MPR Discusses Mismatch Between Decentralisation Implementation and Regional Autonomy

The implementation of decentralisation in Indonesia has faced fundamental problems since its inception. The relationship between the central government and the regions has often been a source of tension, triggering various upheavals in several areas.

Professor Agus Pramusinto of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Gadjah Mada University stated that the issue of central-regional relations has persisted for a long time. Various dynamics, ranging from the PRRI/Permesta rebellion, the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), problems in Papua, demands in Riau, to conflicts related to regional expansion, were essentially triggered by a sense of injustice felt by the regions.

“Excessive authority rests with the central government, while the regions have limited space. Furthermore, a lack of respect for local entities is part of the decentralisation problem. Initially, the regions simply wanted to be heard and treated fairly. However, when the government’s response was deemed inadequate, various separatist issues emerged,” Agus said.

This statement was made while he was a speaker at a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) held by Group III of the MPR RI Assessment Body on the theme of Decentralisation, Regional Autonomy, Regional Government, and Villages, held in Yogyakarta on Wednesday (15/7/2026).

The FGD was chaired by the Head of Group III of the MPR RI Assessment Body, Hindun Anisah, and attended by group members Firman Soebagyo (Golkar Party Faction), Hanan Abdul Rozak (Golkar Party Faction), Kamrussamad (Gerindra Party Faction), Heri Gunawan (Gerindra Party Faction), Ida Fauziah (National Awakening Party Faction), and T. Ibrahim (Democratic Party Faction).

Agus explained that the relationship between the centre and the regions has now undergone very dynamic changes. The issue is no longer solely about the division of authority or the holding of regional head elections, but also involves new challenges such as digital transformation, artificial intelligence, climate change, urbanisation, socio-economic development, and global geopolitical dynamics.

According to him, if the design of central-regional relations built during the 1998 Reform era is not evaluated, it is feared that it will no longer be able to answer the challenges of the 21st century.

“When the reform occurred in 1998, we responded by making various changes. The hope was that central-regional relations would become a conception capable of maintaining national integration, bringing government services closer to the community, improving the quality of public services, government efficiency, and various other goals,” he said.

He assessed that the implementation of decentralisation and regional autonomy has indeed shown some progress, but also still faces various setbacks. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate whether the problems that arise are caused by policy implementation or by the institutional design itself, including the laws and the constitution that form its foundation.

“Is the design of central-regional relations that we built more than two decades ago still relevant to today’s challenges? What needs to be examined is not only who holds what authority, but whether the way we divide that authority is correct,” he stated.

Meanwhile, Professor Aidul Fitriciada Azhari assessed that changes to the state administration system are inevitable. According to him, the regulation of decentralisation and regional autonomy as stipulated in Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is closer to the characteristics of a federal state than a unitary state.

On the other hand, Article 37 paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution affirms that the unitary form of the Republic of Indonesia cannot be changed.

“Decentralisation and regional autonomy as regulated in Article 18 inherently possess the character of a federal state. This is where a conceptual problem arises between the design of a unitary state and the practice of decentralisation. In a unitary state, the highest power remains with the central government, which is then distributed to the regions,” Aidul explained.

According to him, this conceptual problem has led to the emergence of various issues in both regulation and implementation. One possible solution is through a limited amendment to the 1945 Constitution, although this faces political challenges and difficult constitutional requirements.

“A state institution that reduces its own authority, like the MPR, only happens in Indonesia. As a result, making changes to the constitution, which is its own authority, becomes very difficult,” he said.

A similar view was expressed by Dr. Dian Eka Rahmawati. According to her, constitutional change is possible in line with societal developments. This also applies to the regulation of Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution, including matters relating to the administration of regional government and the election of regional heads.

She explained that when the 1945 Constitution was drafted, the main need at the time was to present a constitution as a requirement for the establishment of the state. Therefore, a number of provisions were drafted in a fairly open manner.

“The constitution does need to be open. However, if it is too open without clear indicators, there will be room for political tug-of-war that could potentially cause problems. Therefore, clarification of various concepts within the constitution is needed,” she said.

Regarding customary law communities, Dian assessed that Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution is still general in nature, so strengthening more specific principles is needed, especially in accommodating village issues as the basis for development at the grassroots level.