A federal state for good governance?<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): There have been heated debates recently on
\nwhether a federal system of government could enhance Indonesian
\nnational unity. Such a proposal argues that Indonesia is too vast
\nand pluralistic to be governed in a centralized manner.<\/p>\n
More importantly, goes the argument, the central government
\ncan easily manipulate the unitary state to exploit resource-rich
\nprovinces like Aceh, Irian Jaya, East Kalimantan, and Riau, at
\nthe expense of the local people.<\/p>\n
Those who favor a federal state tend to believe that
\nIndonesian regions can only achieve economic progress if they
\nhave more freedom to deal with their development needs
\nthemselves.<\/p>\n
However, a positive correlation between federalism and
\neconomic welfare at the regional level should be read as a
\ntheoretical statement rather than as empirical evidence.<\/p>\n
There is no clear and credible evidence that the performance
\nof federal states like Brazil, Nigeria, or India is better than
\nIndonesia as far as economic equality is concerned. In other
\nwords, there is no automatic correlation between federalism and
\neconomic welfare at the local level.<\/p>\n
There is no doubt that Indonesia does need a fundamental
\nchange in the relationship between the central government and the
\nprovincial administrations. However, considering the fact that
\nthe dissatisfaction of the regions has more to do with the
\nleadership style and political behavior of the New Order
\ngovernment than with the formal organization of the state, merely
\nchanging from a unitary to a federal state might never lead to a
\npermanent solution.<\/p>\n
The regime of former president Soeharto used to rely on a
\ncentralistic approach when dealing with the problem of national
\nunity. There seemed to be a clientilistic relationship between
\nthe central government and the provinces. Local government
\nofficials paid more attention to the problem of how to appease
\ntheir superiors in Jakarta than to promote their citizens'
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
As a result, local people tended to become alienated from the
\ngoverning system. No wonder that such people never perceived
\nthemselves as being part of the governing system; they have been
\nvictimized by the collusive nature of the relationship between
\nthe central elite and the local government.<\/p>\n
If the above observation is correct then our main agenda is
\nnot so much to speculate on the possibility of adopting a federal
\nsystem but how to reform the relationship between the central
\ngovernment and the regions.<\/p>\n
Many scholars have mentioned the importance of giving more
\nterritorial responsibility to the provinces. However, before such
\na step is taken, it is necessary to undertake a thorough study of
\nthe administrative capacity of the local governments upon which
\nany decentralized system would be based.<\/p>\n
Administrative capacity can be understood as the capability to
\nmanage public affairs so that people's interests can be met
\nthrough the provision of government services.<\/p>\n
The level of administrative capacity in the provinces is
\ndetermined by several factors, including the size of the
\npopulation and resources (human and financial), sufficient
\nadministrative opportunities (such as autonomy, efficiency, and
\ncompetence), and transparent and democratic modes of organization
\nand operation (R. Maes, 1996).<\/p>\n
There is, however, an increasingly persuasive suggestion that
\ndecentralization should be planned and implemented with a certain
\ndegree of precaution and sensitivity to political and ideological
\nconfigurations at the local level. Decentralization should be
\npromoted within the context of establishing more constructive
\nlinkages between all levels of government.<\/p>\n
Decentralization should not be made an end in itself. B.C.
\nSmith (1985) argues that we should reject a romantic view of
\ndecentralization. It can be good for some development goals but
\ndamaging for others. Development goals of territorial justice and
\nredistribution of wealth, for instance, may be better served by
\ncentralizing authority.<\/p>\n
On top of that, we have to be very careful in giving more
\npower to provincial governments because this could lead to
\ncentralization at the local level. Keith Griffin (1981) argues
\nthat democratization at the local level should precede national
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
Greater decentralization will not necessarily empower the
\nlocal people. Moreover, mechanisms of public control (through the
\nlegislature, mass media, public debates, etc.) over the governing
\nprocess seem to be more active and progressive in central
\nsystems.<\/p>\n
Considering the fact that the underdevelopment of some
\nIndonesian regions has been due to the lack of good governance
\nand misuse of power by certain political elite during Soeharto's
\nrule and not because of the nature of the unitary state itself,
\nimprovements in government's decentralization policies might be
\nmore preferable and thoughtful than adopting a federal system.<\/p>\n
However, it is still essential to increase the administrative
\ncapacity of local government and to democratize the policy-making
\nprocess at the local level. Hopefully, by carefully designing
\nmore appropriate decentralization policies, the economic gap
\nbetween Jakarta and some remote regions like Irian Jaya, Flores,
\nAceh, and other peripheral islands might become more bridgeable.<\/p>\n
After all, there is no moral justification whatsoever in that
\nJakarta should always be more prosperous and developed than other
\nareas.<\/p>\n
The writer is the head of the school of international
\nrelations at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He is also a
\nresearcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies at
\nthe same university.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-federal-state-for-good-governance-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}