Power to the people?

Looking back at all that transpired in the country in 2001, most people would agree that the implementation of regional autonomy is one of the most thorny issues to have occurred during the past year. Designed to end the evils of centralized regimes of the New Order, regional autonomy is also aimed at maintaining the unitary state of Indonesia, which is being endangered by a few rebellious provinces.

Two laws, Law No. 22/1999 on regional administration and Law No. 25/1999 on fiscal balance, were enacted on Jan. 1, 2001, to accommodate the aspirations of regions which had complained that for decades they had been plundered by the central government.

To begin with, there is nothing wrong with the concept of regional autonomy, and some may have even thought that its implementation was long overdue. In a vast archipelago with more than 200 million people and some 200 ethnic groups and a pluralistic society, it was a hard job maintaining a centralized government in a democratic system. The 1997 crisis saw a succession of weak governments and, for the first time ever, people grew more independent from the central government. From the regional view, the central government was increasingly seen as an oppressor, and some provinces such as Aceh, Riau and Irian Jaya rebelliously aspired to break ties with Jakarta.

To deal with this demand, regional autonomy was introduced. The most interesting thing is, although laws No. 22/1999 and No. 25/1999 address most regional complaints on economic matters, Jakarta has deliberately ignored certain political grievances that are also sources of regional discontent. For example, the central government has ignored demands by the Acehnese to bring to court high-ranking military officers accused of repeatedly violating human rights during military operations since the early 1990s.

It is understandable then that many analysts believe the two laws were hastily conceived by the administration of president B.J. Habibie not only to ride on the coattails of the reform movement, but also to divert public attention away from the human rights violations that occurred during the days of the Soeharto regime.

Indeed, by any account the implementation of regional autonomy has a staggering magnitude. For example, at least 15 government regulations and 117 presidential decrees should have been introduced to regulate various sectors, including mining, education, health, taxation, forestry and fee collection. Yet none were enacted in January 2001. Some two million civil servants were to be transferred to regional governments after regional autonomy was implemented. Knowing the level of capability of the current bureaucracy, who believed that it could be done right away?

With such poor preparation, it is little wonder that as soon as regional autonomy was implemented, bureaucratic chaos followed. With no clear-cut guidelines, many regional officials took the liberty of making their own interpretations of the two laws. There have been reports of regents who refused to acknowledge the authority of provincial governors; certain regents have been known to parcel out forest land and mining rights to the highest bidder, thus causing serious environmental problems.

Some regents and mayors were so enthusiastic about collecting fees that businessmen decried what they called "problematic regional regulations" because not only is it against prevailing laws, but also because of the various absurdities. For example, one company complained about having to pay parking fees for its vehicles even when they were parked in its factory compound.

Some rich regions reportedly used their newfound wealth and revenue for lavish expenditures. There are provinces that started to establish their own aviation companies, and several governors are known to have procured helicopters for official use. There are also many tales of massive corruption in some regions.

But what most people fear is the rise of ethnonationalism. Following ethnic conflict in various provinces in the last several years, there have been calls by some local people to reject settlers from different ethnic groups.

Excesses are bound to happen with any newfound "freedom". But common sense tells us to straighten up and clean any mess caused by the shortcomings of laws and regulations and to put everything in order.

For one thing, we have to first to return to the key question: What are the main goals and aims of regional autonomy?

Apart from the goal to solve the fiscal imbalance between the regions and the central government, regional autonomy is also intended to empower the people and to democratize the government. With regional autonomy, it is expected that the people will be given a greater say in how they want to develop their own potentials.

What has happened thus far is that regional autonomy has indeed given power to the regions. But, as it turns out, most of the people to have benefited from autonomy is regional officials, who, as many allege, have abused their new power to amass wealth, while nothing much has changed for the common people.

No wonder many regents reject plans to revise Law No. 22/1999 and Law No. 25/1999. But regional officials should remember that if they feel they were unfairly treated in the past, it is also unfair if autonomy causes new injustices. Not all regions are rich in resources, and therefore all national wealth and resources should be fairly shared, not only for the present generation but also for future generations. Otherwise, there will be new discontent if poor regions are left behind in development.

We have committed ourselves to regional autonomy and there can be no turning back. But as we embrace democracy, we also have to accept that our ultimate concern must be putting the interests of the people first, by sharing, by tolerance, by sustaining and by nation-building.