Kamis, 02 September 2010

The Enlargment of Local Government’s Authorities: Its Impact on the Determining Parking Policy in Bandung City


According to the article 11 Law No. 22 (1999), local government’s authority has increased drastically. This article states that: “Local authorities cover all of governmental authorities with exception as determined in article 7 and 9”.[1]

There are, at least, two consequences resulting from the new regulation. Firstly, expanding the discretionary power i.e, the local power to arrange everything which is considered as house-hold affairs. These affairs include both mandatory and un-obligatory ones, and also encompass parking affairs.[2] It means that either central or provincial government will be unable to interfere intensively toward the local domains. Secondly, dilating the rights to explore their own financial sources in order to finance the implementation of their affairs or programs. This right is likely successful because fiscal decentralization acts have been issued, such as Law No. 25 (1999) about Financial Sharing Between Central and Local Government; No. 34 (2000) about Local Tax and Retribution; Government Regulation No. 16 (2000) about Land and Housing Tax; and No. 104 (2000) about Balance Funds.

Unfortunately, the conceivable tax and retribution from parking sector did not incorporated in fiscal decentralization acts.[3] Indeed, funds that can be collected from this sector is less sizeable than other sectors such as income tax, land and housing tax, hotel and restaurant tax, amusement tax, advertising tax, and so forth. However, what local government was able to get is only a tiny quantity of income. They have more vast unexplored sources.[4]

So far, parking fee contribution to Local Revenue (PAD) and to Gross Domestic Product (PDRB) was relatively low. In other words, its roles in supporting the local autonomy was considered to be improved. In this case, there is a mutual relation between enlarging local government’s authority and improving or maximizing the role of parking affair. By their new authority, local government is able to legally determine the parking policy, including regulating either parking tax or parking retribution. Meanwhile, an ample financial contribution from parking affairs would increases the local government’s ability in succeeding the autonomy policy as is mandated in Law No 22 (1999).

On the other hands, non-economic phenomena also indicate that government’s performance is under the standard. It can be observed that town traffics are generally massy, while people’s satisfaction is relatively low.

Considering above, it is imperative to research the impact of immense authority on formulating parking policy, and at the same time, the impact of parking contribution on succeeding autonomy implementation as a whole.

Problem Statement

The previous description designates that there are two main problem in regard to enhancing the roles of parking matters. The first problem is that local government has not determined the new parking policy as an organic regulation[5] from the higher level (in this case Law No 22 (1999)). This condition will lead to stagnancy of both parking performances and parking contributions to local revenue. The second problem is that parking services can not be expected as a significant source in producing financial contribution to Local Revenue (PAD). As a result, the Local Government’s capacity or ability on implementing decentralization policy is not profoundly increase.

Good Governance, Autonomy, and Public Service

There are a logical relation between good governance, autonomy[6], and public service. One characteristic of good governance is participation, which can be improved by giving autonomy to the local people. In other words, autonomy is one of important principles of good governance. Next, the impetus of decentralization is to increase public services. It can be assumed that wider decentralization will effect to the better public service delivery.

Mustopadidjaja[7] wrote that nowadays around the world, there is a shift from conventional governmental paradigm that focused on maintaining law and order, provisioning public service, collecting tax and retribution, and centrally regulating governmental affairs, to good governance paradigm that, according to Ghambir Bhatta, focused on the following four attributes: Accountability, Transparency, Openness/Participation, and Rule of Law. When a state has all attributes of good governance, there is no reason not to delegate most of its power or authority to the lower level institution, in this case local government.

The New Paradigm of Local Autonomy in Indonesia Regarding to Law No. 22 (1999)

The replacement of Law No. 5 (1974) with Law No 22 (1999) is motivated by an expectation to modify the operation of local government.[8] From a macro perspective, the major ground of making Law No 22 (1999) is to accelerate the paradigm shift in governmental practices. In this case, the new paradigm that will be furthered is democratization, empowerment and public service revitalization values.

Democratization value means that Law No 22 (1999) gives local people a larger opportunity to express their aspiration through DPRD (the local representatives). Empowerment value means that there is a larger delegation of power from the higher level institution to the lower ones. As a result, City or District as “the lowest hierarchy” of autonomous government has the biggest power to determine their own policy. Eventually, public service revitalization value means that there is a strong hope to make governmental services faster, cheaper, better, and closer to the public.

Similar to the description above, Researcher Team from LAN and Local Autonomy Bureau of West Java Provincial Government Office mentioned that the following are six grounds of establishing Law No 22 (1999), which differs from previous law.[9]

·         Promoting the local democracy model.
·         Increasing equity and equality, especially for the local people.
·         Confessing local potency and diversity.
·         Encouraging people’s creativity and participation.
·         Empowering local independency.
·         Strengthening local institution, especially local representatives, by enlarging its roles and functions.

On the subject of good governance paradigm, what Law No 22 (1999) contained is in the line with. It means that there is a concordance principle between Law No 22 (1999) and the efforts in promoting good governance in Indonesian governmental practices.

