Clear rules needed for regional autonomy

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.