Preface
The history and
development of local autonomy and decentralization have gone through up and
down based on the growth and development of constitution and political
situations in Indonesia
The
Genesis of Indonesian Decentralization (Colonial Period)
The evolution of local government in Indonesia Europe .
The Etische
politiek movement in 1903 was the starting point of the decentralization
history in Indonesia Dutch Kingdom
Through the ordinance in 1905, Stadelike Gemeente Batavia, Meester Cornelis dan Buitenzorg (Bogor
Then with the Bestuurshervormingswet
of 1922 the area of the country was divided into gouvernementen or
provinces. In 1925 the Council for Residencies was abolished and replaced with
the Council for Districts. In addition to that the Council for Provinces was
created. The first province established was the West Java in 1926, East Java in
1929 and Central Java in 1930. The Governor
chaired the council of a province while the Regent chaired the Councils of the
Regency (similar to a County). Meanwhile, the council of a Cities was to be
chaired by a Mayor. Under this act there were 76 Districts and 32 Cities on
Java and 13 Cities outside of Java (UNESCAP, no year).
Meanwhile, during the Japanese government
that occupied Indonesia Indonesia ’s independence, the effect of Dutch
administration system has prevailed as the system of the administration of Republic of Indonesia
Subsequently, in August 1942, the Japanese
military administration tried to manage the Java and Madura territory by laying
down the first regulation concerning reform of the government structure, namely
Law 27 and Law 28. On the basis of Law 28, the Japanese did away with the late
colonial division of Java into three Provinces by dividing the area into 17
Residencies or Syuu (Karesidenan). On the basis of Law 28, the former
Regencies (regentschap) and Municipalities (staadsgemeente) were
renamed Shi (Kota
From
Independence
The 1945 proclamation brought a new system
of local government in Indonesia Indonesia
The issuance of Law No. 1/1945 and then Law
No. 22/1948 which based the formation of autonomous region of province,
district, big city and small city, and special region which can be interpreted
as the steps of realizing the message in the article 18 of the 1945
Constitution which states: The division
of Indonesian region is categorized as big and small region with the formation
and arrangement of government set up by laws by referring and considering the
deliberation in the state administration system, and the rights, the origins in
the regions with specific characteristics. Further description of the 1945
Constitution states that “Since Indonesia is eindheidstaat (a unitary state), it never has within it a staat
(state)”. Based on the law, the following laws on local government were issued
(Gie, 1993, vol. 1: 204-205):
·
Law
No. 2/1950 on the East
Java Province
·
Law
No. 3/1950 on Special Region of Yogyakarta ;
·
Law
No. 10/1950 on Central
Java Province
·
Law
No. 11/1950 on West
Java Province
·
Law
No. 12/1950 on Autonomous Districts in East Java Province
·
Law
No. 13/1950 on Autonomous Districts in Central Java
Province
·
Law
No. 14/1950 on Autonomous Districts in West Java Province
·
Law
No. 15/1950 on Autonomous Districts in Yogyakarta ;
·
Law
No. 16/1950 on Big Cities (Kota Besar)
in East Java, Central Java, West Java, and Yogyakarta ;
·
Law
No. 16/1950 on Towns (Kota Kecil)
in East Java, Central Java, and West
Java Province
It continues till the new provinces were
established in Sumatra and Kalimantan based on
the law of Law No. 22/1948. Based on article 1 Law No. 22/1948, the regions
that have been able to manage and take care of their own households can be put
into three levels: provinces, regencies/big cities and villages/small cities.
The divisions are hierarchical in manner where province is superior to
district/big city and district/big city is superior to village/small city.
Principally, each region has two authorities, i.e. autonomy and medebewind (co-governance). Autonomy is the right to manage and take care of their own households in
the region, whereas medebewind is the right to execute the laws from
Central Government or the regions superior to them based on their superior’s
instructions (LAN, 2003: 162). Since Republic
of Indonesia
In the context of local autonomy and
autonomous regions, Law No. 1/1957, the product of House of Representatives as
the result of general election 1955 is categorized as liberal because it was
born under the law of UUDS 1950. The post of governor, regent /mayor as
apparatus separated from the post of the head of first and second level region.
