Devolving power to regions as peace building initiative

Devolving power to regions as peace building initiative

Aguswandi, Jakarta

A greater devolution of power to the regions in Indonesia than
that accommodated by present autonomy law provisions should be an
option in peace building. In order to solve the conflict in Aceh,
the road map for peace demands a radical change in the power
relationship between the center (Jakarta) and the periphery
(Aceh). However, a significant challenge remains. That is, how to
redefine the current notion of Indonesian nationalism, as
articulated through a centralist nation state.

There will still be difficulties implementing the Aceh peace
accord after it is signed on Aug. 15. This will not be because
the devolution of power through Acehnese self government
discussed between GAM and the Indonesian government is
unworkable, but because it is still unimaginable for dogmatic,
orthodox nationalist Indonesians.

A dangerous myth about a wider devolution process in Indonesia
has been conjured. Dogmatists continue to say that greater power
for the regions, like Aceh, is a zero sum game (any gains for the
regions must be a loss for the centre). According to them, it
will create a weaker state, due to the loss of the central
government's control over the regions.

To add potency to the myth, to instill fear, these
nationalists are saying that greater devolution may spill over to
other regions, that it may put Aceh in a position to follow in
the steps of East Timor and may eventually lead to the
"balkanization" of Indonesia. According to their logic, we must
reject the accord, not because we reject peace, but because we
reject the possibility of weakening and breaking up Indonesia.

The rejection of the formation of local political parties
needs to be seen within this framework. The dissenters' argument
is that establishing local political parties will encourage
separatism. Local political parties will inadvertently put the
interest of the regions and ethnicity above national interests.

This is a dangerous and unnecessary myth given Jakarta's new-
found political will to resolve the Acehnese conflict peacefully
and democratically. This myth, however, cannot be further from
the truth.

The truth is, it is this centralistic construction of
Indonesian nationalism which is the fount of bitterness in the
regions. Prolonged, unequal and unjust policies have led to
demands to break away from Indonesia. One can argue that it is
the current centralist structure, where power is held by only a
few in Jakarta that is more likely to lead to the balkanization
of Indonesia.

This is certainly the case in Aceh. Pro-independence
sentiments emerged as a reaction to the emerging centralistic
character of the Indonesian state. In the 1950s, the present
leader of GAM, Hasan Di Tiro, wrote a book called Democracy for
Indonesia. In his simplistic argument he attacked the still-
standing structure of the Indonesian state for oppressing
minorities outside Java.

He argued that an Indonesian ethno-federal state within the
framework of the unitary state of Indonesia was essential if any
power sharing between Jakarta and the regions were to work.
Regardless of our view of Di Tiro's argument, it reflected early
and ongoing problems with the unequal relationship between
Jakarta and the regions that we still see today.

Regarding the centralist argument that local political parties
can encourage ethnic conflict, this is a denial of reality.
Ethnic conflict and regionalist sentiments are long present in
Indonesia, thanks in large part to the neglect of local problems
by Jakarta. The establishment of political parties is in fact a
better strategy. If local concerns can be institutionalized as
part of the political structures and process, ethnic groups and
their aspirations take their voice and integrate it into the
democratic process, instead of bottling it up, where it becomes
just a matter of time before it leads to social conflict and
political violence.

The establishment of local political parties and allowing
independent candidates to stand can also create healthy
competition between nationally and locally based parties. This
pushes parties to connect with their constituents. It also opens
up opportunities for wider engagement in politics and democracy.
We will have more options, instead of the current, limited ones
alone. Fierce competition can be a strong incentive, and one that
is much needed in Indonesia, for all political actors to prove
that they are better, committed and less corrupt than their
competitors.

The lengthy conflict in Aceh can be attributed even now to the
failure of national political parties and Jakarta's politicians
to voice the concerns of the Acehnese. Take the ongoing peace
process of Aceh today, only a few members of the legislature have
publicly voiced support for the peace process. While many seem to
endorse the process, the loudest voices coming from the
legislature are attacking it. There is the danger that old-school
nationalists in Indonesia will become the enemies of creative
peace building.

The writer is a human rights advocate working for TAPOL in
London and Kontras in Jakarta. He can be reached at
agus_smur@hotmail.com.