Transparency, crucial to success of authonomy<\/p>\n
Joe Fernandez, Institute of Policy and Community Studies, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Almost a year after the implementation of the law on regional
\nautonomy and the related law on fiscal balance, arguments are
\nstill raging as new problems arise.<\/p>\n
The latest public debate has been about the use of the general
\nallocation fund (DAU), accompanied by pressure to reformulate the
\nfund sharing mechanism. A statement by Benny Pasaribu, a member
\nof the House of Representatives (DPR) budget commission, pointed
\nto the mismanagement of funds by a number of regional
\nadministrations. Benny said that a portion of the funds had been
\nused by officials to purchase personal items, including luxury
\ncars.<\/p>\n
Officials have raised high hopes concerning the importance of
\nthe two laws, but many of these expectations have yet to be
\nrealized.<\/p>\n
Both laws were considered a breakthrough for democracy and
\nsocial welfare in Indonesia. Indeed, decentralization has become
\na major experiment that is being closely observed by various
\ncountries in Asia and the developing world.<\/p>\n
The actual problem with the allocation of funds does not lie
\nin the way the distributions are calculated, but more in the
\nimpact of politics on the decision-making process and public
\nparticipation.<\/p>\n
The determination of most regions' budgets is not based on
\nallocative efficiency, which prioritizes the public's urgent
\nneeds and strategic activities to activate the public economy.
\nThe decisions often neglect the voice of the people due to the
\n\"conspiracy\" between the regional executive body and the regional
\nlegislature (DPRD).<\/p>\n
Pressures for a more transparency in deciding budget
\npriorities often encounter instrumental and institutional
\nconstraints. Our survey in 2001, conducted in 10 regencies and
\ncities, revealed weaknesses in decision making.<\/p>\n
The six-month long surveys combined various methods: Analysis
\nof local media content, in-depth interviews of 60 members of the
\nlocal elite, random sampling of 1,000 respondents and studies of
\nregional budget and regulation documents. They revealed some
\ninteresting findings that could be taken as an initial evaluation
\nof the decentralization process in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Public control of decision making, such as through political
\nparties, was found to be very weak. While these political
\ninstitutions are the modern components of a democracy, the most
\nimportant role in decision making was that played by traditional
\nleaders.<\/p>\n
Likewise, the formulation of public opinion by the media is
\nstill far from meeting the people's actual requirements. The
\nmedia even tend to be biased in favor of the interests of people
\nliving in cities over those in the villages and remote areas.<\/p>\n
Most decisions on public policies were taken without
\nconsultation with the public. Political transactions in \"closed
\nrooms\" were conducted just like under the past authoritarian
\nregime.<\/p>\n
The pendulum of authority, which has now swung in the
\ndirection of the legislature, is not entirely in favor of the
\npeople's interests, but has cultivated a new oligarchy comprising
\nthe elite of the local executive body and the legislature.<\/p>\n
The surveys in the provinces of North Sumatra, East Java, East
\nKalimantan, South Sulawesi and West Nusa Tenggara also showed
\nthat proper attention had not been given to improving the quality
\nof public services, one of the objectives of decentralization.<\/p>\n
The survey found that political institutional factors (such as
\npolitical parties) had not significantly influenced the level of
\npublic satisfaction with the entire decentralization process in
\ntheir respective regions. Satisfaction depends instead on the
\nquality of public services.<\/p>\n
Decentralization needs two key prerequisites to achieve any
\nsuccess in building democracy and bringing prosperity to the
\npeople.<\/p>\n
First, the introduction of active participation as the essence
\nof a broadbased decision-making process, which would reflect
\nstrong legitimacy. Second, decision makers should have a spirit
\nof accountability, which would support improvement of the public
\nsector's performance.<\/p>\n
Active participation can only occur if there is transparency
\nand if the mechanism of public participation is clear and easy to
\nunderstand, while accountability can only be developed when there
\nis a smooth two-way flow of information between the elite and
\ntheir constituents.<\/p>\n
However, it seems that transparency and the flow of
\ninformation have become very costly commodities. The flow of
\ninformation, both in the form of public control and complaints,
\nrarely reaches the local elite, let alone becoming a part of
\ntheir policy agenda, as the survey revealed.<\/p>\n
Many countries with a decentralized system also have weak and
\ninadequate public control mechanisms. Improvements in accounting
\nand the quality of the state budget report to the public would
\nreduce power deviation in important decisions, such as the
\nexpenditure budgets in the public sector.<\/p>\n
It has now become more urgent that an evaluation and
\nmonitoring mechanism be developed to determine the priorities of
\na region's budget. The mechanism should certainly involve the
\npublic, who provide legitimacy and who own the public assets
\nmanaged by the local administration.<\/p>\n
Without a broadbased mechanism, an oligarchic system at the
\nlocal level would emerge, breeding a group of public rent seekers
\nwho appropriate the people's wealth for their own interests
\nthrough manipulation of \"the people's interest.\"<\/p>\n
We recommend a simple and appropriate mechanism. Public
\nhearings could be held at local councils as part of the decision-
\nmaking process. The public hearings should not be mere
\nformalities, but must be based on the spirit of disseminating
\ninformation and stimulating rational reasoning.<\/p>\n
This simple prerequisite would open up active participation by
\nharnessing the people's interest in the decision-making process.
\nThis would also prevent the kind of decisions that do not
\npositively respond to the public logic. This process needs to
\ngive ample time and space to public debates and discussions.
\nToday's decision making process is frequently rushed, with the
\nexcuse that there is little time.<\/p>\n
A public control and complaint mechanism should also be
\nprepared to change those decisions considered hostile to the
\npublic interest. There is an urgent need to develop a smart and
\ncritical media community as well as modern political institutions
\n-- especially political parties -- that are responsive to the
\npublic's interests. In this way, people's views and complaints
\nwould be taken seriously by the political elite.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/transparency-crucial-to-success-of-authonomy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}