiguity and uncertainty situation.On the other hand, the case of Yogyakarta obviously reflects what Kingdon argued about uncertainty and ambiguity.
It needed more than10 years to make an issue enter into the central government's agenda.Since the public defined the main problem of Yogyakarta, there was uncertainty condition where the central government never paid attention to Yogyakartans' aspiration.However, the ambiguity can be explained by the condition of society who was trapped by the filling governor position mechanism issue.It made the debate only focused on that concern regardless other important issues such as the land status, culture, and others.Furthermore, Yogyakarta case can be taken into consideration as the additional research which proves the flexibility of Kingdon's theory.The multiple streams theory has been applied to multiple cases in the world (see Sharp 1994, Woods andPeake 1988).Many studies successfully apply Kingdon's multiple streams because this theory facilitates researcher to capture the social phenomenon of an 'idea whose time has come'.Jones et al. (2015) also identify 311 meaningful MSF applications produced from 2000-2014 where most of them cited Kingdon's theory.Therefore, it is reasonable enough to say that MSF is universal policymaking concept which can be applied.Once Jones et al. (2015) stated Bastian Widyatama that the study of MSF is prolific, global in reach, highly diverse, and very well received.
Thus, the existence of this study (Yogyakarta case) can be taken into the application of MSF as it is said by Cairney and Jones (2015) that MSF is a well-known theory but little applied.
The case of Yogyakarta reinforces the argument from Teodorovic (2008) who stated that traditional policy-making concept (linear process) might not accurately reflect all situations (Chow, 2014).It can be seen from policymaking process which contains the randomness.Moreover, this situation might be affected by external factors such as timing, the national mood, and political ideologies (Black, 2001).According to the analysis provided on the previous parts, there was randomness in the establishment process which was influenced by the timing.
None predicted that the Yogyakarta issue would appear in 1998 when there was no explicit regulation in filling governor post mechanism.The long discussion period (1998-2012) also showed the vagueness of timing.At that time, mostYogyakartans hoped that the Law could be authorized before 2008, but it was in 2012.The process of formation, selection, and rejection of policy drafts in policy stream vividly depicts that policymaking process is not always linear.The establishment of Law No.13 of 2012 successfully captures the chaotic policymaking process for more than 10 years until politics stream found its timing to force the government's political standpoint.
In more details, the case of Yogyakarta shows that politics stream has a pivotal role to open policy window.Even, this stream consistently dominates over problem and policy stream in the process of the formulation after the policy window opened.Hence, the case of Yogyakarta is in line with what Sabatier (1991) and Wolman (1992) explicated that problem and politics stream independently are able to open policy window when the alternatives will come from policy stream.Zhou and Feng (2014)  According to the brief explanation above, what Sultanate of Yogyakarta invested during the establishment period bears the favorable future through the emergence of Law No.13 of 2012 which accommodates all of Sultanate of Yogyakarta interests.However, the political skill inside Sultanate of Yogyakarta becomes the most prominent proficiency as the policy entrepreneur compared to its creativity and energy to promote change.Therefore, slightly different from the argumentation of Zahariadis (2007), Sultanate of Yogyakarta was not only active in problem and policy stream but also politics stream.Instead, this institution played a crucial role in politics stream as the most dominant factor in the establishment of the Law.
There were also some scholars that had identified the correlation between policy entrepreneurs and the given context where they emerge.The main argument from the existing studies is that policy change can be affected by key contextual variables and by what policy entrepreneurs do within those contexts (Mintrom, 2000;Mintrom and Vergari, 1998).When the contextual variables indicate that policy change is likely to happen, then the role of policy entrepreneur will not give significant impacts.Otherwise, the role of policy entrepreneur will be impactful when the given contextual variables indicate that the likelihood of policy change is small (Mintrom and Norman, 2009).
