Observer: PPHN Discourse Must Not Return Indonesia to a Centralised System
The discourse regarding the revival of the State Policy Guidelines (PPHN) is assessed to have the potential to erode democracy and the spirit of decentralisation if the concept reverts Indonesia’s development pattern to an overly centralised system, similar to the New Order era.
Political communications observer from Esa Unggul University, M Jamiluddin Ritonga, stated that the PPHN needs to be designed carefully so as not to conflict with the presidential system, democracy, and regional autonomy that have developed since the Reformation.
“If the PPHN is to be implemented, it should not contradict the principles of decentralisation and a bottom-up development approach,” Jamiluddin told Media Indonesia on Wednesday (2/9).
According to Jamiluddin, Indonesia has abandoned the Broad Guidelines of State Policy (GBHN) since the Reformation because the concept was deemed unsuitable for the presidential system and the principles of a democratic rule of law. Currently, the direction of national development refers to the National Development Planning System (SPPN), which includes the Long-Term Development Plan (RPJP) and the Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM).
“The RPJP and RPJM translate the vision and mission of the elected president, who has received a mandate from the people through elections, rather than a mandate from the MPR,” he explained.
Furthermore, Jamil/uddin noted that the debate over the PPHN arises because some parties desire continuity in development across different administrations. However, the concept also raises concerns regarding the mechanism of checks and balances between state institutions and the flexibility of democracy.
“The existence of a state guideline document is not a necessity in a democratic system. Many democratic nations do not have a single document such as the PPHN or GBHN, yet they are still able to maintain development continuity through the constitution, laws, sectoral policies, and long-term development targets,” he said.
According to Jamiluddin, countries such as the United States rely on the political vision and platforms of the governing administration. Other nations use long-term planning models based on legislation or sectoral strategies to maintain development continuity.
On that basis, he assessed that the existence of the PPHN is not automatically a guarantee that development will improve. The more important factor is ensuring that the planning mechanism is consistent with Indonesia’s political and constitutional system post-Reformation.
Jamiluddin also warned that highly centralised state guideline concepts are more commonly found in government systems that implement centralised development planning. He cited China, with its Five-Year Plans, and several other countries that implement centralised national strategic planning.
“Countries that use a PPHN-style approach generally adhere to a centralised system. This was relevant to Indonesia when the New Order regime was in power, implementing a closed political system and centralised development planning,” he said.
In his view, Indonesia’s current condition is vastly different from the New Order era. Since the Reformation, Indonesia has implemented a more open political system while strengthening regional autonomy. This shift has moved the development pattern from a top-down approach to a bottom-up approach. Consequently, Jamiluddin fears that the PPHN could serve as an entry point for the re-strengthening of central government authority.
This concern is increasingly relevant amidst the recent withdrawal of several regional authorities to the central government, including in the mining, spatial planning, forestry, and certain maritime management sectors.
“If the PPHN cannot accommodate this, then it could erode the democracy that has been fought for and protected all this time,” he asserted.
Furthermore, Jamiluddin requested that the MPR ensure the PPHN concept does not reduce regional authority or the space for public participation in determining the direction of development.
“Therefore, the MPR must be able to convince all citizens that the PPHN will not return Indonesia to a centralised state. The PPHN must also not damage the democracy built since the 1998 Reformation,” he concluded.