Transparency, accountability ke to decentralization<\/p>\n
By Rainer Rohdewohld<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In the context of implementing regional autonomy
\nas stipulated in Law No. 22 (1999) on Regional Governance, one of
\nthe most-heard arguments is that "the regions are not yet ready
\nand not yet able" to deliver the government functions
\nthat have been transferred.<\/p>\n
This argument, which used to be the main weapon of the New
\nOrder government to defend its centralistic approach to
\nadministration while paying only lip service to decentralization,
\nusually lacks empirical evidence, and in most cases, no clear
\nbenchmarks are established to define what "capacity" is needed or
\navailable.<\/p>\n
During the last 12 months, the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
\nTechnische Zusammenarbeit-GTZ (German Technical Cooperation) and
\nthe USAID-funded CLEAN Urban Project have conducted a study to
\nidentify the capacity building needs of local governments and
\nlocal parliaments (DPRD).<\/p>\n
Other donor-funded projects from ADB and CIDA contributed to
\nthe study (www.gtzsfdm.or.id). Findings and recommendations of
\nthe study team were presented to the government by the end of
\nNovember, and initiatives are under way to formulate a medium-
\nterm strategy for capacity building which integrates government
\nprograms with support from various donor agencies, like USAID,
\nGTZ and the World Bank.<\/p>\n
While the field assessments of the study team confirmed the
\nwidespread lack of managerial and planning capacity at the local
\ngovernment level (we should not forget that in the past local
\ngovernments were not supposed to plan and manage independently
\nbut to carry out instructions and orders from above), they also
\nconfirmed that in many cases the required technical competencies
\nand skills are available.<\/p>\n
The planned transfer of central government civil servants to
\nthe regions will in addition constitute a substantial infusion of
\nskilled manpower into the local government agencies, and will
\ngive them - despite concerns over overstaffing and the "putra
\ndaerah" issue - access to professional experience and
\ncompetencies.<\/p>\n
The study also confirmed that the "lack" of local government
\ncapacity (and confusion about the details of the new local
\ngovernance system) is often caused by insufficient information
\nstrategies of the central government, and by the lack of
\ncoordination between central government agencies responsible for
\ncertain aspects of the decentralization policy.<\/p>\n
No doubt that many local government officials still adhere to
\nthe habit of waiting for instructions from above, but even in
\nregions with innovative leadership, and with sufficient financial
\nand human resources, the lack of policy management by the central
\ngovernment caused delays in preparing the regions for
\nregional autonomy.<\/p>\n
Building capacity at the local level to fully implement
\nregional autonomy (and its underlying principles of democracy,
\nparticipation and justice) requires concerted efforts by the
\ncentral government and the regional governments.<\/p>\n
A capacity building strategy must include a number of core
\nelements: it must be linked to the realization of good governance
\n(which includes having accountability, transparency and
\nparticipation), it needs a medium-term orientation (no "quick
\nfix" solutions!), and it should sequence priority areas so that
\nurgent and important issues are tackled first.<\/p>\n
Capacity building initiatives must be demand-driven and must
\nbe based on the specific conditions in each region. "One-size-
\nfits-all" programs (which were the hallmark of the past New Order
\nregime) are a waste of scarce resources and will fail to deliver
\nresults. Existing tools and instruments (like standard training
\nprograms in financial and urban management) should be adjusted to
\nthe new framework.<\/p>\n
The horizontal exchange, between regions, of information and
\nexperience of "lessons learned" will become a major tool for
\ndisseminating innovations. Finally, capacity building programs
\nshould utilize a multitude of providers, including
\nuniversities, professional associations, and private sector
\nentities.<\/p>\n
Capacity building is not something one government agency alone
\ncan claim ownership.<\/p>\n
The GTZ\/CLEAN Urban study has suggested 12 major areas for
\ncapacity building activities:<\/p>\n
* Finalizing the regulatory framework for decentralization<\/p>\n
* Managing the transition period<\/p>\n
* A local government budget and finance reform<\/p>\n
* Civil service issues<\/p>\n
* Training and skills development<\/p>\n
* Monitoring the performance of local governments<\/p>\n
* Regional planning<\/p>\n
* Interregional cooperation<\/p>\n
* Adjusting sectoral systems (regulations, institutions, working
\nmechanisms) to the new decentralization framework<\/p>\n
* Supervision by the central government<\/p>\n
* Institutional reform (both at the regional and the central
\nlevel), and finally the<\/p>\n
* Local policy arrangements, i.e. how political decisions are to
\nbe taken on the local level, aiming at a maximum involvement of
\nstakeholders.<\/p>\n
The capacity of public sector organizations is a dynamic and
\nnormative concept, not something that can be easily quantified.<\/p>\n
Many factors influence whether a local government agency can
\ndeliver services with the required quantity and quality: the
\nenvironment in which its operates (e.g. the legal framework),
\norganizational issues (like its decision-making procedures, its
\norganizational structure, access to information and other
\nresources), and the knowledge, skills and work ethics of its
\nworkforce.<\/p>\n
Some of these factors can be influenced by the local
\ngovernments, some are determined by the central government.
\nOthers (like work ethics) are influenced by tradition, social
\nnorms and values which change only slowly over time.<\/p>\n
Regional autonomy opens the way for local governments to
\ntackle many (but not all) of these factors according to their own
\nneeds and conditions, without having to follow uniform blueprints
\ndetermined by Jakarta.<\/p>\n
For instance local governments can make choices regarding the
\nmechanisms on how to deliver services: by using the traditional
\ngovernment agencies (dinas), by using local enterprises (BUMD),
\nor by contracting-out to the private sector.<\/p>\n
A functioning and transparent political system at the local
\nlevel would ensure that the local leadership is held accountable
\nfor the results (positive and negative ones) of its
\ndecisions.<\/p>\n
In this sense capacity building is more than ensuring that
\nsolid waste is collected regularly, and that KTPs are being
\nissued; it also means ensuring that finally local communities
\nhave a voice in determining the kind of public services they
\nwant.<\/p>\n
Regional autonomy requires a learning process for all
\ninvolved: the local communities, local parliaments, the local
\ngovernment officials, and the officials in central government
\nagencies. The capacity of local governments to deliver services
\nto their communities will increase over time, if they are given a
\nchance.<\/p>\n
Participation of local communities, transparency and
\naccountability of the local leadership are key principles of the
\ndecentralization policy, and local communities should not
\nhesitate to insist that these principles are respected and
\nadhered to.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/transparency-accountability-ke-to-decentralization-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}