Interestingly, policy studies from Balla (2001) and Shipan and Volden (2006) also showed the similar pattern.According to this argumentation, this study also supports what those scholars have been done.In the case of Yogyakarta, the role of Sultanate of Yogyakarta was pivotal since the central government (the contextual variable) did not seem to allow and accept the interest from Yogyakartans and some policy drafters, specifically in the filling governor post mechanism, for more than 10 years.Therefore, the role of Sultanate of Yogyakarta significantly escalated after the president's controversial statement in 2010.
Nonetheless, studying policy entrepreneur is challenging as this concept is broadly defined by many scholars.Consequently, it is not easy to label Sultanate of Yogyakarta with the specific theoretical term as the policy entrepreneur.There was only study from Maxwell (2003) who tried to categorize the types of policy entrepreneur.Yet, he first stated that policy entrepreneur he mentioned is a researcher.According to his thought, he divided policy entrepreneur into 4 types encompass as story-teller, networker, engineer, and fixer.Unfortunately, those terms are not fitted to be applied to Sultanate of Yogyakarta as a local monarchy institution, not the researcher.
Still and all, the role of Sultanate of Yogyakarta suitably represents what Kingdon (1995) asserted on policy entrepreneur as 'the surfers waiting for the big wave' not Poseidon-like masters of the seas.According to this, the author has mentioned 'wait and Bastian Widyatama see' as the political strategy of Sultanate of Yogyakarta.It is well-described when Sultanate of Yogyakarta would only present to the public giving the official statements in particular moments.There were 2 kinds of 'waves' that can be identified consist of political movements from Yogyakarta which clearly declared their impulse to Sultan Palace and strong resistance from the central government (including the president's controversial speech in 2010).
If there is looseness for the author to provide a term for Sultanate of Yogyakarta as the policy entrepreneur, 'booster' is a fit label for this case.This term cannot be separated from the role of Sultanate of Yogyakarta itself.As the passive actor, what this local monarchy institution could carry out was to boost and support the Yogyakartans' interests.
Hence, satires and political decisions that came from Sultanate of Yogyakarta were always in line with the majority of Yogyakartans desires.This situation can be also found out from the timing chosen by Sultanate of Yogyakarta when this institution intended to declare some political decisions.

Sultanate of Yogyakarta would always examine the political support or response from
Yogyakartans first regarding some issues.When Sultanate of Yogyakarta presumed that political support from Yogyakartans was huge, then this local monarchy institution bravely boost and articulate the interests of Yogyakartans to the central government, even by bringing out some threats.Otherwise, the circumstance might be different if Sultanate of Yogyakarta does not have enough strong legitimacy and support (even dissimilar interest) from the people.Furthermore, the fruitfulness of Sultanate of Yogyakarta as the policy entrepreneur can be seen from the strategies that they chose.What Sultanate of Yogyakarta undertook as a 'passive' policy entrepreneur exactly reflects what Zahariadis (2014) explained that entrepreneurs who use salami tactics, higher order symbols, and appropriate framing are more likely to be successful.The utilization of symbols and threats by Sultanate of Yogyakarta were the facts that distinguish this actor from policy entrepreneurs in other studies.This institution is not 'expert' (borrowing Simon Maxwell's term to explain researcher) in the policymaking process.The high political power and legitimacy from people are the keys how this local monarchy institution maximizes its role as a policy entrepreneur.Hence, the more politically powerful supporters, the easier it will be for policy entrepreneur to gain resources needed (Cohen, 2012).

CONCLUSION
According to the Yogyakarta case above, the Kingdon's Multiple Stream Framework as the 'universal' tool to analyze the agenda-setting process is still able to explain particular social phenomena.Nevertheless, it cannot be separated from the fact that this framework is abstract enough to be applied.In addition, this framework allows an analyst to interpret Applying Kingdom's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No. 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region deeper meanings through analysis that is conducted in each stream (Dudley, Parsons, Radaelli, and Sabatier, 2000).This flexibility is necessary for policy paradigm since researchers are not seeking statistical excellence, but for the best interpretation in each stream (Stout and Steven, 2000).
