Editorial
The application of regional autonomy is a further step of the implementation of decentralisation. The latter can be defined as “systematic and rational dispersal of governmental powers and authority to lower level institutions so as to allow multi-sectoral decision-making as close as possible to problem areas”1. Code 1 of 22/1999 mentions that decentralisation is the delivery of authority from the central government to the autonomous region (local government) within the framework of the unitary state of Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, it also mentions that regional autonomy is the authority owned by the local government to organise the interest of the local people, based on its own initiatives, the people’s aspiration, and the regulation.
Conceptually, the implementation of decentralisation is based on the willingness to create democracy, equal distribution and efficiency. It is assumed that decentralisation will lead to the democracy through the participation of the local people. Moreover, the democratic system will support the equal distribution of development, mainly in rural areas where most people live. In other words, decentralisation can also be seen as a reaction of the centralised development program. At the moment, decentralisation is a controversial issue. On one side, it is said that decentralisation may create inefficiency. On the other hand, it is argued that decentralisation is indeed increase efficiency, since the distance between the government and the people are getting closer. Decentralisation may not need a large bureaucratic system to support the local government. Resources can be used whenever it is needed and problems are identified by the local people. The mentioned arguments imply that the implementation of decentralisation supposed to be an effective instrument to create democracy, equal distribution and efficiency and to prevent disintegration.
The case of Indonesia shows that the tendency of disintegration of the outer islanders, is a significant factor which support the creation of code 22/1999 on regional autonomy to replace code 5/1974 on regional governance and code 5/1979 on rural governance. The similar case occurred in South Africa and India when decentralisation was implemented to avoid disintegration. Therefore, the implementation of decentralisation is very much influenced by political motives2. Decentralisation is often assumed as an effective instrument to create efficiency and welfare distribution. Nevertheless, the assumption should be looked at carefully, since the case of decentralisation of Latin America led to fiscal deficit and in Spain caused higher lack of welfare distribution between the rich and the poor areas. The case of Philippines shows that at the micro level, decentralisation weakened the labour movement. At the end, discussion on decentralisation may come to a point that the issue of decentralisation is not a matter of good and bad but focus on the possibility of the success or the failure of decentralisation program. It will depend on the design and the implementation of the program itself (ibid).
AKATIGA convinces that the implementation of decentralisation is indeed an important part of democratisation process in Indonesia. In particular, this is related to the bigger authority given to the local government to formulate strategic policies for the interest of the local people, and a more fairly financial balancing and administrative distribution between the central and the local government. The implementation of decentralisation is convinced to give an impact to the practice of local governance. “Governance” itself is a comprehensive concept, which covers state’s institutions and structure, decision making process, the capacity to implement (decentralisation) and the interaction between the government and the society3. The assumption that the implementation of decentralisation will imply to the practice of local governance, has raised another question i.e. how is the impact of decentralisation (and regional autonomy) in Indonesia to the civil society? Is there a (new) opportunity for the civil society? If there is, how the civil society anticipates and makes use of such an opportunity? Can decentralisation be an opportunities to reduce the number of poor people?
To enrich the current decentralisation discourse, the present edition of AKATIGA’s Social Analyses Journal tries to raise issues on decentralisation and regional autonomy. It is hoped that the socialisation of decentralisation program
1Endriga, Jose, Prof., “Decentralisation: Concept and Strategy for Local Development”, University of Philippines, 1996.
2World Bank, “Entering the 21stCentury”, World Development Report, 1999/2000.
will help civil society to anticipate and to make use of new opportunities, which come along with the implementation of the program. The present journal is started by an article, which discusses decentralisation and its relation with the participation of civil society. The second article discusses the tendency of the raising of local elites who have their own interest. The following articles try to focus the discussion on decentralisation and its relation with specific issues i.e. decentralisation and land problem, small scale enterprises, education, and decentralisation discourse in the Philippines.
Hetifah Sjaifudian, Sawarung Presidium, who raises issue of participation and decentralisation, writes the first article. It is agreed that the implementation of decentralisation opens a bigger opportunity for participation. Nevertheless, such an opportunity needs to be prepared properly by the civil society and the government apparatuses. Some questions raise on the obstacles which may be faced by civil society who are willing to participate, the quality of the participation, what is needed to reach an optimum participation and which reflects the interest of the people.
Syarif Hidayat, a researcher of Centre of Economic and Development Studies of Indonesian Science Institute, discusses the tendency of the raise of local elites whose interest will not be match with the interest of the local people. The discussion is developed based on a case study in North Bandung. He raises two questions i.e.; whether or not decentralisation leads to the raise of local elites; how the interest of local elites interact with that of the local people.
Does education need to be decentralised? Armida Alisyahbana, head of Economic Development Department, Faculty of Economic, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, writes that regulation number 22/1999 does not mention clearly on decentralisation of education. In particular, she points out that the regulation does not cover the problem of how far the educational institutions are given the authority in planning their own education process and in developing their institutions.
Gunawan Wiradi, member of executive board of AKATIGA, argues that the implementation of regional autonomy gives an opportunity for a more democratic agrarian reform. He develops his argument regardless to the fact there is only one article (of regulation number 22/1999) which mentions land problem. He writes that a democratic agrarian reform can only be achieved if the local government and the regional House of Representatives have a good understanding of all aspects of agrarian reform. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the clear direction of agrarian national politics.
Revrisond Baswir, lecturer of Economic Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, a director of Institute of Development and Economic Analysis (IDEA), Yogyakarta, and member of Steering Committee Indonesian NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), Jakarta argues that regional autonomy may solve the structural problems, which (in the past) had caused small-scale enterprises left behind. He develops his argument based on the reason that regional autonomy opens a bigger opportunity for participation, improve local economic activities, and increase market for the local small scale enterprises. Nevertheless, whether or not regional autonomy give a positive impact for the development of small scale enterprises, also depend on the willingness of the local government to empower small scale enterprises. Moreover, it is also depend on the betterment of fund allocation from the central to the local government.
Joel Rocamora, executive director of Institute of Popular Democracy, Philippines, enriches the discussion, by sharing the Philippines’ experience in decentralisation. In particular, he discusses discourse of global capitalism, its interest, and NGO, all in the frame of governance and democratisation in the Philippines.
Does decentralisation give an advantage for the poor and the marginal people? The answer may be “yes” if it is aimed to give a bigger space for democratisation and the improvement of people’s welfare. Therefore, all of the nation’s components should have the political will and participate actively in planning, implementing, and controlling the decentralisation program. Otherwise, decentralisation may become a dream only.
