Regional autonomy: A double standard set in motion?

Regional autonomy: A double standard set 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 largest experiment in
decentralization of powers, the policy has turned out to become 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 herself--thinks that the very
policy is a threat to national integration.

Sudarsono Hardjosoekarto, who is Megawati's officer in charge
of the planned revision of the Law No. 22/2000 on regional
autonomy and the 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 should be reviewed because it may 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 Malarangeng, who were
responsible for the drafting of the laws, were the first to point
out at possible pitfalls because of poor government preparations.

Understandably Ryaas was also the first to be upset at the
government's insistence to revision the laws, citing it 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 merit and demerit
of the current autonomy policy, but what have yet to be discussed
more thorougly includes a double standard applied by the central
government so far.

The previous administration had treated the policy as the
panacea to various problems in all regions, including threats of
separatism, despite the evident poor preparations and absence of
adequate legal infrastructure. A 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 contradict 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 democratic efficiency model" has taken place
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 to the multitude of
problems reigning in the restive regions, as Megawati would have
liked Indonesians to believe.

Megawati has stated, through her officials, that the revising
of 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 term.

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

A sample of flaws in the implementation of the laws include
those that have placed Indonesian environment in danger. In Irian
Jaya and East Kalimantan, regency administrations have issued
bylaws which 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 which 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 sanitary landfill, and the quarrel between
Jakarta and Tangerang over certain revenue management of
Soekarno-Hatta Airport.

Writing for www.detik.com, Indra J. Piliang, a researcher at
the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
pointed at how only one out 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 receive
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 mechanism. This scholar says that no autonomy
policy would proceed well unless there is greater public
participation in the decision-making process.

Another proposes a long list of homework before the autonomy
policy could be effective, including an amandment 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 anti-corruption 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 the good governance principles.

Those who are prone to arguing could 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?