This case is viewed as a reflection of autonomous regions and the
implementation of local autonomy. But the delivery of central affair in public
government was implemented based on Law No. 6/1959 and its issuance was not
done at once but in stages based on Government Regulation No. 50/1963.
Based on article 1 Law No. 1/1957, regions
are divided into two kinds, i.e. swatantra
and special region. Swatantra Region is a territorial unit
formed to become the region with the right to manage its own household, while Special Region is a swapraja region
stated in Article 132 UUDS stipulated as a region with the right to manage its
own household. There is no difference in terms of division, level, government
structure, authority, tasks and responsibility. The only difference lies in the
post of its leader (Gie, 1993, vol. 2: 119).
Furthermore, based on Article 2, a region
can be divided into three levels, i.e. the First Level Region including
Kotapraja The Great Jakarta, Second Level Region including Kotapraja, and the
Third Level Region. The First Level Region consists of Second Level Regions and
Kotapraja. Each Second Level Region consists of the Third Level Regions. Those
that can be formed as Kotapraja are the territorial units which are inhabited
by at least 50.000 people (Chapter 4, article 1).
For the New Order Regime, which had, since
its birth, been fully aware of the important meaning of national stability, the
traumatic experience of parliamentary democracy (UUDS 1950) and during the
guided democracy era in 1959 –1965 required the issuance of new strategies for
implementing government in the regions. Then, the Law No. 18/1965 was issued.
This law reflected the decentralization principles with the concept: “the
widest possible freedom of autonomy” which had become blurred in the
implementation level. The positions of governor, regent/mayor were embedded
with the territorial/regional (second and third level) leadership.
If we observe more profoundly, the
implementation of Law No. 18/1965 had been materially effective at least by the
general election 1971. However, after the general election 1971, Law No.
18/1965 was eliminated and Law No 5/1974 was issued. This law states that
regional government works under the regulation, which have lower degree than Undang-undang
(Law).
Based on the law on the structure of
autonomous regions, Law No. 18/1965 regulates that the whole Indonesian
territory is fully divided into regions with full authority to manage and take
care of their own households. These regions comprise three levels: Province
and/or Kotaraya as the First Level Region, District and/or City as the Second
Level Region, Sub-district and/or Kotapraja as the third Level Region.
The birth of Law No. 5/1974, which was
officially issued on 23 July 1974, is the momentum of reengineering on how the
government in the regions should be run so that national stability can be
maintained and the development program be implemented.
Actually Law No. 5/1974 not only rules out
the autonomous regions but also territorial government. Therefore, Law No.
5/1974 adopts three principles of authority in the regions, which actually
consists of four. The three principles are decentralization, deconcentration
and assisting duties (Medebewind). Another principle which can be included is vrijbestuur (the freedom given to the
territorial leaders to act on their own wisdom, in which The United States
calls it discretion).
In the divisions of the regions, article 2,
3 and 72 Law No. 5/1974 stipulates that Indonesian territory is divided into:
·
Autonomous
regions, consisting of The First Level and The Second Level Regions.
·
Administrative
regions, consisting of Provincial and Capital of the State, District and City,
Sub-district, and administrative region (if necessary).
Based on Law No. 5/1974, government affairs
which have been delivered to the regions in the implementation of
decentralization principle is basically the full authority and responsibility
of the regions. In this case, the full initiatives are fully given to the
regions, which both concern the policy-making, planning, implementation and
costing. All of these affairs are implemented by the local apparatus, i.e. the
local agencies.
Since not all government affairs can be
handed over fully to the regions based on the decentralization principles, the
implementation of all government affairs should be delivered to the region and
implemented by its government apparatus on the basis of deconcentration. All
the affairs assigned by the government to its officials in the region based on
the deconcentration principles are still under the responsibility of the
central government in terms of planning, implementation and costing. The
implementers of these affairs are the vertical institutions, coordinated by the
head of local government functioning as the central government apparatus, but
the policy for the implementation of the deconcentration affairs are entirely
determined by the central.
