A case for federalism

A case for federalism

The march by more than one million people held on Monday in
Banda Aceh, which demanded a referendum on the province's self-
determination, supports fears of threats to national
disintegration voiced in Jakarta in recent weeks. Proponents of
the viewpoint say the separation of East Timor triggered this
Balkanization of Indonesia. Aceh is next in line with Irian Jaya
close behind, followed by Riau, Maluku and South Sulawesi.

President Abdurrahman Wahid addressed this rising regional
discontent by including in his Cabinet representatives from Aceh,
Irian Jaya and South Sulawesi. The individuals in question were
selected chiefly for their place of origin, rather than the
skills and experience they brought to their posts. If this is
Abdurrahman's idea of a "national unity" Cabinet, he could not be
more mistaken. The President may even have unintentionally
created a divided Cabinet. Acehnese, Irianese and other non-
Javanese people who have expressed their discontent with the
government's strong Javanese bias in administration and policy
will not be appeased by the Cabinet appointment of a
representative from every restive province. A number of other
provinces which have "behaved" themselves are now questioning
their exclusion from the Cabinet.

The problem is that by treating this issue solely from a
security perspective we have been led to a wrong solution.
Threats solicit action, but usually the wrong type of response.
The theoretical threat led to the launch of military operations
for the past four decades to quell regional discontents in the
name of national unity. This theory provided the pretext for many
preventive and repressive measures carried out by the military,
often at a huge cost to people's lives and civic rights.

The trouble with the Balkanization theory is that it prompts
actions that deal with the symptoms, not with the root causes of
the discontent. National unity remains an obsession of Jakarta
policy-makers; they are prepared to do just about anything to
preserve the notion. If for a moment we stopped treating the
issue as a threat and instead considered the issue as a problem
of regional discontent, we would probably make headway.

In the case of Aceh, those one million protesters demanded on
Monday a referendum not an immediate break with Indonesia.
President Abdurrahman is right in assuming that most Acehnese do
not want an outright separation. They are asking for justice and
fairness and more autonomy.

Such rights are yearned after by other provinces. Most have
kept quiet, but some have begun to assert their demands. They are
simple demands that the central administration has refused to
concede. The current talk about providing regions with more
autonomy is mere lip service. The new law on regional
administration shifts administrative tasks to the regions. Real
political and economic power remains in Jakarta, where the
administration sees as its sacred duty the need to preserve
national unity. Even "democracy" is centralized, with all
political parties required by law to have their headquarters in
Jakarta. Regional aspirations in this vast and diverse nation
have not been given any democratic outlets.

While Aceh is an urgent matter requiring our immediate
attention, the government would be mistaken to treat the issue
solely as an Aceh problem, since the discontent exists in other
provinces. To do so would be to invite other provinces, one by
one, to stand up and press their own demands for referendum.

The central government must do away with its obsession with
national unity and start giving real autonomy to the regions. The
government must not offer half-hearted measures if it wants to
spare this nation from disintegrating. Barring complete
separation, the ultimate form of autonomy is federalism.

A federal system has proven effective in large democracies
such as the United States, India and Germany. On the other hand,
the unitary state system has created authoritarian regimes in the
former Soviet Union, China and Indonesia. This raises the
question whether a unitary state where power is centralized is
compatible in large countries without stifling democracy.

Ultimately, the real threat to disintegration does not
originate from Aceh or other restive provinces. The source of the
threat comes from Jakarta, from the very people who like to sound
the warning. If Jakarta is genuinely concerned about national
unity, rather than about keeping power to itself, it should start
sharing power and resources with the regions. Unity cannot be
imposed. People in the regions need to be given a strong reason
to want to stay in the republic. They had that reason in 1949
when they voluntarily joined in this project our founding fathers
called Indonesia. That reason was a common vision and a goal.

In 1950, Indonesia's first vice president Mohammad Hatta lost
his debate for a federal system of government and president
Sukarno's concept of a unitary state prevailed. The end of that
debate also marked the start of regional rebellions in various
parts of the country. Aceh is only the latest in a history of
regional problems dating back to the 1950s. Unless we mend our
ways, it will not be the last one either. Federalism, rather than
being the system which breaks Indonesia apart as many people
fear, could in the end become what saves our national unity.