Recurring Corruption Among Regional Leaders: KPPOD Says Local Autonomy Oversight Framework Needs Evaluation
The proliferation of corruption cases involving regional leaders is seen as evidence of weak oversight design in regional autonomy governance. The supervision and development systems from the central government are also deemed to require comprehensive evaluation.
Arman Suparman, Executive Director of the Committee for Monitoring Regional Autonomy Implementation (KPPOD), believes the current oversight approach has been too focused on ensuring administrative compliance, and thus has not effectively prevented misuse of authority in the regions.
“Supervision and development to date has emphasised ensuring regional governments comply with norms, standards, procedures, and criteria set by the central government. The approach remains very administrative,” Arman told Media Indonesia on Tuesday (12 March).
According to him, this situation causes regional governments to focus more on meeting administrative requirements in planning, budgeting, and policy formulation, rather than building governance capacity and leadership integrity.
“What happens is that regional heads fear violating central government administrative rules more than failing to improve people’s welfare or not involving communities in policy-making,” he said.
Arman explained that central government oversight has been conducted through general guidance by the Ministry of Home Affairs and sectoral guidance by technical ministries. These take the form of policy socialisation, consultation meetings, and technical guidance for civil servants in the regions.
However, he believes this approach has not addressed the issue of leadership integrity at the regional level. At the regional level, internal oversight by the inspectorate is also seen as suboptimal because institutionally it falls under the regional head.
“The inspectorate has strong supervisory functions on paper, but it is subordinate to the regional head. In that situation it is difficult to oversee one’s own superior,” he said.
Meanwhile, external oversight by state institutions such as the Supreme Audit Board (BPK), the Financial and Development Supervisory Board (BPKP), and the Indonesian Ombudsman Commission has not been matched with strong public oversight.
“Public participation is actually regulated in various regulations, but its implementation remains weak. Communities often do not have sufficient space to participate in regional planning, budgeting, and policy evaluation,” Arman said.
As a result, regional governments feel more supervised by the central government than by the communities they lead. Therefore, Arman believes oversight strengthening must be done comprehensively, not only from the central government, but also through strengthening the inspectorate, external oversight bodies, and public participation.
“Public participation must truly be present in all stages of regional government operations, from planning to policy evaluation,” he said.