For twenty years of its implementation, Law
No. 5/1974 could not optimally maintain its ideal balance among the principles
of the three: decentralization, deconcentration and assistance. This is due to
the fact that there was a wide variety of interpretation concerning the
substance of the Chapter 18 of the 1945 Constitution. Prof. Soepomo as one of
the lawmakers of the Constitution who also formulated Law No. 22/1948 states
that Chapter 18 of the 1945 Constitution only provides the basis for
implementing autonomous government. However, the lawmakers of Law No. 5/1974
during The New Order Reign had different interpretation that Chapter 18 of the
1945 Constitution not only serves as the basis for regulating autonomous
government, but also regulating the central government in the regions.
Besides, if Tap No. XXI/MPRS/1966 and Tap
No. XXI/MPRS/1966 still serve to as the laws to provide the widest possible
autonomy for the region, Tap No. V/MPRS/1973 states that Tap No. XXI/MPRS/1966
was not in order because the content was already covered in Tap No. V/MPRS/1973
which serves as the basis for the issuance of Tap No.5/MPRS/1974.
Unfortunately, the spirit inherent within both laws (Tap MPRS 1966) was not
accommodated within Tap No.5/MPRS/1974. The delivery of the widest possible
autonomy for the region was completely ignored by Tap No.5/MPRS/1974. Even more
the emphasis on deconcentration was more prevalent than the practice of
government implementation in the region.
Policy Alteration from Law 5 (1974)
to Law 22 (1999): Bridge From Developmental
State To Democratic State
The implementation of government in the
region based on Law No. 5/1974 has many weaknesses which have prevented the
smooth implementation of the government in the region. Those weaknesses generally
derive from three aspects: the spirit, the implementation and the system
required in that law. What is meant by system is those related to local legal
aspect and regulations, institutional structures, local finance, facilities and
infrastructure for the implementation of local government.
1.
The
substance of Law No. 5/1974 reflected the emphasis of the central interest
(centralization politics) than promoting the effort of empowerment of the
potential and self-reliance of the local government and society (autonomous
politics)
2.
The
system of local government organization tends to become bigger without
considering the principles of organizational
development. Consequently, hierarchical structure with longer span of control was formed, which in
turn made the local government in implementing autonomy become more burdensome
and less efficient.
3.
The
articles in Law No. 5/1974 which was already 25 years old have in fact not been
operational because it they required laws on implementation in the form of UU
or Law, PP or Government Regulation, Kepres or Presidential Decree, etc. In
other words, the existence and function of Law No. 5/1974 so far have been no
more than just relatively a malfunctioned legal product. That’s why when the
idea of reforming the local government was proposed some parties chose to
optimize the implementation efforts rather than making total changes (LAN and
Local Autonomy Bureau, 1999/2000: 1-2).
These three problems have so far
contributed to the less effective and orderly implementation of local autonomy.
Therefore, it quite makes sense if the system and mechanism of implementing
government in the region require some changes more appropriate to the demands
for democratization and the delivery of wider and more realistic autonomy to
the region.
Based on the issue above, a new legal
product, i.e. Ketetapan MPR RI No. XV/MPR/1998 concerning the implementation of
local autonomy has been issued. The arrangement, the division and the
exploitation of national resources which are fair and local-central financial
balance within the context of the Unitary
State of Indonesia
·
The
implementation of local autonomy by delivering wide, realistic and responsible
authority to the region, which is proportionally realized by management,
division and the making use of national resources based on just and financially
balanced principles between central and local government (article 1).
·
The
implementation of local autonomy in the region is carried out based on democratic
principles and the heterogeneity of the regions (article 2).
·
The
implementation of local autonomy; management, division and the making use of
national resources based on just, financially balanced principles between
central and local government in the context of maintaining and strengthening Unitary State
of Indonesia
Based on the spirit above, the paradigm of
local government which will be developed according to Law No. 22/1999 refers to
the values of democratization, people empowerment and excellent public service. That is to say that the local government has freedom to make the
best decision within its authority in order to develop the whole potential in
promoting quality public service to its people.
By these three paradigms, it is expected
that local government has better readiness in facing any changes which will
happen in the future. Democratic value will allow bigger room for civil society
in determining their choices and express themselves rationally so the
domination of the nation power should have become less, including that of the
nation building.
