Govt needs to come through on promises for autonomy

Economist Ken Thomas teaches Third World issues at La Trobe University in Melbourne, and has done research work on Indonesia since the early 1960s. He recently talked to The Jakarta Post in Melbourne on cries for self-determination in Indonesia. The following are excerpts from the interview:

Question: Would you agree that economic disparity is behind the main trend toward regional self-determination?

Answer: It is always mentioned nowadays that three areas have been strongly pushing for self-determination: Aceh, Riau and East Kalimantan. I read that other regions are not content, but they have been quiet, until recently.

When I was researching for the paper we gave recently, I began looking at regionalism, and the only one I could find most information about was Aceh. They have been having trouble there right through the 1970s and 1980s. But I have never been really sure which group has been discontented in Aceh.

When we look at the region as a whole, most of the people are farmers with very small plots of land. So they would not have benefited much from the green revolution and the new seeds (of rice).

These people who are advocating the referendum in Aceh, are they concerned about these farmers? With the discovery of oil and natural gas, there has been an industrial zone in Lhokseumawe (North Aceh). The skilled people come in from other areas, because there are not enough of skilled personnel in Aceh itself. So those benefiting directly from employment in the industrial zone are not necessarily Acehnese.

What made me wonder is, under the New Order, why did they not develop the rural areas? Before they discovered the natural gas, there was a plan to make Aceh the breadbasket of the region.

Apparently that would have required a lot of controlled irrigation for the new seed varieties, transport and other related facilities. Nothing has been done.

My question is, those who want referendum, if they got it, and had more control of the revenue from the export of oil and natural gas, would they go in the direction of industrialization, forgetting the little people? Or would they have a combination of rural development, small-scale industrial development, as well as larger scale development?

So what do they want? Autonomy? More autonomy? Federal state? Or complete independence? Whichever one they choose, what will they do?

So the current problems will not be solved by giving greater autonomy to the regions?

May I go back to the 1950s? It was always felt that the center got everything and the regions were left out. And apparently that was one of the causes of the civil wars in the late 1950s. Then the New Order repressed this sentiment in all regions by military might. The discontent was probably there but no one dared say anything, because they did not want to be branded communist.

After the demise of the New Order, when we talk about this discontent, Java seems to be left out. I don't think that the majority of people in Java benefited too much from the excesses of the New Order.

It saddens me to see that, here we have a new government, yet the people cannot seem to wait to see what it will do. Why can't you wait a bit, and see what they are going to do. If they go the same way as the New Order, then complain. If the House of Representatives (DPR) is independent and free, you can complain to the DPR. If you cannot wait, there is another problem. What do the Acehnese want with the referendum? Autonomy? Autonomy within a unitary state, or federalism?

Aceh became a province in 1957, and in 1959 it became a special territory (daerah istimewa), where it was given greater autonomy. But if you look back, while it was given greater autonomy legally, in practice it was never implemented.

So I can understand the suspicion on the part of some people if President Abdurrahman Wahid says, "You can have greater autonomy", because the Acehnese can say, "Well, you (the central government) gave us that in 1959, but we never saw it happen".

Thus, whichever they choose, it is going to be a long time before they know it will be implemented.

You seem to see problems even if provinces gain wider autonomy.

My fear is, if each province has autonomy, would the elite in these individual provinces do the right thing?

Would they push for industrialization like the New Order did, put emphasis on growth first, then hopefully the people can benefit later? It will take a long time.

Or would they put more emphasis on development at the grass roots, on small and cottage industry, improving the conditions at the bottom, as well as going for larger industrial projects?

The interesting thing about the New Order is, it always said the right things. If you look at the concept of populist economy (ekonomi kerakyatan) it embodies what the New Order said it was going to do. But the people who champion the populist economy never saw it implemented.

Everything that should be done was always talked about from the Old Order to the New Order. There was continuous talk about helping the poor. But it was only talk.

What was actually done?

They emphasized economic growth, and rapid industrialization. And the little people remained poor and left out of the benefit of the development.

