Rediscovery of local governance in decentralized Indonesia
Rediscovery of local governance in decentralized Indonesia
Edi Suhardi, Programme Manager, Partnership for Governance
Reform in Indonesia, Jakarta
Three years after the policy of decentralization and regional
autonomy was implemented in Indonesia, we are still waiting for
satisfying results. Also, grievances over some of the
consequences of the policy have been growing. With these learning
pains of decentralization, some people might have forgotten how
suppressing a centralized-authoritarian regime can be.
Centralization in Indonesia had a long history started by the
Dutch colonial government. It was adopted in 1959 by Sukarno when
he overturned the provisions of the law that allowed regional
legislatures to elect regional executives.
Strong centralized control became one of the important ruling
tools used by Soeharto throughout his presidential term (Donald
K. Emerson, 1999). From that historical point of view, we can see
that Indonesians are used to living under the dominance of
centralization. On the other hand, decentralization, as a new
policy, is often manipulated only for the purpose of easing the
tension in the regions.
In a country with highly complicated heterogeneity like
Indonesia, a one-size-fits-all policy used by a centralized
administration is hard to apply unless strong pressure goes along
with it. Indonesia has seen that centralization brings with it
"democratic deficit" that removes decision-making from the
citizenry. Decentralization then has become the inevitable choice
for Indonesia.
However, the decentralization policy, legalized by Law No.
22/1999, has found a long and windy road in its passage. Since
the enactment of this law, there have been different
perspectives, particularly between the central, provincial and
district/municipal governments.
It is unfortunate that decentralization has been simplified to
a level that reflects more a power struggle between the central
government, supported by provincial governments, on the one side,
with municipal/regency governments on the other side.
By definition, regional autonomy leads to a degree of regional
self-determination. But it would be very misleading to assume
that with regional autonomy, the new democratic paradigm creates
another level of subnational sovereign governments.
The principle that supports decentralization is known as
"unity in diversity". In systems that are undergoing democratic
reform, the virtue of this principle is its ability to recognize
the need for local self-determination. Decentralization then
becomes an instrument for maintaining national stability.
Autonomy should also be interpreted as autonomy for the
people, not only for the regional governments. It needs to
articulate the interest of the people in the designated regions.
Decentralization and regional autonomy must be based on the
principles of mutual trust and mutual respect, complementary and
interdependency between central and regional governments.
The layers of governance in Indonesia, under Law No. 22/1999,
put more emphasis on the local/municipality levels. Ideally, by
transferring or decentralizing certain powers to the local
governments, the central government automatically establishes a
series of policy-making links between itself and its regional
communities.
That process, or bridge, opens the way for local governments
to increase their influence in local decision-making. It gives
local governments greater access to the ear of the central
government and makes them more responsive to the special needs of
their own communities. This creates conditions for local
governments to contribute to national unity.
The challenge for all of the local and city governments in
Indonesia is to maintain national stability by developing strong
policy-making skills and governing responsibly. They have to make
sure that they have the consent and support of their
communities. Furthermore, when they represent the interests of
their regional communities, those interests must be in harmony
with the wider national interests.
To address the concern about weakening economic capacity in
several regions, I argue that Indonesia needs to consider
extending the number and roles of its provinces. Learning from
experience, municipalities and districts are considered too small
on the economic scale and inevitably dependent on neighboring
regions. The role of provincial governments in the current
setting is more as an intermediary, though they are better
positioned to perform decentralized authority compared to
municipalities. In a more decentralized Indonesia, the extended
number of provinces would require a rearrangement of both the
provincial and local (district/municipality) governments.
One of the most feasible alternatives in regulating local
governments is to pass a law on the format and shape of local
governments for each province. The law would specify the
geographical and administrative areas, and also type of authority
granted.
Such a drastic change is not totally new, but would replicate
the special status given to Aceh, Papua, Yogyakarta and Jakarta.
Such precedent should be further expanded to all regions in
Indonesia, so there would not be a special status but a truly
unitary system where diversity of local sociocultural and
sociopolitical identity is maintained by law. All laws on local
governments would refer to the Constitution. This is a modality
for a total reform of local government in Indonesia.
Further, before revising the Law No. 22/1999, I think we need
to rediscover the meaning of decentralized Indonesia. The shape
and format of decentralization and regional autonomy should be
redefined by all those concerned. This is a modality for a total
reform of local government in Indonesia, a renewed meaningful
decentralized Indonesia. This is also a point of no return to the
centralized-authoritarian regime.