Open discussion vital for federalism<\/p>\n
By Oliver Draper<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The interest in changing the Indonesian
\ngovernment from a unitary to a federal one is fueling a lively
\ndebate. The key participants are students, political scientists
\nand constitutional experts, although to date they have not been
\nsuccessful in moving public opinion.<\/p>\n
The supporters of the unitary state -- which includes
\ngovernment, many of the main political parties, such as the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), Golkar
\nand the Indonesian Military (TNI) -- still hold the high ground
\nand can convince society of the preservation of the unitary state
\nsystem. The big challenge for the federalists is the public's
\nperception that their ideas are new and lack understanding of the
\ncentral issues.<\/p>\n
The demand for a federal system is largely the product of a
\nfeeling of injustice against central government, and its abuse of
\nlocal revenue distribution accompanied by authoritarian actions
\nby members of the armed forces and government officials.<\/p>\n
This has created an unhealthy undercurrent of resentment
\nagainst the system, which has been surfacing in different ways
\nfor several years now.<\/p>\n
The particularly open declaration for a federal system in East
\nKalimantan has led to an important development. The provincial
\nauthority has gone so far as to submit a clear and detailed
\nrequest listing three specific demands, despite considerable
\npolitical pressure from PDI Perjuangan.<\/p>\n
The first point deals with local revenue distribution, stating
\nthat 75 percent should be retained for use by the province, with
\nthe balance being made available for central government.<\/p>\n
The second request is for the provincial government to have
\nfull authority to manage its natural resources, without central
\ninterference, an approach taken by corrupt regimes of past
\ngovernments.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, the provincial government has requested a degree of
\nrepatriation of profits earned within the province by state owned
\nenterprises (SOEs) and private companies originating outside it.<\/p>\n
The students' argument for a move towards federalism also
\naddresses the possible impact on the army of such a reform. A
\nreduction in the power of the military would mean a gradual
\nelimination of their involvement in local politics and economic
\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
Another significant group of participants backing federalism
\nis the growing pool of young well-educated people who support the
\nNational Mandate Party (PAN).<\/p>\n
Their chairman, Amien Rais, Speaker of the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) has spoken in favor of the federal
\nsystem at the risk of protest from PDI-P and Commission II of the
\nHouse of Representatives (DPR).<\/p>\n
Noted economist and secretary-general of PAN, Faisal Basri,
\nalso supports the federalist movement. He believes that real
\nregional autonomy must be founded on a federalist framework
\nbecause that will be the only way for each of the regions to
\nexploit their particular characteristics to the fullest extent
\npossible, and survive in a globally competitive environment.<\/p>\n
There are several other political observers in favor of
\nadopting a federal state system. Arbi Sanit says in trying to
\nmaintain a unitary state, Indonesia would be in danger of
\ndissolution since half of the provinces have requested
\nindependence.<\/p>\n
Indeed it is the early days of Indonesia's history to which
\nhistorian Anhar Gonggong refers in his argument when he says that
\nthe debate in favor of a federal structure dates back to the
\nproclamation of the republic. Gonggong believes that in the
\nimplementation of a well thought out federal structure there
\nwould be no reason for the regions not to survive, given the
\nmandate to regulate them.<\/p>\n
There is a fundamental difference between the decision-making
\nprocess implied by a federalist structure and that of a system of
\nregional autonomy.<\/p>\n
In the former, the authority is transferred to the province
\nwhile the latter case rests within the central government. The
\nunion of states making up the federation act separately for the
\nbenefit of their state, deferring to the central government only
\non questions of national interest such as foreign, defense or
\nnational economic policy.<\/p>\n
All domestic or development issues would be under provincial
\njurisdiction. It goes without saying that the implementation of
\nsuch a system would require the agreement of all provinces.<\/p>\n
The complete agreement over the delegation of authority and
\nimplementation procedures needed for the establishment of an
\nIndonesian federation will not be easy to come by.<\/p>\n
The unitary state ideology is already deeply ingrained. The
\nwhole process would require agreement on an overhaul of the
\ncurrent system, as well as major provincial details to be worked
\nout such as tax raising powers, for example, and the equally
\nmajor details to be agreed upon in the realm of defense, foreign
\nand central monetary policies.<\/p>\n
Whichever road is taken, the potential will be there for
\nempowerment of the provinces and development of a sense of
\nbelonging within each province. Therefore it is important to
\nrecognize the two laws in place dealing with the issue of
\ndevolution -- Law No. 22 (1999), the focus of attention of Ryaas
\nRasyid, State Minister for Local Autonomy Affairs on regional
\nautonomy and Law No. 25 (1999) on the financial arrangement
\nbetween the central and provincial authorities -- as the
\nimmediate drivers of change.<\/p>\n
For supporters of the unitary state -- such as the Chairman of
\nthe newly founded National Economic Board (DEN) Emil Salim --
\nthese laws are considered to meet the criteria of a compromise
\napproach. He argues that they are adequate to satisfy the demands
\nof a federal structure, if properly applied, the Indonesia to
\nemerge would be one of the most decentralized countries in the
\nworld. In addition to meeting community demands, their
\nimplementation would result in 40 percent of funds returning to
\nthe local government.<\/p>\n
The federalists, however, are skeptical about the
\nimplementation of those laws. In the event that they are
\nsuccessfully enacted, they claim that there would be greater
\nopportunity for abuse of the system under the new Indonesia. The
\nobjective should be to work together to find a suitable solution
\nfor the benefit of the people as a whole.<\/p>\n
In this regard, constitutional law expert Soemantri has
\nsuggested amending article No.18 of the 1945 (provisional)
\nConstitution, where federalism was freely discussed, and where
\nthe question of establishing a realistic system of local autonomy
\nis clearly laid out.<\/p>\n
The parties involved should be able to reach a resolution, but
\nit will require open dialogue between central and local
\ngovernments as well as other important national institutions.
\nThis must be actively encouraged to break the stalemate between
\nthe federalists and the autonomists.<\/p>\n
The writer is president director of Strategic Intelligence,
\nJakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/open-discussion-vital-for-federalism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}