Picking our own leaders

Picking our own leaders

First implemented by the government of Abdurrahman Wahid in
2001, the law on regional autonomy (Law No. 22/1999) has been
revised by the outgoing members of the House of Representatives.
The revision was endorsed last Wednesday by the House members
culminating years of intense public debate involving the central
and local governments, experts, non-government organizations,
businessmen and the public.

The government submitted the bill for the revision of the law
to the House on Feb. 9 after the implementation of the law had
clearly stalled for a number of reasons. One reason was confusion
over contradictory rulings.

A survey by Regional Autonomy Watch found that 30 percent of
the 1,200 bylaws issued by local governments either contradicted
one another or contravened various laws issued by the central
government. Another reason was the unclear definition of the
authority of the central government, the provincial
administrations and the regional administrations.

The revised law has made it possible for the people in the
regions to pick their own leaders for the first time. This is a
tremendous step forward that should be commended, although it is
not actually new for villagers. Leaders at the village level in
many provinces have traditionally been selected by the villagers
themselves. So, curiously enough, democracy is actually moving
from the village to the central government level.

In the past, the central government and the regional
legislature have been instrumental in deciding provincial
leaders. One of the implications of the revised law, is that
Indonesia will hold around 170 elections for local leaders
nationwide, including several governors down to regents, in June
2005.

One drawback of this revised law, however, is that candidates
have to come from a political party or a coalition of political
parties. There is no opportunity for independent leaders to come
forward, unless they can garner overwhelming support.

Tension between the central and local governments over the
definition of their respective powers has a deep history.
Wariness stemming from mutual distrust is still apparent in the
revision, with the central government retaining its power to
dismiss local leaders. That is, if the leaders are guilty of
crimes like corruption, acts of terrorism, treason and other
activities perceived as a threat to security.

It may be too much to ask for the tension to subside
dramatically considering that the law is only four years old
while the issues governing the relations between the two entities
are deep and complex. The revision would surely reduce the
tension between the central and local governments but it is but a
small step toward a less centralistic style of government. We
have to bear in mind that problems arising from the tension are
bound to surface. But as long as goodwill prevails in addressing
those problems, there is no reason why we can't keep on moving
toward a better and more mature interaction between the central
and regional governments.

Federalism, which may sound alarming to many Indonesian
politicians due to unfortunate complications with the system in
the past, is not entirely evil. Less centralistic governments,
like the United States or Finland, can still demonstrate a fine
example of good governance. The revision of the Autonomy Law has
blown the winds of optimism in that direction.