Autonomy law revision: Defining governors' role

Gustaf Tamo Mbapa, Legislative Watch Body (For-MAPPI), Jakarta, gustaftamo@astaga.com

The decentralization policy of 1999 had the main objective of relieving the central government of unnecessary burdens in handling domestic affairs, so that it would have the opportunity to study, comprehend and respond to global trends and benefit from these developments.

At the same time, the central government was expected to be more capable of concentrating on the formulation of national macro-policies of a strategic nature.

Also, through the decentralization of government authority to the regions, a significant process of empowerment of local communities was expected to take place.

Their initiative and creativity was expected to be spurred, thereby further strengthening their ability to resolve various domestic issues.

Decentralization as a symbol of the central government's trust in regional administrations would naturally restore the dignity and esteem of the local communities.

Since the enforcement of the regional autonomy law in January 2000, regency administrations often consider themselves to be the most qualified to run their own areas, so that the position of governor has tended to become very insignificant.

Governors in the New Order era were highly respected and had the most decisive role in distributing projects to the regions, often with regard to their respective political interests.

The obedience shown by regents to governors during that period was due to the great authority the governors had in the sphere of public administration and politics.

However, one concrete problem since the coming into force of Law No. 22/1999 on regional autonomy has been the relationship between provincial and regency/municipal administrations.

The law contains no clear definition of the function of provincial administrations. This makes the existence of provincial governments devoid of any function.

One example involves the formulation of regional development programs and strategic plans for regional development.

In drawing up the programs and also regional budgets, as a consequence of this law, regency and municipal administrations often disregard provincial administrations.

Therefore, even as provinces are drafting such plans or budgets, municipal or regency administrations have compiled their own without referring to those of the provincial administration. This has a fatal effect on development.

In the absence of any specifications about the role and function of provincial administrations in the implementation of regional autonomy, autonomous regency or municipal administrations sever any accountability to the provincial authorities.

They even seem to have no more connection with the central government. Many circles thus feel the necessity of revising the regional autonomy law.

The lack of a common perception among regents/mayors in the realization of regional autonomy obscures the role of governors. In fact, in the structure of public administration, governors play a supervisory, monitoring and facilitating role. This problem arises because into the second year of regional autonomy, how the coordination between governors and regents/mayors should be conducted has yet to be regulated.

According to Minister of Home Affairs Hari Sabarno, regents/mayors have misinterpreted the meaning of "no hierarchy between heads of first-level regions and heads of second-level regions", as stipulated in Law No.22/1999. With this misunderstanding, regents/mayors no longer see the presence of governors and provincial administrations. It is a mistake. The absence of hierarchy is actually in terms of politics. It means that the election of somebody as a regent/mayor is not owing to the recommendation of a governor.

Nonetheless, the government structure must administratively maintain a hierarchical relationship. To this end, a revision of the regional administration law is needed. But the changes should not be a total alteration and a return to centralization. The basic philosophy, i.e. decentralization, must still be strictly followed.

The amendments to the law would regulate the scope of authority in such a way that no conflict will emerge between regions. In addition, a revised autonomy law needs to regulate the ties between regional heads and regional legislatures, the improvement of regional finances and the arrangement of regional personnel.

In practice, the greater percentage of most of the regency/municipal finances is derived from central government aid, in the form of both general allocation funds (DAU) and special allocation funds (DAK). In this way, the relationship between regencies/municipalities and provincial administrations, as well as the central government, is interdependent rather then independent.

Central Java Governor Mardiyanto voiced this same view. According to him, the present behavior of regents/mayors who consider coordination with governors unimportant is not entirely their fault. The issue has arisen because the system is not well defined. As a result, regional autonomy proceeds individually based on the perceptions of relevant regions.

To prevent a recurrence of the misperceptions by regents/mayors of the authority of governors in carrying out the function of supervision, coordination and monitoring, the revision of the regional autonomy law should clearly define this authority and how it is exercised. The authority involves among other things the operational aspects of central government funds allocated through DAU and DAK.

The standardization of evaluation criteria for the performance of governors should also be more accountable and the governors' achievements measurable, so that the public can participate in evaluating the governors' performance for their five years in office.