Is a federal system suitable for Indonesia?<\/p>\n
By J. Soedjati Djiwandono<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Injustice was rampant under the New Order regime
\nfor more than three decades. Not only at the individual and
\ncollective levels in the form of an ever-widening disparity
\nbetween the rich few and poor majority, but also at the regional
\nlevel between the capital and the provinces and between Java and
\nthe outer islands.<\/p>\n
The root of all these forms of injustice was the increasingly
\ndominant power of the state.<\/p>\n
Now, in the newly emerging climate of freedom and in the
\nspirit of reform, albeit the continuation of the New Order
\nregime, one reaction to the fall of Soeharto has been the openly
\nexpressed aspirations for Indonesia to become a federal country.
\nThis was, for a long time, a taboo in the country.<\/p>\n
The aversion to federalism on the part of many Indonesians has
\nhistorical roots. It was an idea offered, and to some extent
\nimposed by the Dutch, and finally accepted by Indonesian leaders
\nas a concession to the Netherlands' recognition of Indonesian
\nindependence. Hence the establishment of the United Republic of
\nIndonesia as a partner in the Dutch-Indonesian Union.<\/p>\n
Suspicions remained, however, on the part of Indonesian
\nleaders, that the Dutch idea of a federal state for Indonesia was
\na concealed effort to maintain Dutch influence and to continue a
\npolicy of "divide and rule".<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Dutch insistence on a federal government for
\nindependent Indonesia was attested to by the colonizers'
\ncreation, in the face of Indonesian government opposition, of
\nincreasing numbers of independent regional states in preparation
\nfor the establishment of a federal republic of Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Indonesian suspicion of and opposition to federalism,
\nespecially Dutch form of creating puppet regional governments of
\ntheir own, was understandable. Yet it was to be among the
\nconditions for the Dutch recognition of Indonesian independence.<\/p>\n
Another reason for Indonesia's opposition to federalism then
\nwas the fact that Indonesia, as a nation, was new. So federalism
\nwas considered an obstacle to the promotion of national unity.<\/p>\n
So strong was the Indonesian sentiment against federalism,
\nbecause of its association with Dutch imperialism, with its
\n"divide and rule" policy, that the United Republic of Indonesia
\ndid not last a year.<\/p>\n
On Aug. 17, 1950, the fifth anniversary of independence,
\nIndonesia was proclaimed a unitary republic. Ever since, although
\nmany Indonesians today may not really know the difference nor
\nremember the relevant historical background, national unity is
\nalmost always referred to as persatuan dan persatuan bangsa (
\nliterally, national unity and unitariness or "oneness").<\/p>\n
In theory, the Dutch idea was not entirely untenable. Most
\nexisting federal states were established by previously existing,
\nalbeit more or less independent, territories which, to ensure
\ntheir security (particularly from external threats) and accrue
\nother benefits, surrendered part of their sovereignty to a
\nfederal government.<\/p>\n
The federal government was then granted supreme power over
\ncommon or national affairs, such as defense and foreign policy,
\nthe postal and monetary systems, patents and copyrights, and
\ninterstate and foreign commerce.<\/p>\n
A typical example was the United States of America, where the
\ncomponent states or republics retained their independent
\nexistence and power over local affairs.<\/p>\n
There is usually the continuing issue of the so-called
\nresidual powers, those not specifically delegated to the federal
\ngovernment and retained by the constituent states, or those
\npowers not specifically provided for in the federal constitution
\nand vested in the federal government.<\/p>\n
Thus the main flaw in the Dutch idea of federalism for
\nindependent Indonesia was the fact that the Dutch created puppet
\nstates throughout the archipelago specifically to make them the
\nconstituent parts of the federal Indonesia they wanted. It was an
\nunnatural process and hence justifiably subject to accusations of
\nperpetuating self-interest.<\/p>\n
If, at the current stage of its development, Indonesia were to
\nchange from a unitary republic to a federal state, the process
\nwould be no more natural than the Dutch idea. By granting the
\nstatus of states to the existing provinces or creating new states
\naltogether with new boundaries, Indonesia would not be a
\nconventional federal state.<\/p>\n
It would be instead a process of devolution toward greater
\nautonomy.<\/p>\n
Moreover, without the right of secession, a federal state
\nwould not make sense, since such a right derives from the fact
\nthat a federal government is created precisely by independent
\nstates surrendering part of their sovereignty to the federal
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
But, in Indonesia's case, the right of secession might easily
\nlead to disintegration, since the experience of being part of the
\nunitary state has been neither pleasant nor comfortable for many
\nregions or ethnic groups in Indonesian society.<\/p>\n
I, for one, would argue neither for nor against a federal
\nstate for Indonesia. But if we Indonesians are determined to
\ncontinue to live together as a nation, the only guarantee for the
\ncontinued promotion and maintenance of national unity is social
\njustice, not uniformity, nor the imposition of authoritarian
\npower, whatever the form of government.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/is-a-federal-system-suitable-for-indonesia-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}