Regional autonomy without the community?

By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman

JAKARTA (JP): Internationally, the notion of regional autonomy has at least two dimensions, namely greater say for regional/local governments and the participation of the community in decision making.

Over the past decade, the second dimension has gained greater importance. The era has passed where regional autonomy meant the delegation of power from the central government to the regions.

The focus now is no longer on the capabilities of the regional governments in managing development programs where efficiency and effectiveness in delivery of services were the only things that mattered.

Along with the increasing emphasis on the second dimension, the regional autonomy is more understood now as having to do with the community's role in local governance.

Therefore, the regional autonomy drive embodies new meanings: development of people's participation, representation, and empowerment of the society. The new meanings are important as the basis of a fairer public policy.

The balance between the two dimensions is different in different places. There are regions that urgently need to develop the local government capacity in fulfilling the people's basic necessities.

For more "developed" regions, the second dimension occupies greater importance, rendering these regions a higher quality of autonomy. A two-way communication between the community and the local government develops this condition.

The conventional wisdom is that regardless of the needs of any particular region, the second dimension should not be left out. This conventional wisdom goes along the notion that governing is not merely about government but governance as well.

Therefore, if the Indonesian government is still thinking about "local government" and not "local governance", they are still trapped in the obsolete view of regional autonomy.

This trap could indeed bring far-reaching consequences. For example, it directs regional autonomy to only institutional development of central-regional administration and ignores the necessity of having a healthy and strong civil society.

Fortunately, it seems there is now more attention on the role of the society. The preamble of Law No. 22/1999 states that the implementation of regional autonomy needs to emphasize the principles of democracy, people participation, equality, and justice.

However, the role of the government administrations is much too dominant in discourses on regional autonomy.

This curiously has something to do with the background of the regional autonomy policy. Ponderous decentralization of authority at the district level is a policy taken in the midst of pressure from the regions for greater say and greater share of their natural resources, and political tensions at the national level.

This situation produces many loopholes which potentially invite intrigue, new patronage, corruption, and greater exclusion than ever of certain groups.

The question is: Should we worry about the development of the second dimension now when we have yet to settle the problems in the administrations?

The answer is yes because governance must be developed along with the regional autonomy. This is because the Indonesian society is currently devoid of leadership at many levels.

Many groups are now fighting to control economic and political resources. They use the loopholes in the laws to organize crimes. If the trend persists, the economic resources would again be controlled by only a few.

The second reason is that democratic local governance (DLG) with transparency and accountability as its principles has already become a standard in foreign relations, either in the areas of aid or commerce.

Countries such as the Philippines, Ukraine, Bolivia, Honduras, Mali and India had started focusing their attention on developing DLG since the early 1990s. Poor marks in this particular area may result in a poor image and declining investment.

What does Indonesia need to do to empower regional communities within the framework of the autonomy policy? The first step is reinventing the framework itself, so that the autonomy policy becomes a DLG-oriented endeavor rather than an administrative project.

This calls for the establishment of some principles, namely people's sovereignty, equality, and freedom of expression and association.

It is important to note that DLG is not only about the local government's accountability to the legislative body. This kind of accountability has proven problematic as legislative members tend to be involved in money politics at the expense of public welfare.

Therefore, there must be two levels of accountability; from the local government to the legislative body and the legislative body to the public.

The second step is reshaping the role of the central government. So far the role overly focuses on increasing the administrative capacity of the local governments, with no attention given to the need for making the transition process more humane. Principles like cooperative governance, people's participation, and justice must become its trajectory.

Many have realized that regional autonomy occurs in certain political contexts at the national level. We cannot just assume that the central government would be willing to be creative in developing different approaches in the autonomy drive.

Therefore, advocacy, policy recommendations, and monitoring must be continuously performed by a special body. Advocacy must also be conducted by civic organizations that specializes in regional autonomy.

The role of the central government is to help regions design its structure of authority that endorses the principles of public transparency, increases public participation, improves access to public services, eases concentration of power, cuts off the decision-making authority's link to both budgeting and spending, and installs a merit system in the local bureaucracy.

The crucial step is empowering the local community and establishing them as credible partners in the decision-making process. Problems of representation also need to be solved.

Some countries solve this problem by establishing city councils whose members come from the community, or by introducing legislations that ensure fair representation of all members of the community.

The second challenge is awakening the community to the fact that the direction of local governance lies in their hands. The first strategic step toward this goal is allowing the community control over budgeting and spending.

Many people, including members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), still think that budgeting and supervising of the budget is a complicated matter. But we can learn, for example, from NGOs in India which have been successful in encouraging public participation in local budgeting. John Samuel, an activist of National Center for Advocacy Studies, wrote in Understanding the Budget As If People Mattered, believes Indonesia can do the same thing.

Civic organizations, be they NGOs, universities, or social organizations, should therefore focus their programs on strategic aspects such as local budgetary. We can expect success in these selected areas to lead to success in other areas.

The writer is a sociologist at the University of Indonesia.