Patching up decentralization to boost the service delivery<\/p>\n
Riyadi Suparno
\nThe Jakarta Post\/Jakarta<\/p>\n
There were many positive changes to local democracy in 2005,
\nespecially the direct elections of regional heads, but too often
\nthis did not translate into the improved delivery of services.
\nTherefore, the challenge for 2006 will be to help our burgeoning
\nlocal democracy improve the delivery of services, especially to
\nthe poor.<\/p>\n
Why does improving services to the poor matter? Poverty does
\nnot mean just a lack of income, but also a lack of access to
\nservices that would benefit the poor more than any other group,
\nsuch as education, health services, clean water and sanitation.<\/p>\n
As fighting poverty has been declared one of the main
\npriorities of the central government, improving service delivery
\nto the poor should be the guiding principle of any local
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Eradicating poverty by improving the poor's access to basic
\nservices would not only meet the government's long-term target,
\nbut also the Millennium Development Goals, which is a commitment
\nby countries to ensure all citizens have access to basic
\nservices.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is imperative that we focus on improving service
\ndelivery to the poor. But how?<\/p>\n
Strengthening democracy at the local level by introducing
\ndirect elections of heads of local governments, i.e. governors,
\nregents and mayors, has in some ways helped improve service
\ndelivery.<\/p>\n
When the people get the right candidates for regent, for
\nexample, and they select the best one, many times they get better
\npublic services almost immediately.<\/p>\n
Immediately after his election as regent of Jembrana, Bali,
\nfor example, I Gede Winasa introduced free basic education and
\nhealth services for people; services that are still uncommon in
\nthe more than 400 regencies and municipalities across the
\ncountry. His wife, Ratna Ani Lestari, who later won the regency
\nelection in Banyuwangi, East Java, also introduced similar
\nservices there.<\/p>\n
The commitment and creativity of regents or mayors to find
\nmore efficient and effective ways to provide services to the poor
\nis equally important. This has worked out in some places.<\/p>\n
In Polewali Mandar, South Sulawesi, for example, having
\nhouseholds participate in the management of schools, according to
\nthe World Bank, has improved the effectiveness and responsiveness
\nof the education system in serving the poor. In Pemalang, Central
\nJava, vouchers given to women give them increased access to
\nprenatal health services.<\/p>\n
In these cases, democracy has given people the chance to
\nselect good candidates for regent or mayor, who in return provide
\nthem better services. However, many times it does not always work
\nthis way, simply because the system of decentralization is still
\npatchy.<\/p>\n
Therefore the system of decentralization needs complementary
\nregulations or institutions, or may even require some changes in
\nareas already in place to make it more responsive to the demands
\nof the people, especially the poor.<\/p>\n
One such measures should be the establishment of minimum
\nstandards of public service. Although this has been mandated by
\nthe Decentralization Law, such standards are practically
\nnonexistent, meaning the people -- as the users of public
\nservices -- cannot judge whether the services provided by local
\ngovernments are up to standard.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, there is some heartening news coming from the
\nHouse of Representatives: It is now deliberating the much-awaited
\npublic services bill, which covers the issue of minimum
\nstandards, even as far as the introduction of a Britain-style
\n\"Citizen Charter\", i.e. a kind of detailed pledge by local
\ngovernments to provide better services for the people, with clear
\ntargets and time frames.<\/p>\n
Such minimum standards and citizen charters must be published
\nso that the people, especially the poor, can monitor whether
\nlocal governments perform, in terms of carrying out their public
\nduties.<\/p>\n
Another area that needs to be strengthened is the adoption of
\nperformance budgeting by local governments, which is mandated by
\nthe Public Finance Law.<\/p>\n
Unlike traditional budgeting, which is more concerned with
\ninput than output, performance budgeting cares more about output,
\nand sets performance indicators and targets for all budget items.<\/p>\n
However, even with performance budgeting, public service
\nstandards or Citizen Charters in place, if there is no meaningful
\nsystem of accountability, they will not deliver the fruits of
\ndecentralization, but rather serve as nothing more than useless
\nornaments.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the system of accountability at the local level
\nneeds to be strengthened. Currently, local governments are
\naccountable to local people more than to the central government
\nthrough local legislative councils, or DPRD. Too often, however,
\nlocal councillors do not have the capacity to do oversight,
\nespecially in areas that require specific knowledge and skills,
\nsuch as looking into the books of local governments.<\/p>\n
In this case, our system of decentralization has a serious
\ndefect, i.e. in the auditing of the books of local governments.
\nUnless the books are audited by an independent party, whose
\nresults would be made available to the public or at least to the
\nDPRD, corruption at the local level will continue.<\/p>\n
To address this issue, the Decentralization Law, which was
\namended five years after implementation, will need another
\nrevision, especially to accommodate the issue of audits.<\/p>\n
To make the system of decentralization complete, we need to
\nempower local people so that they can do their part in overseeing
\nthe performance of local governments.<\/p>\n
Empowering the people can be pursued through various ways,
\nincluding by educating them about the importance of demanding
\ntheir rights with regards to public services, so that they can
\ndemand or even punish local governments when service delivery is
\nbelow par.<\/p>\n
The practices in Morowali and Pemalang are a good example of
\nlocal governments empowering the people by directly involving
\nthem in public services.<\/p>\n
When such practices become more prevalent, and the patchy
\nparts of the decentralization system are already fixed, we can be
\nsure that service delivery to the poor will improve, and we can
\nbe sure that we will be better off as a nation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/patching-up-decentralization-to-boost-the-service-delivery-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}