Is a federal system suitable for Indonesia?

Is a federal system suitable for Indonesia?

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): Injustice was rampant under the New Order regime for more than three decades. Not only at the individual and collective levels in the form of an ever-widening disparity between the rich few and poor majority, but also at the regional level between the capital and the provinces and between Java and the outer islands.

The root of all these forms of injustice was the increasingly dominant power of the state.

Now, in the newly emerging climate of freedom and in the spirit of reform, albeit the continuation of the New Order regime, one reaction to the fall of Soeharto has been the openly expressed aspirations for Indonesia to become a federal country. This was, for a long time, a taboo in the country.

The aversion to federalism on the part of many Indonesians has historical roots. It was an idea offered, and to some extent imposed by the Dutch, and finally accepted by Indonesian leaders as a concession to the Netherlands' recognition of Indonesian independence. Hence the establishment of the United Republic of Indonesia as a partner in the Dutch-Indonesian Union.

Suspicions remained, however, on the part of Indonesian leaders, that the Dutch idea of a federal state for Indonesia was a concealed effort to maintain Dutch influence and to continue a policy of "divide and rule".

Indeed, the Dutch insistence on a federal government for independent Indonesia was attested to by the colonizers' creation, in the face of Indonesian government opposition, of increasing numbers of independent regional states in preparation for the establishment of a federal republic of Indonesia.

Indonesian suspicion of and opposition to federalism, especially Dutch form of creating puppet regional governments of their own, was understandable. Yet it was to be among the conditions for the Dutch recognition of Indonesian independence.

Another reason for Indonesia's opposition to federalism then was the fact that Indonesia, as a nation, was new. So federalism was considered an obstacle to the promotion of national unity.

So strong was the Indonesian sentiment against federalism, because of its association with Dutch imperialism, with its "divide and rule" policy, that the United Republic of Indonesia did not last a year.

On Aug. 17, 1950, the fifth anniversary of independence, Indonesia was proclaimed a unitary republic. Ever since, although many Indonesians today may not really know the difference nor remember the relevant historical background, national unity is almost always referred to as persatuan dan persatuan bangsa ( literally, national unity and unitariness or "oneness").

In theory, the Dutch idea was not entirely untenable. Most existing federal states were established by previously existing, albeit more or less independent, territories which, to ensure their security (particularly from external threats) and accrue other benefits, surrendered part of their sovereignty to a federal government.

The federal government was then granted supreme power over common or national affairs, such as defense and foreign policy, the postal and monetary systems, patents and copyrights, and interstate and foreign commerce.

A typical example was the United States of America, where the component states or republics retained their independent existence and power over local affairs.

There is usually the continuing issue of the so-called residual powers, those not specifically delegated to the federal government and retained by the constituent states, or those powers not specifically provided for in the federal constitution and vested in the federal government.

Thus the main flaw in the Dutch idea of federalism for independent Indonesia was the fact that the Dutch created puppet states throughout the archipelago specifically to make them the constituent parts of the federal Indonesia they wanted. It was an unnatural process and hence justifiably subject to accusations of perpetuating self-interest.

If, at the current stage of its development, Indonesia were to change from a unitary republic to a federal state, the process would be no more natural than the Dutch idea. By granting the status of states to the existing provinces or creating new states altogether with new boundaries, Indonesia would not be a conventional federal state.

It would be instead a process of devolution toward greater autonomy.

Moreover, without the right of secession, a federal state would not make sense, since such a right derives from the fact that a federal government is created precisely by independent states surrendering part of their sovereignty to the federal government.

But, in Indonesia's case, the right of secession might easily lead to disintegration, since the experience of being part of the unitary state has been neither pleasant nor comfortable for many regions or ethnic groups in Indonesian society.

I, for one, would argue neither for nor against a federal state for Indonesia. But if we Indonesians are determined to continue to live together as a nation, the only guarantee for the continued promotion and maintenance of national unity is social justice, not uniformity, nor the imposition of authoritarian power, whatever the form of government.