'Indonesia may regress to centralization empty autonomy'

Question: Legally speaking, how ready is the country in implementing the autonomy policy?

Answer: Before we even consider the legal infrastructure needed for the undertaking, we need to examine the project very seriously because what lies at stake is the very survival of the state.

If we fail to do this, the unitary state of Indonesia will disintegrate. And we will no longer have any 'capital'. Autonomy is the best solution to this country's problems. Everyone, be they the central administration, regional government or whoever, is obligated to make this undertaking a success.

The second thing to be considered is the legal infrastructure necessary for the implementation of the autonomy policy, which turns out to still be in a messy state. Technically, there are many rules that are lacking even today. In addition, old rules will pose a problem because they have yet to be replaced, a process that will take a long time.

An example would be the (needed rulings for) fiscal balance. Only several areas of authority have already been covered with new regulations, many others have yet to be regulated.

Even the question of autonomy has yet to be answered completely; how will this translate as activities in regencies, for instance? Even directive rulings have yet to be introduced.

Q: When should legal changes necessary for the policy be ready?

A: They should have been ready in May 2000. I am not sure if they can be completed (in the near future) because studies show that amendments to 1,200 central government regulations and decrees are needed before the country can be considered ready for autonomy. Another study said 1,400 regulations need to be amended.

I really question this: last year it was reported that 1,200 regulations had to be amended, now the figure remains the same, so what have the officials been doing? They should have made some progress, shouldn't they?

Q: What does this lack of progress signify?

A: It appears to me that the central government is still reluctant to immediately transfer some of its power to regional administrations. This is a dangerous situation. This is a sign of the old disease of enjoying power too much and the power holders have become reluctant to share power.

We really need to convince the central government that if it maintains this foot-dragging attitude, it will lose what remains of the regions' trust in it. And in some regions people have started to become suspicious of the central government's intentions.

I am also concerned about the lack of preparation in the regions -- the further the regions are, the lesser their readiness in handling autonomy.

Even cities and regencies are not ready to handle new authority because it is impossible to expect that they can take up all the new responsibilities at the same time. They would be overwhelmed. With sound management skills, the autonomy will only mean greater opportunities for corruption.

Some provinces in East Java might be ready, but other regions remain in question.

What's unfortunate is the fact that the regional autonomy law has such a loose definition of the concept. There are two possible consequences of such a loose definition. The first is the central government would realize that the transfer of power to regions is simply too much and would apply its brakes.

But when the brakes were applied, a second problem would emerge, namely the regions would react negatively and would be suspicious of the central government's intentions. The regions would think, "why are you trying to stop something that you have given us"?

But without some sort of brake, things would fall headlong into disaster. What if regions then (make their own rules) about foreign loans or foreign investment?

Regional administrations would of course want to enjoy the greater opportunities promised by the autonomy policy, but it's unfortunate that local expressions so far show strong political overtones to this wish. For instance, some people have spoken up about the possibility of 'impeaching' governors or regents. So the power side of autonomy is dominating discourses rather than the public service side of administration.

I believe that the lower administration should have a more limited political function but offer greater public service. What is happening is that regional administrations think they can regulate themselves and are refusing to be regulated. Imagine how messy this will be, because regulations should remain in accordance with the system.

There should be no collision, for instance, between rulings issued by the West Java provincial administration with those issued by the newly declared Banten province (which originally was a regency within West Java). Otherwise, it will adversely affect the traffic of the administration system as a whole.

Let's say that West Java seeks to entice investment by imposing tax holidays, while Banten fails to implement the regulation. Investors would then of course flock to West Java at the expense of Banten's development. We are witnessing signs of unfair competition looming ahead of us.

What we need is a general regulation, a guideline for all. But the problem is that every directive from the central government is seen with suspicion as yet another attempt to fight decentralization.

Q: Some regions have asserted their preference to be led by 'indigenous children' from their homeland. Is this a decline toward divisive forces?

A: It would be better if natives hold office in their regions because that would give them self-respect and confidence that they are able to run their own affairs. This important scenario would give the natives a sense of having their own identity and independence. Regions which are at the moment witnessing a push for separation are those that never enjoyed such respect.

Q: With such a multitude of problems, how will the autonomy policy run?

A: Perhaps we will have 'empty' autonomy. Perhaps we will instead regress to centralization. Then, of course, the regions would again feel cheated. This time around, the consequences could be fatal.

But ever onward. A failure of the regional autonomy policy would introduce bigger problems. In the past, the drive for autonomy was thwarted by an authoritarian regime, but the people are now much stronger and can stand up for what they believe.

That's why we should let the prepared regions enjoy autonomy now, while the government should help other regions to gain the same readiness. If handled seriously, the regions would all be ready within five years.

I really support Ryaas Rasyid's call for a supervisory board of autonomy to be established, but this suggestion has been rejected by the President.

We really should have a fully authorized body, rather than a mere administrative or ad hoc council. This body would be of great importance if we wish to monitor how the autonomy policy proceeds, to see what its hindrances are and what the causes of the difficulties are.

Q: How will we overcome problems originating from the absence of regulations?

A: The old regulations can still be used but with adjustments here and there in their implementation because many of the old regulations are (products of) centralized power. So both the regional and central governments should remember that old regulations can still be applied, although with a 'new spirit'. Of course, in the meantime, we have to press on with the amendment of old regulations.

Q: Won't there be an overlapping of old and new regulations?

A: Not for the time being because new regulations have yet to be established. What we are facing instead are old regulations packed with a 'new understanding'. This is a common practice in the legal system, especially in state administration.

In the basic concept of autonomy, regional laws are clearly different from laws that are applied nationally. Instead, we are witnessing the emergence of conflicting perceptions in the regions. For instance, some regions think they can now regulate everything themselves, and refuse to adhere to rulings from the central government. This is a mistake that should be clarified.

Funnily enough, the executive branch of the administration in the regions may find it easier to understand the basic concept of autonomy, but not so with the legislative councils, maybe because of the great power they are enjoying from the autonomy policy.

Q: Aceh will see the establishment of sharia (Islamic law). Don't you think this means a discriminatory application of the law?

A: One form of regional autonomy is the establishment of Islamic law, and this is not something new because we actually have a law about the special characteristics of Aceh. This is different from what we have in other regions.

But even in Aceh we will have questions about how the distinction can be effectively implemented. Will, for instance, its criminal code be referred to as Islamic law or will it remain in accordance with the central government's criminal code? There should be laws that remain in effect nationally -- we can't have each region implementing a different criminal code. We'd have chaos.

In the history of autonomy, there's never been (provisions for) different criminal codes among regions, except for regional regulations with certain limitations. Even in a federal state, each might have its own laws but with certain provisions for the implementation of federal laws.

Q: What about the autonomy policy in conflict areas such as Maluku?

A: We don't need to establish new rules to accommodate various parties in those areas, and the autonomy policy can be applied as long as the rights of each party are protected. Each group must have the same opportunity, even if they are the minority. The constitution of Iran, for instance, stipulates the representation of Christian communities. (Deka Kurniawan)