Abdurrahman's federalist system opposed by some

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