New balance of power between central and local governments
New balance of power between central and local governments
Owen Podger, Jakarta
Law 22/1999 on regional government was meant to bring
government closer to the people while maintaining the unitary
state of Indonesia. It led to a fundamental redesign of how the
country is governed, but it has not overall resulted in better
government. In her last days of office, President Megawati
Soekarnoputri signed Law 32/2004 that replaces it. So how does
this new law score compared with the previous one?
Modern public management associates the following attributes
with good regional government:
o Democracy -- regional government should be by the people for
the people.
o Relevance -- regional governments should be responsible for
those functions that it is best capable of dealing with,
following the principle of subsidiarity. Functions should always
be undertaken at the lowest level of government unless there are
compelling reasons for managing them at a higher level.
o Empowerment of managers'Regional leaders and managers should
have the authority and responsibility to manage without
interference, and only good managers should be allowed to manage
o Accountability -- Managers should be accountable to leaders,
and leaders to both the people and those who provide their
funding.
o Clarity, consistency, and appropriateness of policy -- Laws
on regional government (as with any subject) should be clear,
unambiguous, practical and principle-based statements of policy,
consistent with other laws and the Constitution.
High scores are given on the introduction of direct elections
of heads of regions. Low scores for withdrawing the policy of
democratic elections of village councils.
Low scores are also given for allowing the central government
to override decisions of elected leaders on what is in the public
interest; and on granting the governor the right of final say on
disputes between districts.
Lots of plus points for allowing further devolution of
functions from districts to villages, but no change in score for
lack of principles for determining what level of government does
what. No points for allowing provinces to take over functions
when districts cannot resolve disputes between themselves.
An additional half point is given for adding effectiveness and
efficiency as fundamental to good management, for including
integrity and competence among the factors for promotions.
But Law 32/ 2004 reduces the capacity of regional governments
and their managers to manage effectively. Budgets can be
controlled by higher levels of government. District secretaries
are now appointed by the governor -- district leaders submit
names of three candidates and the governor appoints one. District
organization structures are now also controlled by the governor.
And staff establishments are defined by the State Minister for
Administrative Reform, without mention of the role of managers in
determining the staff they need to perform. Without power to
organize or staff, planning is strategic only in name.
There is no reduction of the span of control to manageable
limits. There is still one head, one deputy, one secretary, then
a mass of operational units, agencies, offices, bureaus and sub-
district offices -- too many to be managed effectively by the
leaders.
There is still no guarantee of competition and transparency in
appointments. With limited authority to manage their own teams,
managers have limited accountability.
There are very few sanctions in the law. Corrupt leaders
cannot be investigated without first having the agreement of the
local council. There are around 30 regional regulations required,
but no sanctions against regional leaders who fail to pass them.
While supporting performance budgeting, there is no mention of
sanctions for failures to perform. The law calls for a government
regulation on guidance and supervision, which is to include
sanctions. Wrong place. Sanctions should be in the laws, because
accountability is to the people.
The dominant feature of Law 32/2004 is that it makes regional
government different from the rest of government, creating
special provisions for elections, for financial management, for
personnel management and treasury, for organization, and just
about everything else. Its approach to fiscal balance is
inconsistent with Law 33/2004 which was passed on the very same
day, requiring duplication of government regulations in several
instances.
There are several articles listing principles (asas) for this
and that, but as few of these are explained, and there are no
sanctions for breaking principles, they are unlikely to be
effective.
Forty eight implementing government regulations are
identified. Articles provide guidance to drafters for only some
of these, and provide the underling principles for even less.
Over half of them would appear unnecessary. Why is a government
regulation required by this law for accounting standards? Why is
there a separate government regulation for helping the
handicapped to vote, and two government regulations for election
of village chiefs?
There are many strange loops and peculiarities. For example,
control of land use planning regulations is covered under
financial management, and the paragraph headed mid term
interchange of elected representatives has no articles in it on
such interchange.
Revision of Law 22/1999 was needed because of its lack of
clarity, consistency, and appropriateness. In Law 32/2004, as
many new such problems have been created as old ones have been
solved. I urge the new minister, the DPR and DPD, to urgently
revisit this law. It will still not deliver what people wantgood
regional government for them and by them.
The writer is a freelance consultant, and co-author of a
recent report for Asian Development Bank (ADB) entitled
Government for All People, and can be contacted at
micah68@centrin.net.id