'Indonesia may regress to centralization empty autonomy'<\/p>\n
Question: Legally speaking, how ready is the country in
\nimplementing the autonomy policy?<\/p>\n
Answer: Before we even consider the legal infrastructure
\nneeded for the undertaking, we need to examine the project very
\nseriously because what lies at stake is the very survival of the
\nstate.<\/p>\n
If we fail to do this, the unitary state of Indonesia will
\ndisintegrate. And we will no longer have any 'capital'. Autonomy
\nis the best solution to this country's problems. Everyone, be
\nthey the central administration, regional government or whoever,
\nis obligated to make this undertaking a success.<\/p>\n
The second thing to be considered is the legal infrastructure
\nnecessary for the implementation of the autonomy policy, which
\nturns out to still be in a messy state. Technically, there are
\nmany rules that are lacking even today. In addition, old rules
\nwill pose a problem because they have yet to be replaced, a
\nprocess that will take a long time.<\/p>\n
An example would be the (needed rulings for) fiscal balance.
\nOnly several areas of authority have already been covered with
\nnew regulations, many others have yet to be regulated.<\/p>\n
Even the question of autonomy has yet to be answered
\ncompletely; how will this translate as activities in regencies,
\nfor instance? Even directive rulings have yet to be introduced.<\/p>\n
Q: When should legal changes necessary for the policy be ready?<\/p>\n
A: They should have been ready in May 2000. I am not sure if they
\ncan be completed (in the near future) because studies show that
\namendments to 1,200 central government regulations and decrees
\nare needed before the country can be considered ready for
\nautonomy. Another study said 1,400 regulations need to be
\namended.<\/p>\n
I really question this: last year it was reported that 1,200
\nregulations had to be amended, now the figure remains the same,
\nso what have the officials been doing? They should have made some
\nprogress, shouldn't they?<\/p>\n
Q: What does this lack of progress signify?<\/p>\n
A: It appears to me that the central government is still
\nreluctant to immediately transfer some of its power to regional
\nadministrations. This is a dangerous situation. This is a sign of
\nthe old disease of enjoying power too much and the power holders
\nhave become reluctant to share power.<\/p>\n
We really need to convince the central government that if it
\nmaintains this foot-dragging attitude, it will lose what remains
\nof the regions' trust in it. And in some regions people have
\nstarted to become suspicious of the central government's
\nintentions.<\/p>\n
I am also concerned about the lack of preparation in the
\nregions -- the further the regions are, the lesser their
\nreadiness in handling autonomy.<\/p>\n
Even cities and regencies are not ready to handle new
\nauthority because it is impossible to expect that they can take
\nup all the new responsibilities at the same time. They would be
\noverwhelmed. With sound management skills, the autonomy will only
\nmean greater opportunities for corruption.<\/p>\n
Some provinces in East Java might be ready, but other regions
\nremain in question.<\/p>\n
What's unfortunate is the fact that the regional autonomy law
\nhas such a loose definition of the concept. There are two
\npossible consequences of such a loose definition. The first is
\nthe central government would realize that the transfer of power
\nto regions is simply too much and would apply its brakes.<\/p>\n
But when the brakes were applied, a second problem would
\nemerge, namely the regions would react negatively and would be
\nsuspicious of the central government's intentions. The regions
\nwould think, \"why are you trying to stop something that you have
\ngiven us\"?<\/p>\n
But without some sort of brake, things would fall headlong
\ninto disaster. What if regions then (make their own rules) about
\nforeign loans or foreign investment?<\/p>\n
Regional administrations would of course want to enjoy the
\ngreater opportunities promised by the autonomy policy, but it's
\nunfortunate that local expressions so far show strong political
\novertones to this wish. For instance, some people have spoken up
\nabout the possibility of 'impeaching' governors or regents. So
\nthe power side of autonomy is dominating discourses rather than
\nthe public service side of administration.<\/p>\n
I believe that the lower administration should have a more
\nlimited political function but offer greater public service. What
\nis happening is that regional administrations think they can
\nregulate themselves and are refusing to be regulated. Imagine how
\nmessy this will be, because regulations should remain in
\naccordance with the system.<\/p>\n
There should be no collision, for instance, between rulings
\nissued by the West Java provincial administration with those
\nissued by the newly declared Banten province (which originally
\nwas a regency within West Java). Otherwise, it will adversely
\naffect the traffic of the administration system as a whole.<\/p>\n
Let's say that West Java seeks to entice investment by
\nimposing tax holidays, while Banten fails to implement the
\nregulation. Investors would then of course flock to West Java at
