Part of 2

Will revision of the law on regional autonomy fail?

P. Agung Pambudhi, Executive Director, Monitoring Committee of Regional Autonomy Implementation (KPPOD), Jakarta

Although the plan to revise the law on regional autonomy has often been publicly discussed, the public is yet to be adequately informed about the stages of achievement and the deadline. Given this fact, we have enough reason to worry about the government's decision to set September 30, 2004 as the official deadline for the final draft of the revision.

We are justified to feel even more uneasy to learn that, as the House and the government have often stated, the deadline should be before the 2004 general elections. Whether this one- year period is long enough will largely depend on how we spend it, of course.

If this revision aims only at accommodating matters related to the direct election of a regional head (in line with presidential elections) and the composition of a regional legislative assembly, the deadline -- set to be before the 2004 general elections -- may be reached. The reason is simple enough. The central boards of political parties -- through their representatives in the House -- will find it necessary to clarify the mechanism for a regional head election and also for a regional head's accountability report.

Of course, some regional heads and political parties in the regions -- now already comfortable with the present political mechanism -- may voice their objection. Regarding the election of a regional head, non-governmental organizations, will also voice their concern. These organizations are vociferous enough in criticizing political power practices in the regions, which involve, among other things, money politics and the fact that in the case of a particular region, a regional head subjected to house detention can run his administration from his home.

Despite their significance, more than just these matters will be needed as evidence for the implementation of Stipulation No. IV/MPR/1999 because this stipulation has instructed that a basic revision of Law No. 22/1999 and Law No. 25/1999 should start.

A fundamental revision of these laws leads to a number of important questions about, among others things: the need to merge the two laws into a single law on regional autonomy; the structure of a fair balance in financial matters between the central and regional administrations; the scope of authority of the central government, as well as provincial, regency and municipal administrations; the hierarchical relationship involving the central government and provincial, regency and municipal administrations and a preventive or repressive regional policy control regime.

Another fundamental question may also be asked in this regard, although it is highly unpopular: Is it necessary to grant the authority of autonomy to a province, not a regency and a municipality?

If the government wishes to meet the target it has set, and at the same time ensure that the revision will be properly introduced, it must clarify the following stages.

The first stage refers to the mechanism for discussion within the government itself. Assuming that the technical team set up earlier (and already active) is maintained, it must be clear at this stage the commitment of each government agency in assisting the technical team so that eventually a synergy of the various interests of government agencies may be established.

The second stage is related to the deadline for the completion of an academic manuscript of the revision of the law. Aside from the study of this subject that the government will undertake, the studies conducted by other circles must be cashed in on -- including recommendations of loan programs linked with the implementation of regional autonomy.

The third stage is concerned with the identification of the main stakeholders and ways to popularize the result. This identification will require a gathering of aspirations through an approach to a region or a cluster of areas (regencies -- municipalities -- provinces) or to interest groups in the society (a business community, non-governmental organizations and so forth). The methods may vary: Correspondence, tete-a-tete contact or intensive publication in the national and regional mass media. It must be remembered that this stage may be time consuming.

The fourth stage will be related to the wide publication of a rational explanation concerning whether or not input from the stakeholders will be incorporated in the government's policy on this subject. This will be the government's professional accountability regarding all efforts that the public has made in their contribution to this great feat.

This agenda of revision is indeed a great undertaking. The outcome will contain principles that will serve as one of the main sources to which the laws of a particular sector will later refer. Therefore, those assigned to head the program must adopt a participative approach and should refrain from relying only on the technocrats in the inner circle of the power that be.

These people must also do away with their half-hearted popularization of this revision agenda. If the ideal goal is to produce legislation that will result in a long-term change in social order -- as a law is actually supposed to produce -- this participative approach is a necessity. In this context, despite a highly minimalist target, the revision of the law on regional autonomy should never allow the interests of various stakeholders to degenerate into simply peripheral issues.