Weren't the little people were left out because of the practice of monopoly?

Monopoly is part of rapid economic growth. In countries where rapid economic growth has been recorded, there is also evidence of monopoly. The most recent example is South Korea. The tragic thing here is, the economy grew, only benefitting those involved in the monopoly, while the bulk of the population were left out. ...(In Indonesia) they did create growth. They increased rice production three times. However, 50 percent of Indonesian people are casual workers, they do not have long-term employment, they do not have good jobs that are consistent with human dignity. Monopoly was the dominant unit of economic growth if you look at Europe, Asian miracles and Latin America. It is inevitable in rapid economic growth.

And the practice of corruption, collusion and nepotism?

And the accompanying practice of corruption, collusion and nepotism.

So where is the answer? Is it not in the fairer distribution between the center and regions?

Provinces in Java all have populations of over 25 million, while the outer islands are sparsely populated by comparison. For instance, 18 of the provinces have under five million people. Eleven have fewer than three million.

If you look at the development of more autonomy in the regions, some would be better off than others. The regions that have voiced the most discontent, such as Aceh, Riau, East Kalimantan, are rich provinces.

In the early days, a lot of the discontent in Aceh was related to religion. Since the discovery of the oil and natural gas, the issue became economic. The bulk of the export earnings go straight to the center. It is the responsibility of the center to redistribute.

If you look at Section 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution, it says, "The earth and water and natural riches therein are regulated by the state and shall be used for the greatest possible prosperity of the people".

So what the center did in taking the export earnings from Aceh was not illegal, the tragic part is, they did not use it for the greatest possible prosperity of the people. This is where corruption comes in.

To start with, the regions responsible for the export income should have got more than they did.

Then you are going to have a big debate. What is enough, when you take into account that some 20 provinces are poor? They should also get the benefit from the exports. How do you divide it fairly?

If you break up the country, then Aceh will have its big income and they do not have to worry about anybody else. If you have a federal state, you still have to work out how you distribute the resources. How do you make sure that the poorer provinces are looked after?

The new law on fiscal balance and regional autonomy will give the natural-resource rich provinces 15 percent of oil revenue, 30 percent of gas revenue and 80 percent of forestry and fishery derived revenue. What do you think of these arrangements?

To be honest, I would have to know what each region wanted to do with its resources. But it certainly is better for the rich regions that it was before. If it was done in the old DPR, it will have to be put to the new DPR, and ask these regions if they are satisfied with this distribution.

However, given the representation of the provinces in the DPR, they may not have a strong enough voice in the DPR. They might be outnumbered.

We must also face the fact that the poor provinces outnumber the richer provinces. How would you come to an agreement between the rich and the poor?

Now that we move toward democracy, where decision making involves people, it is a terrible dilemma.

If you keep a unitary state with greater autonomy, you need money to finance the things in which you have been given autonomy. Then you have the debate over the finances.

You cannot avoid the problems of distribution of finances by moving into a federal state. The same questions arise.

So you think the answer to the current problems is not in giving them greater autonomy, but in how each province would manage its economic growth if given autonomy?

That is only one of the problems to solve. Now you have more resources to distribute within your province, what are you going to do? The first question is going to be, how much each province is getting, then how you are going to use it.

In the meantime, in the center they have to deal with distribution problems.

Yes. They have to ask questions like, how much is Aceh going to give us? How much will we get from Riau? How much will we give to Flores?

Is it any easier with the federal system?

If you look at the federal system in Australia, you see the gradual increase in the federal power for allocation of money.

So forming a federal state is only the beginning. Then in the power struggle, either the federal government becomes stronger or the state governments become stronger. It is a very difficult balance. As the economy grows stronger, the main source of taxation is income tax. The question is, who controls income tax? In Australia, it is the federal government. It was given the power in 1942.

If the present government can derive a lesson from the previous ones, what do you think is the most important?

Do all the things that all of the previous governments promised to do. Implement the rhetoric. (Dewi Anggraeni)