Reinforcing other studies regarding the role of politics stream, this study also shows that politics stream played the most important role in a bid to perfectly open the policy window.The intensive Yogyakartans movement and political satires from Sultanate of Yogyakarta are keys how the Yogyakarta issue was able to enter into the central government's agenda.Moreover, Sultanate of Yogyakarta as policy entrepreneur can be labeled as a booster.Interestingly, this policy entrepreneur has strong legitimacy from people so that it is easy for this local monarchy institution to deliver significant political pressure to the central government.
In addition, there should be further studies regarding Kingdon's multiple streams framework, especially in the concern of policy entrepreneur and the role of mass media.Since the term of policy entrepreneur is widely defined by many scholars, it should be necessary to understand the difference of policy entrepreneur characteristic without ruling out of the basic definition of it.
Lastly, there was the role of mass media in the case of Yogyakarta, but it was not apparently captured by Kingdon's multiple streams framework since Kingdon never mentioned about mass media.Even though, Elder and Cobb (1983) stated that media is able to escalate issues on the policy agenda and increase the chances to be picked up by the government as the consideration (in Chow, 2014).This circumstance is perfectly explained by the Yogyakarta case where this issue always became the newspapers' headline during the long certain period.However, those limitations in Kingdon's MSF should prompt academics as pivotal topics that need to be explored more.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model sequentially.Problem stream occurred when Sultan HB IX passed away in 1988 and escalated in 1998 when PakuAlam VIII also passed away.Later, policy stream started to exist in 2002 when Yogyakarta Province Local Assembly (DPRD DIY) tried to propose policy draft to the central government.Furthermore, politics stream rose since 1998 in the time thatYogyakartans surrounded DPRD DIY asking for Sultan HB X as a new governor of DIY.Those three factors workedconcurrently until they found its moment when SBY releasedthe controversial statement in 2010.Applying Kingdom's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No. 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region Problem Stream: The Governor Position of Yogyakarta The issue thatcame up as a problem was in the filling position of governor and vice governor mechanism.It appeared when Yogyakarta leaders passed away in 1988(Sultan HB IXas a governor) and 1998 (PakuAlam VIII as vice governor).The politicalsituationwas perplexedbecause there was no specific regulation that could tackle this political oddity, including the Law No.3 of 1950 on Yogyakarta Special Region Establishment.According toanother Law on Principality of Local Government (Law No.5 of 1974), the position of governor and vice governor should be elected by legislative.However, when such discourse spurted, Yogyakartans agreed to refuse the idea.They wantgovernor position should be from the enthroned king in Sultanate of Yogyakarta.
for the first time in 2002 and 2003.Since that time, many stakeholders tried to offer and convince DPR as the decision maker institution by using their own versions of policy draft.Applying Kingdom's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No. 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The Application of Yogyakarta Case in Kingdon's Framework studies also showed that politics stream powerfully has a strong effect to influence the government's agenda.Interestingly, what happened during 1998-2012 in Yogyakarta fortuitously reflects what Zahariadis (2003) explains the likelihood of each stream to open its window independently such as problem or politics window.If looking back at this case, it can be identified that problem window opened in 1998, 2003, and 2007 when there were political turbulences in Yogyakarta.Yet, this situation was not strong enough to draw the government's attention.The opening of policy window in 2010 could not be dissociated from the role of Sultanate of Yogyakarta in which this local monarchy institution is considered as a policy entrepreneur.What this local monarchy institution did was to promote and advocate the Yogyakarta issue to the central government as the earmark of a policy entrepreneur.Kingdon explained that policy entrepreneur could be in or out of government, interest groups, or research organizations.Things that must be underlined here are the Applying Kingdom's Multiple Streams Framework in the Establishment of Law No. 13 of 2012 Concerning the Privilege of Yogyakarta Special Region characteristic of policy entrepreneurs who have the willingness to invest their resources such as time, energy, reputation, and money in the hope of a future return.