Pre-2004, House recklessly establishes new regions

Pre-2004, House recklessly establishes new regions

Robert Endi Jaweng, Regional Autonomy Watch, KPPOD,
Jakarta

Early this year, a plenary session of the House of
Representatives again approved the ratification of 10 laws
regarding the establishment of 25 new autonomous regions. This
increased the number of such regions -- 38 municipalities and
regencies -- established in the past two years since regional
autonomy was implemented.

The number of regencies and townships has jumped from 347
prior to the enforcement of regional autonomy, to 410. At least
22 more regions are planned.

The number of new regions would be really big. The
establishment of new regions is not as difficult as described in
article 5 of Law No. 22/1999 and its government regulation No.
129/2000 regarding the requirements for establishing autonomous
regions.

A number of indicators, such as economic capability, regional
potentials, population size and the total area of a region, have
been set as a standard of propriety for the establishment of new
regions -- but they have remained as mere legislation.

If the above regulations were really applied, many of the new
regions should not have been established given their gross lack
of capacity to exercise their autonomy.

The House of Representatives and the government as the parties
ratifying the law on the establishment of new regions have acted
recklessly. The government is yet to make clear the design and
strategy of its policies regarding the establishment of new
regions, while dozens of new regions have come into being and
many more will follow suit.

Such recklessness is also seen in the national legislation
program of the legislature. Although most of the bills on the
establishment of new regions come from the House's initiative,
they have never been part of this program, let alone being
prioritized as we are made to believe. Some House members have
admitted that they have been considerably influenced by the
demand set by the regions.

Political motives obviously have often become a very important
factor in this regard. Director General of Regional Autonomy,
Oentarto Mawardi, has also said that political considerations
outweigh administrative reasons. Such politicization involves
many parties pursuing their self interests.

The local elite feel they lack access to the local power
structure and political mobility; and the establishment of a new
region would be followed by political institutions and hence
emergence of new opportunities to control power.

Meanwhile politicians at the national level fear that autonomy
in the hands of major regions alone will pose a threat for the
elite of those regions to gain enough support for demands of
federalism, or, worse, independence.

Further, political parties have their immediate and real stake
in the 2004 general elections. The establishment of more new
regions means an increase in the number of electoral districts, a
crucial condition for a political party in the local political
arena, their ability to gain votes for the House seats and for
their eligibility to nominate a presidential nominee. More
electoral districts mean a wider arena and more varied methods
for their political games.

The granting of an autonomy status to a region is in theory a
strategy to accelerate multi-faceted local development --
democratization, efficiency in the management of local resources,
and better public services.

Most of these concern administrative matters and the interests
of the public constitute the core of the problem.

Given the bulk of the technicalities involved the
establishment of new areas is handled by the technical team of
the Regional Autonomy Advisory Council (DPOD) rather than by the
government, the legislature or regional legislative assemblies.

The main job of this team is to carry out field research to
check objective requirements for possible implementation of
autonomy in a given area.

The DPOD will then use the team's findings to draw up
recommendations on the establishment of an autonomous region.

Yet this working procedure is often ignored. As a result,
regional autonomy expansion seems to be devoid of planning as it
is not based on a prediction of whether autonomy can be
implemented in a particular candidate for a new region.

This policy is further yet to be oriented to democratization
of governance and effective public services. It is clear that the
motives for the establishment of most new regions tip the balance
more in favor of the subjective interests of the elite, rather
than meeting objective preconditions of a region and the
attainment of local efficiency and democracy.