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.