Quest for independent local councils

Quest for independent local councils

By Yulius P. Hermawan

BANDUNG, West Java (JP): The recent controversial elections of
the governors of Central and East Java have raised questions over
just how independent provincial councils should be in electing
their local executives.

The New Order regime's system for gubernatorial elections
provided a certain amount of leverage to the central government
by giving it the right to approve candidates nominated by
provincial councils.

Usually the president, through the minister of home affairs,
chose three out of five candidates nominated by a provincial
council. The council would then elect one of the three as its new
governor.

This election mechanism provided a means to the central
government to intervene in the planning of local development
projects. The philosophy behind the system was that the central
government wanted to make sure that the heads of local
administrations would be able to cooperate with it in the
implementation of development programs and in continuing national
integration.

In practice, the government preferred candidates with
backgrounds acceptable to the president. This sometimes created
conflict, particularly when a central government nominee was not
acceptable to the majority of the local council or the
population. It particularly mattered when the government
disapproved of the province's most popular candidates.

Recent elections give strong indications that the Habibie
administration plans to continue the system.

The new government has attempted to exert its influence in the
elections of governors, regents and mayors. The gubernatorial
elections in Central and East Java are examples of excessive
central government involvement in the process.

There are several reasons why the government should reconsider
its role and influence in provincial and local elections:

* The system created by the New Order is inherently
contradictory to the principles of democracy. Local council
members are elected by the people. They should, therefore, be
responsible to their constituents. Local legislatures hold the
people's mandate and, hence, should play a key role in electing
the heads of local administrations and in the creation of
policies in their territories.

In practice, local administration leaders, even though they
are elected by local councils, are more responsive to the
central government. Their decisions often reflect the central
government's interests.

* The system in place also leads to the absence of effective
supervision, evaluation and control.

In a democracy, local administrations are responsible to their
constituents. Local councils should play a key role in
supervising, evaluating and controlling the activities of local
executives. Unfortunately, governors seem to prefer to report to
the central government rather than to their councils.

Without a clear-cut mechanism for supervision, evaluation and
control, local administrations may create priorities and policies
not in the true interest of their constituents.

* Excessive central government influence in the election
process may contribute to the development of separatist
aspirations in certain areas -- particularly when the government
treats provinces differently.

Such preferential treatment could lead to opposition against
the central government. These problems become even more
complicated when the central government controls provincial
resources to finance so-called national development programs. It
also controls most of the funds generated from local development
programs.

Social jealousy has occurred in certain territories over the
perception that the majority of the profits from exploiting local
resources are funneled away from the province. Such jealousies
may lead to an opposition to efforts at national integration.

Irian Jaya and East Timor are two cases in point in which
elements of the local populations have perceived unequal
treatment from the central government in the distribution of
local wealth.

* Central government intervention leads to a dependence of
provincial administrations on it in the handling of local
affairs, especially those related to the setting of priorities in
local development programs.

This actually leads to serious problems for the central
government itself because it distracts central government
officials from important national and international issues. Local
administrations, on the other hand, never develop the capability
to solve their own affairs.

It is, therefore, time to reconsider the system.

A certain extent of autonomy should be given to local
administrations. Local councils should be given a larger role in
the development of good local governance and should supervise the
implementation of local policies. Local executives should also
refocus their sense of responsibility from the central government
to their local communities. In this way, each local
administration will better its capability to develop its own
region.

The writer is a Monash University graduate, a lecturer on
comparative politics at the Catholic University of Parahyangan
and a researcher at the Parahyangan Center for International
Studies in Bandung.