|
|
 |
|
|
| Political System: Decentalization |
| |
Many consider that democracy will only flourish in Indonesia with increased decentralization of power away from the Javanese center. From independence onwards, the presidents of Indonesia have concentrated power in the center. Public administration and taxation systems remain highly centralized in Jakarta, an orientation that has hindered development, particularly in resource-rich provinces.
Many observers have welcomed recent government moves towards decentralization as endeavors to allow the outer provinces more power in political and economic decision-making. They view decentralization as a reasonable response to the clamors for self-rule in many regions.
However, a number of problems with these efforts have come to light. According to many, decentralization, much like democratization, has been carried out too fast. The devolution has in many cases resulted in the decentralization of inefficiency and corruption, rather than the decentralization of power. Many areas are floundering as a result of decentralization, and some analysts are worried that future steps may further exacerbate regional tensions. There have also been problems of coherence, with a marked lack of coordination between independently functioning local and central governments. Many local governments suffer from grave inexperience with ruling and a lack of functioning capacity. Many in the government, most notably Vice President Megawati, are opposed to further decentralization measures for these and other reasons.
Moreover, some of the new district self-governance regulations - those in West Sumatra, for example - have been predicated on the assumption of homogenous communities and thus ignore the presence of many migrants and transmigrants. Examples such as this highlight the need to ensure that the rights and needs of minority communities are secured in the decentralization process, which may be difficult to achieve in tense areas.
Decentralization is another key solution to the current tensions in Indonesia but many obstacles and problems to its implementation remain to be surmounted. Analysts disagree on whether the process should be slowed down. Deceleration is also likely to prove unpopular and politically unpalatable, not to mention undesirable. Nonetheless, a tacit slowdown may be necessary to ensure both better planning in Jakarta and better preparation in the regions.
A number of small but essential details must also be considered. These include inter-governmental fiscal mechanisms to ensure that poor regions receive enough money and that local governments are not suddenly in control of large budgets that they have no experience in managing. Other important aspects include promoting improved regulation and supervision, paying attention to good governance and accountability in the regions and putting checks in place to ensure that basic services such as health care are not disrupted.
Recommendations
- Efforts to decentralize the system of governance in Indonesia must be supported. Local analysts should be involved in ensuring that continued decentralization is carried out in an orderly and effective fashion.
- Support must be given to improve the planning of future decentralization efforts. Specialists must be given a role in creating strategies for Jakarta, and regional projects to prepare local governing institutions for their new roles should be considered. Both local and international NGOs and donors could have a role in this preparation.
- Attention must be paid to details such as improved regulation and supervision, good governance and accountability, and the continuation of basic services.
|
|
