JP\/7\/F13<\/p>\n
Ahead of 2004, we see reckless establishment of new regions<\/p>\n
Pre-2004, House recklessly
\nestablishes new regions<\/p>\n
House reckleslly sets up new regions<\/p>\n
Robert Endi Jaweng
\nRegional Autonomy Watch
\nKPPOD
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
Early this year, a plenary session of the House of
\nRepresentatives again approved the ratification of 10 laws
\nregarding the establishment of 25 new autonomous regions. This
\nincreased the number of such regions -- 38 municipalities and
\nregencies -- established in the past two years since regional
\nautonomy was implemented.<\/p>\n
The number of regencies and townships has jumped from 347
\nprior to the enforcement of regional autonomy, to 410. At least
\n22 more regions are planned.<\/p>\n
The number of new regions would be really big. The
\nestablishment of new regions is not as difficult as described in
\narticle 5 of Law No. 22\/1999 and its government regulation No.
\n129\/2000 regarding the requirements for establishing autonomous
\nregions.<\/p>\n
A number of indicators, such as economic capability, regional
\npotentials, population size and the total area of a region, have
\nbeen set as a standard of propriety for the establishment of new
\nregions -- but they have remained as mere legislation.<\/p>\n
If the above regulations were really applied, many of the new
\nregions should not have been established given their gross lack
\nof capacity to exercise their autonomy.<\/p>\n
The House of Representatives and the government as the parties
\nratifying the law on the establishment of new regions have acted
\nrecklessly. The government is yet to make clear the design and
\nstrategy of its policies regarding the establishment of new
\nregions, while dozens of new regions have come into being and
\nmany more will follow suit.<\/p>\n
Such recklessness is also seen in the national legislation
\nprogram of the legislature. Although most of the bills on the
\nestablishment of new regions come from the House's initiative,
\nthey have never been part of this program, let alone being
\nprioritized as we are made to believe. Some House members have
\nadmitted that they have been considerably influenced by the
\ndemand set by the regions.<\/p>\n
Political motives obviously have often become a very important
\nfactor in this regard. Director General of Regional Autonomy,
\nOentarto Mawardi, has also said that political considerations
\noutweigh administrative reasons. Such politicization involves
\nmany parties pursuing their self interests.<\/p>\n
The local elite feel they lack access to the local power
\nstructure and political mobility; and the establishment of a new
\nregion would be followed by political institutions and hence
\nemergence of new opportunities to control power.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile politicians at the national level fear that autonomy
\nin the hands of major regions alone will pose a threat for the
\nelite of those regions to gain enough support for demands of
\nfederalism, or, worse, independence.<\/p>\n
Further, political parties have their immediate and real stake
\nin the 2004 general elections. The establishment of more new
\nregions means an increase in the number of electoral districts, a
\ncrucial condition for a political party in the local political
\narena, their ability to gain votes for the House seats and for
\ntheir eligibility to nominate a presidential nominee. More
\nelectoral districts mean a wider arena and more varied methods
\nfor their political games.<\/p>\n
The granting of an autonomy status to a region is in theory a
\nstrategy to accelerate multi-faceted local development --
\ndemocratization, efficiency in the management of local resources,
\nand better public services.<\/p>\n
Most of these concern administrative matters and the interests
\nof the public constitute the core of the problem.<\/p>\n
Given the bulk of the technicalities involved the
\nestablishment of new areas is handled by the technical team of
\nthe Regional Autonomy Advisory Council (DPOD) rather than by the
\ngovernment, the legislature or regional legislative assemblies.<\/p>\n
The main job of this team is to carry out field research to
\ncheck objective requirements for possible implementation of
\nautonomy in a given area.<\/p>\n
The DPOD will then use the team's findings to draw up
\nrecommendations on the establishment of an autonomous region.<\/p>\n
Yet this working procedure is often ignored. As a result,
\nregional autonomy expansion seems to be devoid of planning as it
\nis not based on a prediction of whether autonomy can be
\nimplemented in a particular candidate for a new region.<\/p>\n
This policy is further yet to be oriented to democratization
\nof governance and effective public services. It is clear that the
\nmotives for the establishment of most new regions tip the balance
\nmore in favor of the subjective interests of the elite, rather
\nthan meeting objective preconditions of a region and the
\nattainment of local efficiency and democracy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp7f13-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}