\nthe expense of Banten's development. We are witnessing signs of
\nunfair competition looming ahead of us.<\/p>\n
What we need is a general regulation, a guideline for all. But
\nthe problem is that every directive from the central government
\nis seen with suspicion as yet another attempt to fight
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
Q: Some regions have asserted their preference to be led by
\n'indigenous children' from their homeland. Is this a decline
\ntoward divisive forces?<\/p>\n
A: It would be better if natives hold office in their regions
\nbecause that would give them self-respect and confidence that
\nthey are able to run their own affairs. This important scenario
\nwould give the natives a sense of having their own identity and
\nindependence. Regions which are at the moment witnessing a push
\nfor separation are those that never enjoyed such respect.<\/p>\n
Q: With such a multitude of problems, how will the autonomy
\npolicy run?<\/p>\n
A: Perhaps we will have 'empty' autonomy. Perhaps we will instead
\nregress to centralization. Then, of course, the regions would
\nagain feel cheated. This time around, the consequences could be
\nfatal.<\/p>\n
But ever onward. A failure of the regional autonomy policy
\nwould introduce bigger problems. In the past, the drive for
\nautonomy was thwarted by an authoritarian regime, but the people
\nare now much stronger and can stand up for what they believe.<\/p>\n
That's why we should let the prepared regions enjoy autonomy
\nnow, while the government should help other regions to gain the
\nsame readiness. If handled seriously, the regions would all be
\nready within five years.<\/p>\n
I really support Ryaas Rasyid's call for a supervisory board
\nof autonomy to be established, but this suggestion has been
\nrejected by the President.<\/p>\n
We really should have a fully authorized body, rather than a
\nmere administrative or ad hoc council. This body would be of
\ngreat importance if we wish to monitor how the autonomy policy
\nproceeds, to see what its hindrances are and what the causes of
\nthe difficulties are.<\/p>\n
Q: How will we overcome problems originating from the absence of
\nregulations?<\/p>\n
A: The old regulations can still be used but with adjustments
\nhere and there in their implementation because many of the old
\nregulations are (products of) centralized power. So both the
\nregional and central governments should remember that old
\nregulations can still be applied, although with a 'new spirit'.
\nOf course, in the meantime, we have to press on with the
\namendment of old regulations.<\/p>\n
Q: Won't there be an overlapping of old and new regulations?<\/p>\n
A: Not for the time being because new regulations have yet to be
\nestablished. What we are facing instead are old regulations
\npacked with a 'new understanding'. This is a common practice in
\nthe legal system, especially in state administration.<\/p>\n
In the basic concept of autonomy, regional laws are clearly
\ndifferent from laws that are applied nationally. Instead, we are
\nwitnessing the emergence of conflicting perceptions in the
\nregions. For instance, some regions think they can now regulate
\neverything themselves, and refuse to adhere to rulings from the
\ncentral government. This is a mistake that should be clarified.<\/p>\n
Funnily enough, the executive branch of the administration in
\nthe regions may find it easier to understand the basic concept of
\nautonomy, but not so with the legislative councils, maybe because
\nof the great power they are enjoying from the autonomy policy.<\/p>\n
Q: Aceh will see the establishment of sharia (Islamic law). Don't
\nyou think this means a discriminatory application of the law?<\/p>\n
A: One form of regional autonomy is the establishment of Islamic
\nlaw, and this is not something new because we actually have a law
\nabout the special characteristics of Aceh. This is different from
\nwhat we have in other regions.<\/p>\n
But even in Aceh we will have questions about how the
\ndistinction can be effectively implemented. Will, for instance,
\nits criminal code be referred to as Islamic law or will it remain
\nin accordance with the central government's criminal code? There
\nshould be laws that remain in effect nationally -- we can't have
\neach region implementing a different criminal code. We'd have
\nchaos.<\/p>\n
In the history of autonomy, there's never been (provisions
\nfor) different criminal codes among regions, except for regional
\nregulations with certain limitations. Even in a federal state,
\neach might have its own laws but with certain provisions for the
\nimplementation of federal laws.<\/p>\n
Q: What about the autonomy policy in conflict areas such as
\nMaluku?<\/p>\n
A: We don't need to establish new rules to accommodate various
\nparties in those areas, and the autonomy policy can be applied as
\nlong as the rights of each party are protected. Each group must
\nhave the same opportunity, even if they are the minority. The
\nconstitution of Iran, for instance, stipulates the representation
\nof Christian communities. (Deka Kurniawan)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesia-may-regress-to-centralization-empty-autonomy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}