Pushing for a village-bassed decentralization movement
M. Indrawan and Fahmi Wibawa, Jakarta
The tide is turning again in the turbulent sea of Indonesian politics. When Laws 22 and 25 were passed in 1999, the country had picked up some strong momentum for decentralization. The mandate to give administrative and fiscal authority to district and provincial administrations, and ultimately villages, brought about the prospects for broader governance reform.
However, by the passing of Law 32/2004, followed quickly by its derivatives, such as government regulations 6/2005 on the direct election of district heads and government regulation 17/2005 (revision of no. 6/2005) suddenly the entire focus shifted to local government elections. And now the mass media is awash with news of election- related conflicts in the districts, regencies and provinces. Noted electoral observer, Smita Notosusanto recently pointed out that the regional elections would be fraught with imperfect legislation that contributed to election-related conflicts in the region (The Jakarta Post, May 25, 2005).
Of course decentralization is not only about elections, but also about thorough redistribution of functions and services (including assets) from the central government to the local administrations. Such redistribution of authority is perhaps the least popular, and therefore the subject of this article.
Conflict-free, orderly and reasonable success toward village decentralization has been noted by local governments and civil society groups, including the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia. During 2002 in Bantul, Yogyakarta, the civil society organization LAPPERA managed to encourage the local government to commit itself to adopting a village autonomy agenda, similar to that of the district administration. This exemplified a rare commitment to share power and budget allocations. There will be no effective village decentralization without pro-active district government support.
Portions of the annual regional budget are by law allocated for villages, but until recently there were no clear guidelines. By the middle of 2003, the University of Brawijaya managed to calculate the budgetary allocations needed; taking into account the fiscal needs and the fiscal capacity at the village level. This model has been disseminated to both the regions and the national level.
At any rate, the economic empowerment of villages should not depend on budgetary allocations alone. In some villages, it may be more reasonable to boost local economic productivity so they are closer to self-sufficiency; for instance in some villages in Sukabumi.
It is also from the village institutions that traditional wisdom can be revitalized. Of course, not all traditional norms and practices can be readily adopted across the country. For instance: Women are prohibited from going outside in West Sumatra after dusk, the syariah police in Aceh readily subject citizens to physical punishment for misdeeds, however eyebrows would be raised in the other parts of Indonesia if these sorts of things were imposed. As concluded by the Wanuata Waya Foundation, even the Wanuan wisdom of the Minahasa people is thought to be close to perfection, but still needs adaptation.
Village traditions still are imposed by the state. However, by law, villages remain the lowest common denominator. In many respects, the villages are still the starting point for development planning. There are good reasons for this. Villages can harness opportunities for collective action and aspects of empowerment, namely human resources, tradition and economic enterprise. Villages offer the most feasible venues for bringing governance reform closer to the community, and better access to decision-making and benefits.
Certain public service sectors, for instance health and education, are often considered to be costly. It would be more realistic if these were handled using a bottom-up methodology, especially in terms of increasing human-resource qualities. For instance, if designed on site, water and sanitation facilities would naturally be more viable and sustainable for the people.
Village autonomy, to some extent, is directly related to resource governance, with implications on poverty alleviation. In some countries, the local community has been encouraged to seize the opportunities for stewarding their own resources. In some Pacific islands, fisherfolk have actually thrown back bombs from outsiders practicing destructive fishing methods at local fishes and corals. Even the controversy with communities involved in logging in Papua (known as IPKMA), which the national law (Law 41/ 1999) considers illegal logging, is not likely to be resolved by military approaches alone, but there has to be sociocultural intervention to complement legal procedures.
Village autonomy would also bring increased access to justice, particularly for the country's rural poor; especially so, when the state and its formal apparatus (police, prosecutors and courts) are limited in capacity and resources.
Governance reform is not about going with the flow. While local government elections are important, it should not co-opt the other aspects of decentralization, not the least village decentralization.
An important aspect for village decentralization is in empowering the villages governing boards (BPDs). Only through them can public service function and control budgetary allocations be properly exercised. The districts need to provide proactive support for the village empowerment.
The civil society groups, including the press, have an important role to play in illuminating precedents and best practices for village governance. Eventually, there will arise a need to properly act upon the laws and regulations that formalize village autonomy.
The views expressed herein are personal opinions. The authors have worked as Consultant and Program Manager, respectively, at the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia, and can be contacted at mochamad.indrawan@undp.org and fahmi.wibawa@undp.org).