'Indonesia may regress to centralization empty autonomy'

'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)