Part of 2<\/p>\n
Will revision of the law on regional autonomy fail?<\/p>\n
P. Agung Pambudhi, Executive Director, Monitoring Committee of
\nRegional Autonomy Implementation (KPPOD), Jakarta<\/p>\n
Although the plan to revise the law on regional autonomy has
\noften been publicly discussed, the public is yet to be adequately
\ninformed about the stages of achievement and the deadline. Given
\nthis fact, we have enough reason to worry about the government's
\ndecision to set September 30, 2004 as the official deadline for
\nthe final draft of the revision.<\/p>\n
We are justified to feel even more uneasy to learn that, as
\nthe House and the government have often stated, the deadline
\nshould be before the 2004 general elections. Whether this one-
\nyear period is long enough will largely depend on how we spend
\nit, of course.<\/p>\n
If this revision aims only at accommodating matters related to
\nthe direct election of a regional head (in line with presidential
\nelections) and the composition of a regional legislative
\nassembly, the deadline -- set to be before the 2004 general
\nelections -- may be reached. The reason is simple enough. The
\ncentral boards of political parties -- through their
\nrepresentatives in the House -- will find it necessary to clarify
\nthe mechanism for a regional head election and also for a
\nregional head's accountability report.<\/p>\n
Of course, some regional heads and political parties in the
\nregions -- now already comfortable with the present political
\nmechanism -- may voice their objection. Regarding the election of
\na regional head, non-governmental organizations, will also voice
\ntheir concern. These organizations are vociferous enough in
\ncriticizing political power practices in the regions, which
\ninvolve, among other things, money politics and the fact that in
\nthe case of a particular region, a regional head subjected to
\nhouse detention can run his administration from his home.<\/p>\n
Despite their significance, more than just these matters will
\nbe needed as evidence for the implementation of Stipulation No.
\nIV\/MPR\/1999 because this stipulation has instructed that a basic
\nrevision of Law No. 22\/1999 and Law No. 25\/1999 should start.<\/p>\n
A fundamental revision of these laws leads to a number of
\nimportant questions about, among others things: the need to merge
\nthe two laws into a single law on regional autonomy; the
\nstructure of a fair balance in financial matters between the
\ncentral and regional administrations; the scope of authority of
\nthe central government, as well as provincial, regency and
\nmunicipal administrations; the hierarchical relationship
\ninvolving the central government and provincial, regency and
\nmunicipal administrations and a preventive or repressive regional
\npolicy control regime.<\/p>\n
Another fundamental question may also be asked in this regard,
\nalthough it is highly unpopular: Is it necessary to grant the
\nauthority of autonomy to a province, not a regency and a
\nmunicipality?<\/p>\n
If the government wishes to meet the target it has set, and at
\nthe same time ensure that the revision will be properly
\nintroduced, it must clarify the following stages.<\/p>\n
The first stage refers to the mechanism for discussion within
\nthe government itself. Assuming that the technical team set up
\nearlier (and already active) is maintained, it must be clear at
\nthis stage the commitment of each government agency in assisting
\nthe technical team so that eventually a synergy of the various
\ninterests of government agencies may be established.<\/p>\n
The second stage is related to the deadline for the completion
\nof an academic manuscript of the revision of the law. Aside from
\nthe study of this subject that the government will undertake, the
\nstudies conducted by other circles must be cashed in on --
\nincluding recommendations of loan programs linked with the
\nimplementation of regional autonomy.<\/p>\n
The third stage is concerned with the identification of the
\nmain stakeholders and ways to popularize the result. This
\nidentification will require a gathering of aspirations through an
\napproach to a region or a cluster of areas (regencies --
\nmunicipalities -- provinces) or to interest groups in the society
\n(a business community, non-governmental organizations and so
\nforth). The methods may vary: Correspondence, tete-a-tete contact
\nor intensive publication in the national and regional mass media.
\nIt must be remembered that this stage may be time consuming.<\/p>\n
The fourth stage will be related to the wide publication of a
\nrational explanation concerning whether or not input from the
\nstakeholders will be incorporated in the government's policy on
\nthis subject. This will be the government's professional
\naccountability regarding all efforts that the public has made in
\ntheir contribution to this great feat.<\/p>\n
This agenda of revision is indeed a great undertaking. The
\noutcome will contain principles that will serve as one of the
\nmain sources to which the laws of a particular sector will later
\nrefer. Therefore, those assigned to head the program must adopt a
\nparticipative approach and should refrain from relying only on
\nthe technocrats in the inner circle of the power that be.<\/p>\n
These people must also do away with their half-hearted
\npopularization of this revision agenda. If the ideal goal is to
\nproduce legislation that will result in a long-term change in
\nsocial order -- as a law is actually supposed to produce -- this
\nparticipative approach is a necessity. In this context, despite a
\nhighly minimalist target, the revision of the law on regional
\nautonomy should never allow the interests of various stakeholders
\nto degenerate into simply peripheral issues.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/bpart-of-2b-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}