In the last three decades, decentralization has been rather global norm than exception. Indonesia’s inherent features are definitely compatible with such global trend towards decentralization. These features include stage of development, the size of the country, the population diversity, and the “crisis effect”. Indonesia used to attain consistent high economic growth during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, accompanied with much improved social-economic indicators, yet with relatively high inequalities among regions. This pattern of development assures Indonesia as a good candidate to embark decentralization route. Next, with high population and cultural diversity, decentralization may allow the Government of Indonesia to accommodate regional differences and to commence development program that meets local preferences in better ways, as the distance between policy maker and policy target will diminish. Bulk of evidence suggests that such distance will only distort information needed to formulate and implement policy and will eventually erode its suitability and effectiveness. The evidence gives insight that major portion of the causes of Central Government’s failure to deliver public services that best suit local needs is due to high transaction costs concurrent with distance. Finally, the economic crisis that hit Indonesia in 1997, followed by political crisis in 1998 after the downfall of President Suharto as well as turmoil and resurgence of separatism tendencies in some provinces, such as Aceh and Papua, seemed to trigger and accelerate the process of decentralization. In this regard, decentralization basically acts as potential device to restrain separatism resurrection and ultimately make it cease. Moreover, unlike federalism, decentralization does not violate the vision of unitary state (i.e. Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia, NKRI) which has been founded and kept as final commitment since 1945 and valued as integral part of Constitution.
For Indonesia, decentralization is basically radical reform on state governance. It is a converse form of a centralized system under which Indonesia had been governed since 1950s. In this new governance sphere, for example, a city mayor is no longer a subordinate of a provincial governor. The latter will only act to mediate some possible conflicting interests between the former and the Central Government. To anticipate controversy and to confine resistance, two original decentralization laws (i.e. Undang-undang No. 23/1999 and Undang-undang No. 25/1999) envisaged a transition phase. The duration of the transition took two years (i.e. May 1999-May 2001). It allowed both regions to devote efforts in preparing their new functions and the Central Government to finalize coherent protocol deemed necessary for decentralization. To refine decentralization frameworks, two laws that replace the original laws was issued in 2004 (i.e. Undang-undang No. 32/2004 and Undang-undang No. 33/2004). These two new laws consist of more number of articles to incorporate and unify many views and recommendations from various preliminary assessments regarding the first three years of implementation. The articles and its supplement of explanations are also written in more rigid ways. By this approach, the articles and the supplement coincide to keep possible multi-interpretations minimal.
Despite there have been numerous presidential and ministerial decrees, circular letters, and other regulatory guidelines related to the decentralization laws, there is still lack of coordination that creates both contradiction among regulations at various levels and contradictions between decentralization-related regulations and departmental laws. The underlying causes of these problems overlap the technical capacity of bureaucracy. To deal with this matter, many associations of city governments and local and regional parliaments have been established as medium to coordinate policies and to develop mutual understanding. It can be hardly said that there is no improvement on this issue. Many sophisticated qualitative and quantitative studies commonly suggest that such improvement is in intermediate level. Apart from several flaws, the impacts of Indonesia’s decentralization are not as bad as previously feared. Neither is Indonesia’s decentralization experience mature yet nor temporary. It means that, on behalf of the spirit of reform, Indonesia can not suspend decentralization, but to keep learning, completing, and perfecting the manual and ethic of its implementation.
For Indonesia, decentralization is basically radical reform on state governance. It is a converse form of a centralized system under which Indonesia had been governed since 1950s. In this new governance sphere, for example, a city mayor is no longer a subordinate of a provincial governor. The latter will only act to mediate some possible conflicting interests between the former and the Central Government. To anticipate controversy and to confine resistance, two original decentralization laws (i.e. Undang-undang No. 23/1999 and Undang-undang No. 25/1999) envisaged a transition phase. The duration of the transition took two years (i.e. May 1999-May 2001). It allowed both regions to devote efforts in preparing their new functions and the Central Government to finalize coherent protocol deemed necessary for decentralization. To refine decentralization frameworks, two laws that replace the original laws was issued in 2004 (i.e. Undang-undang No. 32/2004 and Undang-undang No. 33/2004). These two new laws consist of more number of articles to incorporate and unify many views and recommendations from various preliminary assessments regarding the first three years of implementation. The articles and its supplement of explanations are also written in more rigid ways. By this approach, the articles and the supplement coincide to keep possible multi-interpretations minimal.
Despite there have been numerous presidential and ministerial decrees, circular letters, and other regulatory guidelines related to the decentralization laws, there is still lack of coordination that creates both contradiction among regulations at various levels and contradictions between decentralization-related regulations and departmental laws. The underlying causes of these problems overlap the technical capacity of bureaucracy. To deal with this matter, many associations of city governments and local and regional parliaments have been established as medium to coordinate policies and to develop mutual understanding. It can be hardly said that there is no improvement on this issue. Many sophisticated qualitative and quantitative studies commonly suggest that such improvement is in intermediate level. Apart from several flaws, the impacts of Indonesia’s decentralization are not as bad as previously feared. Neither is Indonesia’s decentralization experience mature yet nor temporary. It means that, on behalf of the spirit of reform, Indonesia can not suspend decentralization, but to keep learning, completing, and perfecting the manual and ethic of its implementation.
No comments:
Post a Comment