Breakthrough in regional autonomy?<\/p>\n
Bambang Brodjonegoro<\/p>\n
It has been almost three years since the first day of
\nimplementation of Law No. 22\/1999 on local government and Law No.
\n25\/1999 on intergovernmental fiscal relations, which also marked
\nthe beginning of a drastic and massive decentralization process
\nin Indonesia.<\/p>\n
It was drastic because Indonesia has been strongly centralized
\nfor more than 30 years and suddenly, beginning Jan. 1, 2001,
\nIndonesia became a very decentralized country with power being
\nshifted from the central to regency (kabupaten) administrations.<\/p>\n
It was massive because most government powers were shifted to
\nregency governments, leaving only five major responsibilities in
\nthe hands of the center, namely diplomatic relations, national
\ndefense, fiscal and monetary authority, the judicial system, and
\nreligious affairs.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the central government had to reduce its size
\nand, on the other hand, the regency governments had to expand. As
\na result, the central government closed down its \"branch offices\"
\nat the local level, which used to be called kantor wilayah
\n(kanwil), and their powers were taken over by local government
\nagencies (kantor dinas).<\/p>\n
With this massive shift, there has been a transfer of around
\ntwo million civil servants, at least administratively, from the
\ncentral government to both provincial and regency governments.<\/p>\n
During the three-year period, the focus and discussion on
\nregional autonomy has ebbed and flowed in line with the central
\ngovernment's commitment.<\/p>\n
The first two years, 2001-2002, were marked by zeal on the
\npart of both central and local governments in making regional
\nautonomy work. The central government's commitment was quite firm
\nas indicated by the existence of the Office of the State Minister
\nfor Regional Autonomy.<\/p>\n
The central government was also busy producing legal products
\nto support the implementation of regional autonomy in the form of
\ngovernment regulations, presidential decrees, etc.<\/p>\n
However, this commitment seemed to weaken with the abolishment
\nof the Office of the State Ministry for Regional Autonomy.
\nAlthough, the government stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs
\nwould take care of regional autonomy matters, the tone has never
\nbeen the same since then. Instead, the decentralization process
\nhas become a routine activity without any real breakthroughs in
\nmaking regional autonomy benefit local people.<\/p>\n
What makes ordinary Indonesians aware of regional autonomy are
\nthe reports, often bizarre, that emerge around the time of
\ngubernatorial or regental elections. Of course, the process of
\nelecting local officials is now totally different compared to the
\ncentralized era and we have to admit that it is more democratic.<\/p>\n
However, old (and disturbing) practices are still there,
\nespecially bribery and the shortsightedness of political parties.
\nIt is still questionable that candidates for local offices have
\nany desire to improve the well-being of local people or their
\nwelfare.<\/p>\n
The creation of new provinces, regencies, and municipalities
\nis another trend that has made Indonesians aware that regional
\nautonomy is still going on. Currently, there are 32 provinces
\nwith a total of 416 regencies and municipalities. The annual
\ngrowth rate of new regencies and municipalities is a staggering
\n10 percent. If there was no general election in 2004, the number
\nwould still be increasing, but due to the administrative
\nrequirements for the election, the establishment of new local
\ngovernment units has been halted temporarily. However, after
\n2004, there will be many more new provinces, regencies and
\nmunicipalities as the applications are still piling up in the
\nMinistry of Home Affairs. It is debatable whether having more
\nlocal governments will help the regional autonomy process, and
\neventually local people's welfare. One side of the argument is
\nthat a government that is closer to the people will be better
\nable to identify the local people's public service needs.
\nHowever, the other side says that having local government units
\nthat are too small cannot be justified economically, especially
\nfrom the local capacity point of view. While the debate may be
\nendless, the creation of new local governments has been a common
\nphenomena following a decentralization process, as was the case
\nin the Philippines during the 10 years of their decentralization
\nprocess.<\/p>\n
Although the current process of regional autonomy and
\ndecentralization emphasizes the empowerment of local government,
\nmany are still worried that local officials misinterpret the
\nprocess as giving them the right to set up small fiefdoms. The
\nsmall size of current local government units should make local
\nofficials think more about cooperation between local governments.
