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?