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.