Regional autonomy: A double standard in motion?

Regional autonomy: A double standard in motion?

Santi WE Soekanto
The Jakarta Post
Jakarta

When 2002 dawns, Indonesia will mark the first anniversary of
the implementation of the regional autonomy policy. Dubbed by
many last year as the world's largest experiment in
decentralization of power, the policy has turned out to be a
sharp wedge, splitting scholars and bureaucrats apart.

Many scholars remain adamant that decentralization is not only
needed to ensure better delivery of services and goods than that
carried out by the central government, but also that it helps
curb the national disintegration threat brought out by years of
heavy centralization of powers.

The second group -- the most notable member of which is
President Megawati Soekarnoputri -- thinks that the very policy
is a threat to national integration.

Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto, Megawati's officer in charge of the
planned revision of Law No. 22/2000 on regional autonomy and Law
No. 25/2000 on fiscal balance, said "the shift from the old
structural efficiency model to the democratic one has been too
fast, excessive and bombastic."

The policy ought to be reviewed because it might threaten the
survival of Indonesia as a unitary state, he asserted. "We are
deeply concerned about the loss of hierarchy between provinces
and regencies or mayoralties, the arrogance of resources-rich
regions and their egotism and racist policies.

"Under the current regional autonomy law, rich regions could
easily demand separation from Indonesia. Therefore, besides
amending the autonomy law, we will also ask the regions to review
rules they have issued in line with the implementation of
autonomy," Sudarsono said.

Ironically, Sudarsono's list of complaints is exactly the same
as those aired last year by both critics and proponents of the
autonomy policy -- to which then president Abdurrahman Wahid
turned a deaf ear. The policy was launched anyway.

Scholars, such as Ryaas Rasyid and Andi Mallarangeng, who were
responsible for the drafting of the laws, were the first to point
out possible pitfalls because of poor government preparations.

Understandably Ryaas was also the first to be upset at the
government's insistence on revision of the laws, citing it as
proof of a tug-of-war for power between Jakarta and the regional
administration. "The central government is unwilling to support
the program because it would only lessen its power on locals," he
charged.

Experts have, over the past year, analyzed the merits and
demerits of the current autonomy policy, but what has yet to be
discussed more thoroughly includes a double standard applied by
the central government so far.

The previous administration treated the policy as a panacea to
various problems in all regions, including threats of separatism,
despite the evident poor preparations and absence of adequate
legal infrastructure. There was also carelessness on the part of
Abdurrahman Wahid, indeed, because there were at least 20
government decrees, 13 presidential instructions, 6 ministerial
decrees, as well as dozens of regional decrees on regional
autonomy, many of which contradicted one another.

Then, when the West Sumatra administration and legislative
council decided to take over PT Semen Padang following the
government's plan to sell a majority of shares to a foreign
company, critics were ready to label the case as proof of the
autonomy policy rushing headlong into chaos.

It is in relation to such cases that Megawati now believes
that "the shift to a democratic efficiency model" has taken place
too excessively and plans to curb it by revising the laws.

But when it comes to regions where threats of disintegration
are indeed present, why doesn't Megawati consider reviewing the
special autonomy policy she is implementing there? Both Aceh and
Irian Jaya have rejected the special autonomy policy drawn up for
them. Why? Because it is not the cure for the multitude of
problems reigning in the restive regions, as Megawati would have
liked Indonesians to believe.

Megawati has stated, through her officials, that revising the
laws does not constitute a wish to return Indonesia to a
centralized power. However, her administration forcefully
overrode objections by regents across the country and proceeded
with the revision plan.

Granted, Megawati was never happy with the autonomy policy,
even when she was Wahid's deputy, and could not have had the
power to block its passage on January 1, 2001. Her stance on the
matter today, however, reminds many of the way Wahid bulldozed
objections to his policies during his period in office.

The autonomy policy is an experiment in democratization. But
because it has fallen victim to the rapid shift of Jakarta's
stance over the past year, the policy is also a costly exercise.
People say aptly, "policy change is power-holder change."

A sample of flaws in the implementation of the laws include
those laws that have placed the Indonesian environment in danger.
In Irian Jaya and East Kalimantan, regency administrations have
issued bylaws that have allowed them to overexploit forests to
boost revenues.

The increasing export of logs from Irian Jaya this year,
despite the infringement of the law, stood out as a good example.
Millions of cubic meters of logs have been shipped out of the
province unchecked by the central government, despite having
issued in October 2000 a ban on the export of logs.

Another example of the flaws in the autonomy policy is the
recently reported leakage of 40 percent of the general allocation
fund (DAU) for regions. A legislator revealed that a portion of
the funds had been used by officials to purchase personal items,
including luxury cars.

Another example is a survey in North Sumatra, East Java, East
Kalimantan, South Sulawesi and West Nusa Tenggara that found that
no proper attention had been given to improving the quality of
public services, one of the objectives of decentralization.

Yet another example of glitches in the implementation of the
autonomy policy includes the squabble between Jakarta and Bekasi
over the location of a sanitary landfill, and the quarrel between
Jakarta and Tangerang over aspects of revenue management of
Soekarno-Hatta Airport.

Writing for detik.com, Indra J. Piliang, a researcher at the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), pointed
out that only one of nine winners of the Friedrich Naumann
Stiftung (FNS) Radio Program Awards 2001 wrote about autonomy
policy in an optimistic tone.

The odd-one-out winner described the joy with which residents
of Rote Island and Ndao Island in East Nusa Tenggara received
their imminent separation from the regency of Kupang. The
remaining eight winners wrote only about problems hampering the
implementation of the policy in West Sumatra, South Sulawesi,
East Java and other regions.

Scholars have outdone one another in coming up with
suggestions on how to improve the autonomy policy. Transparency
and monitoring, says one scholar, is crucial because like many
countries with a fledgling decentralized system, Indonesia has
poor public control mechanisms. This scholar says that no
autonomy policy will proceed well unless there is greater public
participation in the decision-making process.

Another has proposed a long list of tasks before the autonomy
policy could be effective, including an amendment to the 1945
Constitution. Piliang says this step is crucial as the document
influences all regulations and rulings under it.

"Political conflicts in this country all derive from flaws in
the Constitution," he argues. He also proposes the establishment
of an anticorruption body, the establishment of the judiciary as
an independent institution, a streamlining of the bureaucracy,
dissemination of information and knowledge, and the establishment
of an independent mass media.

In short, the application of good governance principles.

Those of an argumentative disposition can now debate whether
the autonomy policy needs good governance to succeed or vice
versa.

When, one year ago, Indonesia launched the huge undertaking
despite poor preparations, some people described it as building a
ship while sailing and predicted that some drowning would take
place.

Who will prove the doomsayers wrong?