A federal state for good governance?

A federal state for good governance?

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): There have been heated debates recently on
whether a federal system of government could enhance Indonesian
national unity. Such a proposal argues that Indonesia is too vast
and pluralistic to be governed in a centralized manner.

More importantly, goes the argument, the central government
can easily manipulate the unitary state to exploit resource-rich
provinces like Aceh, Irian Jaya, East Kalimantan, and Riau, at
the expense of the local people.

Those who favor a federal state tend to believe that
Indonesian regions can only achieve economic progress if they
have more freedom to deal with their development needs
themselves.

However, a positive correlation between federalism and
economic welfare at the regional level should be read as a
theoretical statement rather than as empirical evidence.

There is no clear and credible evidence that the performance
of federal states like Brazil, Nigeria, or India is better than
Indonesia as far as economic equality is concerned. In other
words, there is no automatic correlation between federalism and
economic welfare at the local level.

There is no doubt that Indonesia does need a fundamental
change in the relationship between the central government and the
provincial administrations. However, considering the fact that
the dissatisfaction of the regions has more to do with the
leadership style and political behavior of the New Order
government than with the formal organization of the state, merely
changing from a unitary to a federal state might never lead to a
permanent solution.

The regime of former president Soeharto used to rely on a
centralistic approach when dealing with the problem of national
unity. There seemed to be a clientilistic relationship between
the central government and the provinces. Local government
officials paid more attention to the problem of how to appease
their superiors in Jakarta than to promote their citizens'
interests.

As a result, local people tended to become alienated from the
governing system. No wonder that such people never perceived
themselves as being part of the governing system; they have been
victimized by the collusive nature of the relationship between
the central elite and the local government.

If the above observation is correct then our main agenda is
not so much to speculate on the possibility of adopting a federal
system but how to reform the relationship between the central
government and the regions.

Many scholars have mentioned the importance of giving more
territorial responsibility to the provinces. However, before such
a step is taken, it is necessary to undertake a thorough study of
the administrative capacity of the local governments upon which
any decentralized system would be based.

Administrative capacity can be understood as the capability to
manage public affairs so that people's interests can be met
through the provision of government services.

The level of administrative capacity in the provinces is
determined by several factors, including the size of the
population and resources (human and financial), sufficient
administrative opportunities (such as autonomy, efficiency, and
competence), and transparent and democratic modes of organization
and operation (R. Maes, 1996).

There is, however, an increasingly persuasive suggestion that
decentralization should be planned and implemented with a certain
degree of precaution and sensitivity to political and ideological
configurations at the local level. Decentralization should be
promoted within the context of establishing more constructive
linkages between all levels of government.

Decentralization should not be made an end in itself. B.C.
Smith (1985) argues that we should reject a romantic view of
decentralization. It can be good for some development goals but
damaging for others. Development goals of territorial justice and
redistribution of wealth, for instance, may be better served by
centralizing authority.

On top of that, we have to be very careful in giving more
power to provincial governments because this could lead to
centralization at the local level. Keith Griffin (1981) argues
that democratization at the local level should precede national
decentralization.

Greater decentralization will not necessarily empower the
local people. Moreover, mechanisms of public control (through the
legislature, mass media, public debates, etc.) over the governing
process seem to be more active and progressive in central
systems.

Considering the fact that the underdevelopment of some
Indonesian regions has been due to the lack of good governance
and misuse of power by certain political elite during Soeharto's
rule and not because of the nature of the unitary state itself,
improvements in government's decentralization policies might be
more preferable and thoughtful than adopting a federal system.

However, it is still essential to increase the administrative
capacity of local government and to democratize the policy-making
process at the local level. Hopefully, by carefully designing
more appropriate decentralization policies, the economic gap
between Jakarta and some remote regions like Irian Jaya, Flores,
Aceh, and other peripheral islands might become more bridgeable.

After all, there is no moral justification whatsoever in that
Jakarta should always be more prosperous and developed than other
areas.

The writer is the head of the school of international
relations at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He is also a
researcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies at
the same university.