Clear rules needed for regional autonomy

Gustaf Tamo Mbapa, Former Chairman, Kupang Chapter, Indonesian Catholic Students Association, West Nusa Tenggara

Since the nation achieved independence in 1945, Jakarta has always harbored the fear that investing regions with power to manage their respective territories would lead to disintegration. At the end of the 1950s, several rebellions emerged against Jakarta's domination, such as those in Sumatra and South Sulawesi. The uprisings were suppressed by armed force.

The end of Soeharto's rule in 1998 gave rise to widespread demands for democracy and empowerment, including those voiced by non-Javanese regions to take more care of their own affairs. Such demands have mostly come from regions rich in natural resources, like Aceh and Riau. This also triggered central government apprehension that unless these regions were allowed greater autonomy, the country would likely be split up as a consequence of separatist movements.

The challenge of decentralization assumes two different forms. In some cases, the aspirations for broader autonomy spur political and armed conflicts, as in Aceh and Papua (formerly Irian Jaya). In most other provinces, regional pressures for the same autonomy are still limited to political demands. This, nevertheless, does not rule out the possibility of more regions adopting a tougher stance and even taking up arms, if a clearer implementation of decentralization is indefinitely stalled.

In 1999, the House of Representatives (DPR) passed two laws concerning decentralization -- law no. 22 dealing with administrative decentralization and law no. 25 dealing with fiscal balance. The related rules had been issued by May 2000. Both laws serve as a strong indication of the government's serious attitude toward democratic decentralization. But many issues relating to the scope and implications of their enforcement are as yet unclear.

In August 2000, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) declared decentralization to be a constitutionally guaranteed policy, through an amendment to the Constitution of 1945.

Significant issues affecting regional autonomy are first, establishing decentralization, second, setting up democratic mechanisms, third, the financing aspect and fourth, conflict settlement.

Regarding the first, accomplishing autonomy in each sector is technically very complex. Authorities need a good command of the affairs encompassed in its process and must be able to give clear field instructions to their subordinates. They also need strong political and financial support. Therefore, relevant ministries must be continuously exposed to regional views.

There has been a debate about the need to apply a bi-cameral parliament with the upper house mostly comprising regional representatives, so as to serve as a forum for discussing central and regional opinions. Supporters of this idea stress that this system would enable collective bargaining by regions vis-a-vis the central government.

This debate also proposes that a special constitution body be set up to promote efficient decentralization. This body could take the form of a decentralization council, whose members would come from government ministries. Its advocates suggest that the council would act as a propeller engine to boost sectoral decentralization.

In this way the council would prevent centralistic ambitions in the bureaucracy and cut the red tape to bring about concrete and effective changes. Yet critics of this view are very skeptical, saying the council itself would be highly bureaucratic and dominated by the central government.

Unless decentralization is carried out democratically, the regions will be governed by authoritarianism and corruption, and we will be back to a Soeharto-like rule. This leads us to the second factor of setting up democratic mechanisms.

There has been serious concern over likely corruption in the regional representatives council in the election and accountability of regional leaders, and parliamentary abuse of public funds or foreign aid intended to finance various projects.

Decentralization may trigger or intensify ethnic and sectarian conflicts in regions as local elite groups compete to gain lucrative positions in the bureaucracy, by raising ethnic and sectarian issues, instead of focusing on the prevailing administrative issues. Such conflicts have taken place in West Kalimantan and Maluku.

The urgent need arises for the public in the regions to become involved in the development of a new government structure. These institutions include non-government organizations, regional universities and the mass media.

Regional administrations will of course be rendered even more ineffective if funds are insufficient.

Decentralization financing means balancing two contending rights -- the right of citizens in resource-rich regions to enjoy a proper share of the income produced by their regions, and the right of citizens wherever they are to be treated equally by the state. Thus, creating a formula that can strike a balance between the two is urgent.

Basically, the issue of decentralization financing is two- pronged. The first concerns how regions can more effectively raise their taxes. The second, which is more important, is how to distribute the income of rich regions through certain methods without harming the interests of poor regions and the central government, which has to maintain national unity and repay debts.

Fundamental transformation of a government structure will invite tensions, which leads to the fourth important factor in decentralization -- conflict settlement.

A struggle for power has already begun between central and regional authorities, between regions and localities, or with investors in regions, over the control of local resources. Laws are made available to the Supreme Court to conduct arbitration in the case of mediation failure, but there is a common perception concerning the need to develop non-confrontational methods for settling conflicts between Jakarta and regional administrations.

One of the important things in this regard is the likely emergence of a source of inter-regional conflicts because regulations on decentralization assign all responsibilities for its implementation to regencies. Previously, most of the authority was held by provinces.

In 2000, the ministry of regional autonomy, set up in 1999, was incorporated into the ministry of home affairs. On 20 Aug. 2001, the minister of home affairs and regional autonomy announced that regulations on regional autonomy would be revised for the purpose of conflict settlement between regions as well as between provinces and the central government.

The announcement revealed that around 3,000 regional rules differed from one another; and if more than 300 regencies and municipalities pursued different policies, existing problems would become more complex, which makes the administrative role of provinces very important.

So far, the central government has not delegated clear-cut authority to provinces in their execution of coordination and supervision over the implementation of regional autonomy -- a measure which has become increasingly urgent.