\nSuch cooperation should extend from the administrative arena into
\neconomic affairs. It would save a lot of money as regards the
\nprovision of local public services, and at the same time optimize
\neconomic capacity. One basic requirement for such cooperation is
\nto allow the free movement of goods, services, capital and people
\nbetween local government jurisdictions. There are still some
\nregions where the local governments are imposing \"export taxes\"
\non the export of their local commodities to other parts of
\nIndonesia. Another example is the \"informal tolls\" charged at
\nthe borders of regencies and municipalities, especially on
\ntrucks. While these two forms of charges will contribute
\nrelatively insignificant amounts to local (provincial\/regency)
\nown-source revenue, there is no doubt that the side effects will
\nbe devastating -- a high cost local economy, reduced local
\ncompetitiveness and eventually a bad local investment climate.<\/p>\n
Since revenue generation at the local level is still the focus
\nof most local governments in Indonesia, it may be too early to
\nevaluate the performance of local governments in planning their
\nstrategies to improve local people's welfare. Logically, the
\nregencies and municipalities with significant amounts of revenue,
\nespecially under natural resources revenue sharing, do not have
\nto rely too much on own-source revenue and, consequently, are not
\nreally interested in \"illegal charges\" such as local export taxes
\nand unauthorized levies.<\/p>\n
Some of them, however, are still interested in creating
\nadditional (but unnecessary and illegal) fees such as \"third
\nparty contributions\" (sumbangan pihak ketiga).<\/p>\n
Some others, even though do not seek additional local revenue
\nsources, do not spend their money wisely and optimally. There is
\nstill a tendency to focus on \"white elephant\" projects without
\nany clear multiplier or spill-over effects that will benefit the
\nlocal people.<\/p>\n
People will question decisions to focus on big budget projects
\nwithout any benefits for the local community.<\/p>\n
However, there are some regions that have shown the ability to
\ncome up with innovative ideas to promote local development
\nthrough local government cooperation and the enhancement of local
\npublic participation.<\/p>\n
Some poor regencies (in terms of own-source revenue) have come
\nup with breakthrough policies to accelerate their local economic
\ndevelopment without relying on their own budgets.<\/p>\n
The case of Jembrana regency in Bali could be cited as an
\ninteresting example. In this regency, the effectiveness of the
\nlocal leader has been crucial factor in turning around the local
\neconomy. In doing this, he has been fully supported by the
\nlocals.<\/p>\n
Making decentralization and regional autonomy work should be
\nan attractive issue for political parties during the 2004
\nelection as long as they can demonstrate their commitment to
\nmaking the process beneficial to local people.<\/p>\n
There are two big issues in the process that need to be taken
\ninto account, the amendment of Law No. 22\/1999 and Law No.
\n25\/1999, and horizontal and vertical intergovernmental
\ncoordination.<\/p>\n
The amendment process in respect of Law 22\/1999 is still going
\non with the minimum objective being to incorporate the direct
\nelection of local officials and the maximum objective being to
\noptimize the monitoring and evaluation role of both the central
\ngovernment and the country's neglected provincial governments.<\/p>\n
An increase in local taxing powers should be the main focus of
\nthe amendment of Law No. 5\/1999. However, the effectiveness of
\nthese amendments will be lessened if there is no horizontal
\nintergovernmental coordination in the form of sectoral law
\nadjustments to both Laws No. 22 and 25.<\/p>\n
There should be firm leadership on the central government side
\nto enforce the decentralization spirit in every sector and
\nministry so that local governments do not complain that the
\ncentral government is not fully committed to decentralizing
\npowers. The imbalance between the number of deconcentrated
\nprojects (also known as DIP or Daftar Isian Proyek) and specific
\npurpose grants (DAK) is one indicator on how some parts of the
\ncentral government still want to retain their powers.<\/p>\n
Leadership and good coordination are also needed in the cases
\nof Papua and Aceh, which are now experiencing asymmetric
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
The discrepancies between the special autonomy law on Papua
\nand the formation of two new provinces in Papua has created
\nnothing but local conflict and uncertainty. It is also clear that
\nnot much has been done to implement the special autonomy law in
\nPapua except on the fiscal side through the payment of general
\nallocation funds.<\/p>\n
In the Aceh case, the question of the effectiveness of the
\nspecial autonomy law, apart from the fiscal side, is still up in
\nthe air due to the current implementation of martial law.<\/p>\n
On one hand, the special autonomy law could be a good solution
\nfor dealing with troubled regions, but on the other hand the
\ninability to fully implement the law could lead to further
\nproblems, such as the potential disintegration of the country.
\nThe cases of special autonomy in Aceh and Papua also show that
\ngiving more money will not necessarily solve all the problems.
\nGiving proper recognition might be the answer to the problems in
\nAceh and Papua without sacrificing the unity of Indonesia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/breakthrough-in-regional-autonomy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}