In this case, government apparatus should
not carry out the government affairs by themselves, but play the directing
role, steering rather than rowing, or
the two roles combine more optimally doing
and directing. It means that if
one affair has already done by the society, the government is not necessary to
do the same, but exercise the empowering role with the spirit of providing the
best possible service to the society. It means that the decision to choose this
action is based on the bigger interest, i.e. the interest and quality service
to the society.
Principally, Law No. 22/1999 has the soul,
spirit and substances, which are quite different from Law No. 5/1974. Some of
the main differences are among other things as follows (LAN and Local Autonomy
Bureau, 1999/2000: 16-17):
1.
Based
on Decentralization Principles in the form of autonomy which (is):
·
Wide
and holistic. It means that the local authority in exercising certain
authorities is not limited only on certain material or substance (wide) as long
as it is capable of doing and it is not beyond the competence of central and
provincial government.
·
Realistic,
which reflects the existence of local freedom to exercise its authority to
decide what is required based on the existing reality that develops in the
given region.
·
Accountable/responsible.
This implies that responsibility should be materialized as consequence of the
right and authority delivered to them in the forms of tasks and duties which
should be carried out by region in achieving its goals of local autonomy, i.e.
improving the quality of public service and social welfare, developing
democratic lives, promoting justice and equal distribution and maintaining
harmonious relationship between central and locals, and that of local with
other locals.
2.
Concerns
with and encourages local democratic aspects; justice and equal distribution
especially in terms of financial balance between central and locals; local
potential and diversity, participation empowerment, social creativity and
initiative, local independence, the improvement of the role and function of
local councils.
3.
The
effort of promoting good governance and the development of
civil society.
Of the above paradigms, Law No. 22/1999
also contains and or regulates the principles of the Authority Relationship
between Central Government – Province – District/City. The relationship, at
least, can be reflected in the four following aspects:
1.
There
is no hierarchical relationship between Province and district/city, but
coordination relationship, cooperation and supervision, counseling and control.
The impact is that institutions and apparatus in the region should be
strengthened including the aspect of accountability relationship where the head
of the region is responsible to the local council, but is only required to
submit reports to central government.
2.
There
is no monopoly principle in administrative authority (the principle is based on
sharing among the three central, province and district/city). The importance of
this principle is to ensure the strong and harmonious relationship among the
three element of government: central, province and district/city.
3.
Authority
is not always identical with the formation of agencies. This should be strongly
emphasized in order to prevent precedence of excessive organization formation
which can simply result in establishing constraints for exercising the
authority. Therefore, the authority exercised by the region can also be
exercised by other non-agency bodies such as technical institutions and local
secretariat elements. When an agency is going to be formed, the following
consideration should be kept in mind that that agency cannot simply exercise
one particular authority but it can be imposed with some authorities of the
same/similar kinds.
4.
The
execution of authority should not always done by government but it be carried
out by partnership, privatization, etc.
References:
Dwidjowijoto, Riant Nugroho, 2000, Otonomi
Daerah, Desentralisasi Tanpa Revolusi: Kajian dan Kritik atas Kebijakan
Desentralisasi di Indonesia (Regional Autonomy, Decentralization Without Revolution:
Study and Critique on Decentralization Policy in Indonesia ),
Jakarta
Gie, The Liang, 1993, Pertumbuhan
Pemerintahan Daerah di Negara Republik Indonesia
(The development of local governments in the Republic of Indonesia Liberty
LAN and Local Autonomy Bureau, 1999/2000, Persiapan
Daerah Dalam Menghadapi Pelaksanaan UU No. 22/1999 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah
dan UU No. 25/1999 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan antara Pemerintah Pusat dan
Daerah (The Policy Preparations of Local Governments in Facing the
Implementation of Law No. 22/1999 and Law No. 25/1999), Bandung. Available
online at http://www.geocities.com/triwidodowu/lap_birootda.doc
LAN (National Institute of Public
Administration), 2003, SANKRI Dalam Perspektif Perkembangan Sejarah: Dari
Pra Kemerdekaan Hingga 1965 (The Public Administration System of RI,
Historical Perspective: From Pre-Independence to 1965), Book II, Jakarta
Niessen, Nicole, 1999, Municipal
Government in Indonesia
UN ESCAP (United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific), no year, Local Government in
Asia and the Pacific: A Comparative Study, Country Paper: Indonesia
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar