New Theory on Indonesian Autonomy
The practice of autonomous and regional governance in Indonesia can even contribute to accumulated autonomy theory.
.
The years 2018 and 2019 are political years for the Indonesian nation, with the regional elections and presidential election, even the legislative council elections, to be faced. Political years have a formidable impact on the economy. The practice of autonomous and regional governance in Indonesia can even contribute to accumulated autonomy theory. The spectrum of the autonomy theory also expands in line with the breadth of its practice.
In actual fact, the growth in theory is due to anomolous practices of autonomy in Indonesia, in contrast to older theories that are fully understood among academia and practitioners.
Old theories
First, the direct election of regional heads are unknown to the practice of regional administration in continental Europe, with the faces of regional representatives being also associated with regional heads (dual function). Anywhere else in the world outside Indonesia, in those countries that recognize the representative system of government as also maintained by regional heads, regional heads are not selected through direct elections. (Humes IV: 1991).
The reason is because government representatives and the government are a single construction that have the same interests. If elections were entrusted entirely to the local public\'s aspirations, this would mean admitting to differing interests. Therefore, no country that applies the representative system of government employs an electoral system under which regional heads are directly elected by the local people. The rational is that the people has entrusted the national mandate to the heads of state that have been elected on a national scale, particularly through the direct presidential election. The system is to allow the government to determine its local representatives, who are concurrently the regional heads.
If voting is carried out at the local level, whether directly or indirectly, this is simply to ensure the degree of public acceptance, not actually to elect leaders. The determinant remains the government, which holds the public mandate at the national level. This is what happens in international practice.
Second, according to international practice, in their role as government representatives, governors are entrusted with general administrative matters, not sectoral issues from state ministries/institutions. If a vacancy exists among representatives at the local level, this can be resolved using the freies-ermessen principle. However, it is not explicitly stipulated in legislation to accept government affairs at the national level. Therefore, the deconcentration of sectoral affairs is carried out by the vertical agencies of the respective sectors, not by governors as representatives of government.
Third, in affairs of state civil apparatus management, there is a clear distinction between strategic and technical matters, between those in the central government and those falling within the domain of the local government. State civil apparatus management in Indonesia is colored by strategic and technical matters that are taken together due to a misunderstanding of "concurrent" affairs.
Fourth, local government funding has to be determined based on the clear functions of government units that consistently refer to the principles of good governance. As a result of applying the principles of centralization, deconcentration and co-administration, the State Budget is the source of financing, whereas it is the Regional Budget according to the principle of decentralization. Allocations from the central government to the regions are channeled through grants, loans and other mechanisms that are not contrary to above-mentioned principles of governance.
Fifth, the central government’s intervention is minimal, as long as the internal management of local governments can be developed through decentralization, clearly founded on a consistent division of tasks. The central government plays the role of facilitator, providing technical guidance and supervision on the implementation of autonomy. The capacity of local governments is the key in this case.
These five theories run under normal conditions at the international level. In the government of developed countries at the international level, despite the shaky political situation, these theories still run within their empirical sphere. This is different from what happens in Indonesia, which has experienced political shock and then normalized again, but these theories tend to move toward anomalies. The five anomalies mentioned above seem to be maintained, thereby giving birth to a new theory on autonomy and local governments of the Indonesian practice.
Implication of theories and policies
The euphoria in welcoming the direct regional elections in Indonesia, which are unrelated to the regional system of government, make the old theories seem like conventional practice, even though they can be called the old paradigm. The implications of this policy are that the Indonesian state must be prepared to overcome the peculiarities that will arise in the future.
The Indonesian state must also answer the question as to its referring to the representative system of government in the Indonesian practice. The Indonesian state prefers the frenetic practice of autonomy and local government, which is more pleasing, than one that enables the strengthening of state institutions stronger with better quality. Possibly peculiarities which take place are not felt as well.
Internally each autonomous region will face the problem of regional administrative affairs that is not being managed by experts. Vertical institutions are reluctant to open offices in the regions, and even certain matters must be settled by the central government and demand national uniformity across all areas in the country.
The, we must overcome the patchwork of state civil apparatus affairs that are not equipped with a precise direction toward the future. Unfortunately, financial accountability, which is continuously being eroded, will emerge as an issue of local governance. The work of corruption eradication will also become more challenging if regional governments in Indonesia do not hold firm to the principle of “money follows function”.
And finally, autonomy will only be jargon, because central government intervention could occur at any time and change at any time. Without a clear system, this depends heavily on leadership, politics, regime shifts and other aspects. This must be addressed by policies that are more system-oriented rather than toward individuals. Hopefully, we can rise above it.
Irfan Ridwan Maksum
Professor of Public Administration at the University of Indonesia and Chairman of Cluster Studies and Regional Autonomy Development
