Have We Benefitted From Decentralization

- 1 Januari 1970

 

Today, friction exists between different levels of government, with district heads and mayors – known as “small kings” – feeling they have a mandate from the people and are not obliged to carry out orders. Analysts say this has led to the perception that local communities have not benefited from decentralization.

“The basic idea of decentralization was originally to improve people’s welfare in the long term by increasing public services through regional autonomy,” said Robert Endi Jaweng, executive director of Regional Autonomy Watch (KPPOD), a Jakarta-based monitor.

 “Unfortunately, in over a decade of its practice, people haven’t seen the benefits of decentralization,” Robert said. “It is basically in the hands of a few local elites.”

The current situation can be traced back to the beginning of the so-called reform era following the fall of former President Suharto in 1998.

When the Regional Autonomy Law came into effect in 2001, it reshaped the political landscape. The office of President was no longer occupied by an autoritarian who could determine the fate of the archipelago as in the New Order days.

The law maintained the central government’s grip on affairs of security, religion, international relations, economic policy and legal issues. Other forms of authority have since 2001 been with provinces and districts.

Robert argued that the failure of decentralization were in part the result of bad timing.

“Indonesia introduced decentralization in a transitional era where it was seen as stemming political disintegration. It was made under the assumption that the state was in a normal situation. It was not,” Robert said.

Cases such as the GKI Yasmin Church affair, which can damage Indonesia’s image abroad, have led some people to question how much authority the state wields in the provinces.

The state lacks control because the central government is “very weak”, Robert said.

Before former President Suharto was forced to resign following a popular outpouring of frustation in May 1998, questioning the state’s control was a subversive act that could land you in prison.

Today the question prompts political observers to ask why leadership from Jakarta seems lacking in cases where it is most needed.

“The first 10 years of regional autonomy should provide a starting point for the future; to what extent have the goals from decentralization stated earlier been achieved?” asked Siti Zuhro, a regional autonomy expert at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

“We have to be honest that we have witnessed so many deviations as a result of local political processes that have neglected the objectives and idea of decentralization,” Siti said.

Where did the money go?

Direct elections, which can be prohibitively expensive, have led many local elites to fund their political activities through coruption, analysts said.

“The direct election system is very costly; it drives elected regional leaders to corruption. Corruption can take the form of reduced public services or granting various permits and concessions (to companies) for mining or logging,” Robert explained.

According to Zainal Arifin Muchtar, an anticorruption expert from Gadjah Mada University, tackling regional corruption’s spread requires strong law enforcement, which the country lacks.

“Law enforcement in local regions is as weak as it is in the central government,” Zainal said.

Since its establishment in 2004 the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has arrested 8 governors and 30 mayors and district heads

Citing  data from law enforcement official, a deputy speaker of the People’s Consultative Assembly said 32 percent – 173 out of 525 – of active governors. Mayors and district heads were under investigation for graft.

Decentralization would distribute wealth more equitably to the regions, its champions said. But it has ironically also brough money flowing back into the capital, as enriched local officials and businesses often travel to Jakarta.

“For example, 80 percent of funds from Papua’s special autonomy go back to Jakarta because governors and head districts spend more time in Jakarta”, Robert said.

Cumbersome bureaucracy has also been blamed for the problems.

Budget allocations from the central government, as well as money derived from the regions that should be spend on public services such as education and health care, is often used to accommodate the oversized bureaucracy, analysts say.

Robert said that 60 percent of the nation’s 491 districts spend more of their budget on bureaucracy than on public services. “Some 11 districts even spend more than 70 percent (on bureaucracy),” Robert said.

Another bone of contention is the raft of controversial religious bylaws, which have mushroomed since devolved powers began to take root. Critics say the bylaws, many based on Islamic Shariah law, undermind Indonesia’s founding principles and stimulate grassroots conflict between religious groups.

Women in some districts are required to wear jilbab and students and civil servants are obliged to pass the Koran recitation test. In some areas, such as Merauke in Papua, Christian legal structures have been accommodated.

“Even when (such legislation) should be revoked by the Home Affairs Ministry, it is often ignored. Why? One reason is because Gamawan Fauzi, as the current minister, applied Shariah bylaws when he was head of Solok district (in West Sumatra),” Robert said.

The minister was not available for a comment.

What needs to be done?

While some criticize and question the continuing program of regional autonomy, others are confident that decentralization can solve the multitude of problems facing Indonesia.

I believe regional autinomy is the most suitable system for a vast country such as Indonesia,” said Dadan Suharmawijaya, the director of Jawa Pos Institute of Pro Autonomy.

The group organizes an award that recognizes regions as setting the best practice standard for others to follow.

“We should remember that in the old days of centralization, regions were forced to wait a long time for the central government to fix basic infrastructure such as falling bridges or holes on main streets,” Dadan said.

By giving awards, Dadan said, regions are encouraged to provide good public services for the people.

Siti, from LIPI, agreed that regional autonomy was not the root cause of corruption, pointing to examples of good leaders such as Joko Widodo from Solo, Central Java, and I Gede Winasa from Jembrana district in Bali.

“There should be a carrot and stick approach: We punish those who violate the law, but appreciate others who do a good job,” Siti said.

 

 

--- (Dimuat di Jakarta Globe - Senin, 14 Mei 2012) ---

Dibaca 527 kali