Pushing for a village-bassed decentralization movement<\/p>\n
M. Indrawan and Fahmi Wibawa, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The tide is turning again in the turbulent sea of Indonesian
\npolitics. When Laws 22 and 25 were passed in 1999, the country
\nhad picked up some strong momentum for decentralization. The
\nmandate to give administrative and fiscal authority to district
\nand provincial administrations, and ultimately villages, brought
\nabout the prospects for broader governance reform.<\/p>\n
However, by
\nthe passing of Law 32\/2004, followed quickly by its derivatives,
\nsuch as government regulations 6\/2005 on the direct election of
\ndistrict heads and government regulation 17\/2005 (revision of no.
\n6\/2005) suddenly the entire focus shifted to local government
\nelections. And now the mass media is awash with news of election-
\nrelated conflicts in the districts, regencies and provinces.
\nNoted electoral observer, Smita Notosusanto recently pointed out
\nthat the regional elections would be fraught with imperfect
\nlegislation that contributed to election-related conflicts in the
\nregion (The Jakarta Post, May 25, 2005).<\/p>\n
Of course decentralization is not only about elections, but
\nalso about thorough redistribution of functions and services
\n(including assets) from the central government to the local
\nadministrations. Such redistribution of authority is perhaps the
\nleast popular, and therefore the subject of this article.<\/p>\n
Conflict-free, orderly and reasonable success toward village
\ndecentralization has been noted by local governments and civil
\nsociety groups, including the Partnership for Governance Reform
\nin Indonesia. During 2002 in Bantul, Yogyakarta, the civil
\nsociety organization LAPPERA managed to encourage the local
\ngovernment to commit itself to adopting a village autonomy
\nagenda, similar to that of the district administration. This
\nexemplified a rare commitment to share power and budget
\nallocations. There will be no effective village decentralization
\nwithout pro-active district government support.<\/p>\n
Portions of the annual regional budget are by law allocated
\nfor villages, but until recently there were no clear guidelines.
\nBy the middle of 2003, the University of Brawijaya managed to
\ncalculate the budgetary allocations needed; taking into account
\nthe fiscal needs and the fiscal capacity at the village level.
\nThis model has been disseminated to both the regions and the
\nnational level.<\/p>\n
At any rate, the economic empowerment of villages should not
\ndepend on budgetary allocations alone. In some villages, it may
\nbe more reasonable to boost local economic productivity so they
\nare closer to self-sufficiency; for instance in some villages in
\nSukabumi.<\/p>\n
It is also from the village institutions that traditional
\nwisdom can be revitalized. Of course, not all traditional norms
\nand practices can be readily adopted across the country. For
\ninstance: Women are prohibited from going outside in West Sumatra
\nafter dusk, the syariah police in Aceh readily subject citizens
\nto physical punishment for misdeeds, however eyebrows would be
\nraised in the other parts of Indonesia if these sorts of things
\nwere imposed. As concluded by the Wanuata Waya Foundation, even
\nthe Wanuan wisdom of the Minahasa people is thought to be close
\nto perfection, but still needs adaptation.<\/p>\n
Village traditions still are imposed by the state. However, by
\nlaw, villages remain the lowest common denominator. In many
\nrespects, the villages are still the starting point for
\ndevelopment planning. There are good reasons for this. Villages
\ncan harness opportunities for collective action and aspects of
\nempowerment, namely human resources, tradition and economic
\nenterprise. Villages offer the most feasible venues for bringing
\ngovernance reform closer to the community, and better access to
\ndecision-making and benefits.<\/p>\n
Certain public service sectors, for instance health and
\neducation, are often considered to be costly. It would be more
\nrealistic if these were handled using a bottom-up methodology,
\nespecially in terms of increasing human-resource qualities. For
\ninstance, if designed on site, water and sanitation facilities
\nwould naturally be more viable and sustainable for the people.<\/p>\n
Village autonomy, to some extent, is directly related to
\nresource governance, with implications on poverty alleviation. In
\nsome countries, the local community has been encouraged to seize
\nthe opportunities for stewarding their own resources. In some
\nPacific islands, fisherfolk have actually thrown back bombs from
\noutsiders practicing destructive fishing methods at local fishes
\nand corals. Even the controversy with communities involved in
\nlogging in Papua (known as IPKMA), which the national law (Law
\n41\/ 1999) considers illegal logging, is not likely to be resolved
\nby military approaches alone, but there has to be sociocultural
\nintervention to complement legal procedures.<\/p>\n
Village autonomy would also bring increased access to justice,
\nparticularly for the country's rural poor; especially so, when
\nthe state and its formal apparatus (police, prosecutors and
\ncourts) are limited in capacity and resources.<\/p>\n
Governance reform is not about going with the flow. While
\nlocal government elections are important, it should not co-opt
\nthe other aspects of decentralization, not the least village
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
An important aspect for village decentralization is in
\nempowering the villages governing boards (BPDs). Only through
\nthem can public service function and control budgetary
\nallocations be properly exercised. The districts need to provide
\nproactive support for the village empowerment.<\/p>\n
The civil society groups, including the press, have an
\nimportant role to play in illuminating precedents and best
\npractices for village governance. Eventually, there will arise a
\nneed to properly act upon the laws and regulations that formalize
\nvillage autonomy.<\/p>\n
The views expressed herein are personal opinions. The authors
\nhave worked as Consultant and Program Manager, respectively, at
\nthe Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia, and can be
\ncontacted at mochamad.indrawan@undp.org and
\nfahmi.wibawa@undp.org).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pushing-for-a-village-bassed-decentralization-movement-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}