Part 2 of 2: Will revision of regional autonomy law fail?

Part 2 of 2: Will revision of regional autonomy law fail?

P. Agung Pambudhi, Executive Director, Monitoring Committee of
Regional Autonomy Implementation (KPPOD), Jakarta

Although the plan to revise the law on regional autonomy has
often been publicly discussed, the public is yet to be adequately
informed about the stages of achievement and the deadline. Given
this fact, we have enough reason to worry about the government's
decision to set September 30, 2004 as the official deadline for
the final draft of the revision.

We are justified to feel even more uneasy to learn that, as
the House and the government have often stated, the deadline
should be before the 2004 general elections. Whether this one-
year period is long enough will largely depend on how we spend
it, of course.

If this revision aims only at accommodating matters related to
the direct election of a regional head (in line with presidential
elections) and the composition of a regional legislative
assembly, the deadline -- set to be before the 2004 general
elections -- may be reached. The reason is simple enough. The
central boards of political parties -- through their
representatives in the House -- will find it necessary to clarify
the mechanism for a regional head election and also for a
regional head's accountability report.

Of course, some regional heads and political parties in the
regions -- now already comfortable with the present political
mechanism -- may voice their objection. Regarding the election of
a regional head, non-governmental organizations, will also voice
their concern. These organizations are vociferous enough in
criticizing political power practices in the regions, which
involve, among other things, money politics and the fact that in
the case of a particular region, a regional head subjected to
house detention can run his administration from his home.

Despite their significance, more than just these matters will
be needed as evidence for the implementation of Stipulation No.
IV/MPR/1999 because this stipulation has instructed that a basic
revision of Law No. 22/1999 and Law No. 25/1999 should start.

A fundamental revision of these laws leads to a number of
important questions about, among others things: the need to merge
the two laws into a single law on regional autonomy; the
structure of a fair balance in financial matters between the
central and regional administrations; the scope of authority of
the central government, as well as provincial, regency and
municipal administrations; the hierarchical relationship
involving the central government and provincial, regency and
municipal administrations and a preventive or repressive regional
policy control regime.

Another fundamental question may also be asked in this regard,
although it is highly unpopular: Is it necessary to grant the
authority of autonomy to a province, not a regency and a
municipality?

If the government wishes to meet the target it has set, and at
the same time ensure that the revision will be properly
introduced, it must clarify the following stages.

The first stage refers to the mechanism for discussion within
the government itself. Assuming that the technical team set up
earlier (and already active) is maintained, it must be clear at
this stage the commitment of each government agency in assisting
the technical team so that eventually a synergy of the various
interests of government agencies may be established.

The second stage is related to the deadline for the completion
of an academic manuscript of the revision of the law. Aside from
the study of this subject that the government will undertake, the
studies conducted by other circles must be cashed in on --
including recommendations of loan programs linked with the
implementation of regional autonomy.

The third stage is concerned with the identification of the
main stakeholders and ways to popularize the result. This
identification will require a gathering of aspirations through an
approach to a region or a cluster of areas (regencies --
municipalities -- provinces) or to interest groups in the society
(a business community, non-governmental organizations and so
forth). The methods may vary: Correspondence, tete-a-tete contact
or intensive publication in the national and regional mass media.
It must be remembered that this stage may be time consuming.

The fourth stage will be related to the wide publication of a
rational explanation concerning whether or not input from the
stakeholders will be incorporated in the government's policy on
this subject. This will be the government's professional
accountability regarding all efforts that the public has made in
their contribution to this great feat.

This agenda of revision is indeed a great undertaking. The
outcome will contain principles that will serve as one of the
main sources to which the laws of a particular sector will later
refer. Therefore, those assigned to head the program must adopt a
participative approach and should refrain from relying only on
the technocrats in the inner circle of the power that be.

These people must also do away with their half-hearted
popularization of this revision agenda. If the ideal goal is to
produce legislation that will result in a long-term change in
social order -- as a law is actually supposed to produce -- this
participative approach is a necessity. In this context, despite a
highly minimalist target, the revision of the law on regional
autonomy should never allow the interests of various stakeholders
to degenerate into simply peripheral issues.