Pushing for a village-bassed decentralization movement

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).