Enlargement of Authority and Local Government’s Efforts in Implementing Law No. 22 (1999)

When Law No 22 (1999) was issued, the most prevalent questions among the local government officer are: how to break down the article 11 about local authorities?, and, what figures of institution that is the best in conducting its local authorities?

In order to response to those questions, most local government formulate two kinds of local regulations (Peraturan Daerah), they are, Local Government Authorities, and Organizational Structure and Mechanism (SOTK – Struktur Organisasi dan Tata Kerja). Generally, after a year of the effectiveness of the law, either provincial or district/city governments have finished with the first stage.

The next crucial step is formulating regulation products[10] as a legal basis in determining every policy they have to make. Unfortunately, this effort has not utterly completed, so that what local government did after the launching of Law No 22 (1999) is mostly the same with the previous policies. In other words, Law No 22 (1999) makes minute changes in terms of policies, so far.

Existing Parking Policy and Its Problems in Bandung City

It is undisputable that parking is one of people’s basic needs, especially in the urban areas. Therefore, it becomes a philosophical reason why local government should regulate the parking affairs effectively in order to fulfill citizen’s demands. Basically, there are three main functions of parking affairs which local body, in this case Parking Management Board (Badan Pengelola Perparkiran), are expected to improve, i.e.: 1) assisting government to further traffic disciplines, 2) promoting public service, particularly to car owners and pedestrians, 3) increasing contribution to local revenue.[11]

Empirical phenomena indicate that Parking Management Board has not showed the best performance on those three functions. It means that people can easily find the traffic jump as a widespread reality, while the street users never completely satisfy with the services. In addition, its contribution to local revenue still in a low grade due to the mismanagement of parking affairs or other factors.

In order to leverage its performances, some aspects need to be improved. In this case, the most important aspect is tax / retribution management that entails three things such as retribution gathering methods, retribution management and submission mechanism, and revenue / retribution sharing agreement with private sector. These three things should be considered as vital aspects in the next policies produced by local government.

On the other hand, after Law No 22 (1999) runs into effective, some consequences will occurs. There are, at least, four aspects that is influenced by the implementation of Law No 22 (1999). Those four aspects are: main tasks and functions (authorities), administration of tax / retribution, internal structure and interrelation with other institutions, and politic aspect (its effect on societal behavior). Unfortunately, there are no serious studies about these implications.

[1]    Article 7 constitutes the central government’s authorities that cover 6 areas of authorities.  Meanwhile, article 9 constitutes the provincial government’s authorities that cover 6 areas of authorities also.
[2]    Referring to the article 11 Law No. 22 (1999), there are 11 mandatory authorities in local area: public works, health, education and culture, agriculture, transportation and telecommunication, trade and industry, investment, environment, land affairs, cooperation, and labor. Apart from the 11 authorities, there are un-obligatory authorities whose quantity is different between one region and another, depending on the need and capabilities.
[3]    Law No 34 (2000), that substituted by Law No 18 (1997), only mentioned that one of many Local Taxes is Parking Tax. This is a new type of tax which is never constituted in the previous regulations. However, Law No 34 (2000) did not provide further information to realize it.
[4]    As an illustration, International Transportation Association (ITA) had showed that parking money which could be picked from vehicle users in Jakarta was not less than Rp 4 billion per day in 1998. It means that Province’s income from parking services, at least, was Rp 1.4 trillion in a year. Sadly, Governor Sutiyoso avowed that BP Perparkiran (Parking Management Board) was lost for 5-9 billion. See: Atantya H. Mulyanto, The Overloaded Jakarta, June 29th, 2001, Jakarta: Suara Pembaruan
[5]    Organic regulation is a technical term that is used to addressed to a lower level policy that spells out the upper one.
[6]    The term “autonomy” in this paper is the same meaning with other terms such as decentralization, political decentralization, devolution, discretionary power. Some experts use them in different way, but I prefer to use them in the meaning of entrustment or delegation of power from central government to local government or from higher institution to lower institution.
[7]    Mustopadidjaja and Desi Fernanda, Building Public Accountability in order to Achieve Good Local Governance, Wacana Kinerja Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, March 2001, p.16, Bandung: LAN West Java Regional Office.
[8]    Elis Kantiningsih, The Prediction of Provincial Authority and Institution Through The Effectiveness of Local Autonomy, Wacana Kinerja Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, September 2000, p.1, Bandung: LAN West Java Regional Office.
[9]    LAN and Local Autonomy Bureau Researcher Team, Local Government Institution and Authority Arrangement in the Implementation of Law No 22 (1999), Wacana Kinerja Journal, No. 5, June 1999, p.3, Bandung: LAN West Java Regional Office.
[10]   There are two common type of local regulation, i.e. Peraturan Daerah (Province/District/City Regulation that is made by Governor/Regent/Major together with Local Representatives), and Keputusan Kepala Daerah (Governor/Regent/Major Decree).
[11]   Interview result with Chairman of Parking Management Board of Bandung City, June 26th, 2001.

Tidak ada komentar: