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.