Jokowi Cabinet has Work Cut Out in Papua
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo\'s government starts the second term with a less favorable domestic political situation.
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo\'s government starts the second term with a less favorable domestic political situation, namely a decline in public satisfaction with the government, the rise of student demonstrations related to the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law and conflicts in Papua.
The Kompas Research and Development Survey published on Nov. 17, 2019, found a decline in public satisfaction with the government in the past year. In April 2018 the level of public satisfaction was 72.2 percent; it dropped to 65.3 percent by October 2018. By March 2019, it had fallen further to 59.6 percent and by October 2019 to 58.8 percent. In the midst of this situation, can the government restore public trust in and satisfaction with the administration?
This paper specifically reviews the conditions in Papua and presents several political and institutional solutions to problems in Papua. At least in terms of institutional politics, two things should be prioritized by the government with regard to Papua.
The first is to thoroughly evaluate the implementation of the 20-year special autonomy of Papua, especially related to the use, distribution and impact of special autonomy funds on Papuan human development. Despite the large special autonomy funds, improvements have not been felt in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI) of Papua, which is still low, and the level of poverty and inequality is still high. In the next 20 years, a clear blueprint for Papuan policy related to basic services, such as public access to education, quality health care, welfare improvement, and human rights, should also be designed.
In a number of areas, even activities in government offices are "paralyzed" because there are no good service activities and the DPRD does not carry out its control function, nor meet the aspirations of citizens.
The priority is to evaluate local governance in serving the community. In the last 20 years, the performance of local governments and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) has not been good. Political corruption still haunts a number of areas in Papua. Likewise, the matter of leadership of regional heads in direct elections has not yet been fully effective in turning the government wheels. In a number of areas, even activities in government offices are "paralyzed" because there are no good service activities and the DPRD does not carry out its control function, nor meet the aspirations of citizens.
In the future, it is necessary to devise political and institutional solutions to improve local governance and increase the involvement of the Papuan people in policymaking.
Three initiatives
There are three things to discuss related to the creation of clean and people-serving local governance. Such a discourse is important for reviewing the implementation of direct regional elections in Papua and West Papua and assessing the existence of local parties and of new bodies in charge of Papua and West
Papua. The first initiative is to improve local governance in Papua by reviewing the implementation of the regional elections directly by the community. Weak governance in Papua and West Papua is evident from the Governance Index conducted by Kemitraan (2008 and 2012). The index ranges from 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good).
Kemitraan’s findings show that the Papua and West Papua indices are below the national average, both in 2008 and 2012. While the national governance index as increased, the index for Papua has declined, falling from 5.01 in 2008 to 4.88 in 2012. The trend in West Papua was better, as the index rose from 4.37 in 2008 to 4.48 in 2012. The national average was 5.1 in 2008 and 5.7 in 2012. A closer look at the four areas assessed by Kemitraan attribute the overall decline in Papua to the aspect of governance, which had declined from 4.52 (2008) to 4.35 (2012), bureaucracy, which dropped from 4.57 to 4.25, and the economic community, down from 6.49 to 5.36. The reading for civil society aspects, meanwhile, rose from 5.33 to 6.24. In West Papua, a drop was seen only in the bureaucracy, namely from 4.02 to 3.55.
Assessments of elections always reveal issues in Papua and West Papua. The 2019 Election Vulnerability Index (IKP) issued by the General Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) pointed to above-average election vulnerability in the provinces of Papua and West Papua. Red report cards on potential vulnerabilities in Papua were also seen in the 2018 elections, with high potential vulnerability. A study conducted by Perludem (2017) also points to problems with elections in Papua. Perludem\'s findings indicate inflated voter numbers in areas implementing the so-called noken system.
In these areas, the number of voters on the permanent voter list (DPT) was greater than the total population. For example, the number of voters on the DPT in Tolikara regency was 216,261 while the total population of the regency, according to Statistics Indonesia (BPS), was only 136,576 inhabitants. In implementing the noken system, there was also no basic standardization agreed by the election organizers (Pasaribu, 2017). According to Pasaribu, several methods were used in the noken system, namely the stone-burning party, election by the head of the tribe, voters casting ballots and then putting them into noken bags, voters putting ballots into noken bags, or voters lining up in front of noken bags and the ballots being counted by the polling station working committees (KPPS).
Difference in the implementation of the noken system could have been exploited by political powerbrokers to mobilize customary elders, tribal leaders or collude with electoral organizers. And, the regional heads that were election with a mechanism that did not have a standard were feared not to have a high public commitment because of the election process that was not transparent, and the risk of vote-buying was high. In terms of performance, regional heads elected through the noken system had no obligation to work optimally, because the votes obtained came from political mobilization through the deployment of tribal chiefs and local political figures. The noken system also made the competition system weak, because there was no meaningful contest among candidates.
Evaluating regional election methods in Papua and West Papua may help make governance more clean and effective. Elections may be divided based on several clusters, namely regions that can carry out direct elections, regions whose regional heads are elected by the DPRD and regions whose heads are directly determined by the central government, taking into account input from the DPRD. For example, coastal areas might still be able to maintain a direct electoral system, while mountainous areas -- most of which use the noken system -- will have regional heads elected by the DPRD or appointed by the central government.
Through local parties, political factions in Papua may be institutionalized, so that dialogue between the Indonesian government and Papuan separatist leaders can be carried out properly.
The second initiative is to devise a formula to improve political representation and public closeness with parties. One way that can be done is to allow the establishment of local political parties, such as in Aceh, through the revision of the Special Autonomy Law, or the revision of the Political Party Law. The presence of local parties can also curb calls for a referendum by political actors in Papua. Through local parties, political factions in Papua may be institutionalized, so that dialogue between the Indonesian government and Papuan separatist leaders can be carried out properly.
The presence of local parties can also make Papuans feel closer to political parties. It is hoped that, with the presence of local parties, Papuans will be more interested in becoming involved in the policymaking process. That is because the basis for the formation of parties that consider sociological aspects, such as the similarity of ideas, political networks, or the agenda, is the same.
The third initiative is the need for the formation of a new body to control the implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. The agency must be powerful and answer directly to the President, and it must carry out coordination with the governors of Papua and West Papua. In terms of personnel, the agency must be supported by qualified human resources that are experienced in interacting with Papuan political issues and actors. Budget support needs to be strengthened and specifically allocated and not taken from the allocation of certain ministries.
The new agency can also become a hub to coordinate all divisions in the ministries/agencies that take care of Papua or, if necessary, all of these divisions can be merged into the new body to be created. The many divisions that handle Papua could be complicating coordination and the resolution of the Papua problem. The existence of the new body needs to be designed and handled seriously by the government, bearing in mind the problem of Papua needs to get special attention from the government.
Previously, we had a body to handle Papua, such as the Papua and West Papua Accelerated Development Units (UP4B), but the agency seemed to be powerless because of weak political and budget support from the government.
The three institutional political initiatives could be alternatives to be discussed in the framework of building peace in Papua.
Arya Fernandes, Political Researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Member of Papua Working Group