Abdurrahman's federalist system opposed by some

HONG KONG: As violence continued to flare across Indonesia last week, the nation's military territorial affairs chief, Lt. Gen. Agus Widjojo, spoke out against President Abdurrahman Wahid's plan to implement some form of federalist system in the archipelago nation. Widjojo echoed previous criticisms of the idea when he said that federalism could bring "larger costs and higher risks" to the country.

Official opposition to the president's plan is understandable. Fears of increased sectarian violence, and even the disintegration of the Indonesian nation are not unfounded. And given the country's unpleasant experience with federalism immediately following the departure of the Dutch colonialists, it is not surprising that the very word leaves many Indonesians with a bad taste in their mouths.

Any kind of change-particularly on such a grand scale -- involves risk. But what is often forgotten is that maintaining the status quo can be just as risky. In Indonesia's case the risks involved in maintaining the system as it is, with a strong central government administering farflung regions, may be even greater than the risk of granting these regions some real autonomy.

In the past 10 years, over 5,000 people in Aceh alone have been killed or have disappeared as a result of the Indonesian military's attempt to defeat the independence movement. Meanwhile, the devastation of East Timor by Jakarta-backed militias after that territory voted for independence has done little to instill trust in the central government.

And the violence continues. Just last week, more than 180 people were killed in the Malukus, bringing the death toll there to over 2,000 in 18 months, while bombings connected with the Aceh dispute injured over 60 people in two days.

This situation is clearly untenable. While it is true that some of this violence is the result of sectarian conflicts, and would have occurred even without the involvement of Indonesia's military, it would be a stretch to argue that military involvement has made things any better.

Maintaining the current relationship between Jakarta and the nation's outlying regions can only lead to more resentment and more bloodshed. The only question is what to put in its place.

President Wahid has already signed into law regulations that will grant more power over revenues to the provinces -- a major point of contention for the resource-rich regions. Under his vision for a federalist system, provinces would be granted genuine autonomy and would have their own parliaments led by elected governors.

Reformers in the military, on the other hand, such as Widjojo, would prefer an approach which would grant autonomy in such areas as health and education, transportation policies and investment approvals, with Jakarta maintaining control over defense, foreign policy and the law.

While this might help to ensure that outlying regions do not become powerful enough to pose a threat to the central government, it would also make it less likely that they would be strong enough to defend their own interests against encroachment from the center.

Any plan needs to offer the provinces genuine protection from the Indonesian military and the militias that it supports. There must not be a replay of the East Timor tragedy.

Of course, a federalist system alone cannot guarantee this. True democracy, and accountability for those in office, would help. What is truly missing in Indonesia is governmental accountability. Until this is achieved, through democracy and strong Legal institutions, no grand plan, no matter how far- sighted, will resolve the nation's problems.

-- The Asian Wall Street Journal