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.