Introduction
Decentralization in Indonesia has been written in the beginning of independence. Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution provided for the creation, maintenance and
development of local governments in Indonesia and for the enactment of a local government act. Then, law concerning local government in Indonesia was Act Number 5
of 1974, which was entitled Governance at Regional Level hereinafter referred to as the Local Government Act of 1974. This title is intended to indicate that the territorial division
and sub divisions of Indonesia were not only administered locally, but also nationally as well as jointly. The entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia was divided and sub
divided with regards to the principle of deliberation and consensus in administration and the traditional rights of the regions that have a special character according to the
Constitution. This last provision is concerned with the great diversity of people constituting the Indonesian nation. The different ethnic cultural groups not only have their own
customs and dresses, but even languages, cultures and attitudes that vary from one part of the country to another. This diversity enriches Indonesias unity.
19
Following the reformation momentum, the regional autonomy law No 22 Year 1999 and law of Finance No. 25 in 1999, Indonesia has seriously implementing the regional
authomoy law and the Finances Policy. However, some problems have occured that make the goals of regional authonomy to increase public interest fulfilled and public
services were not provided as a expectation of decentralization. Then the revision of regional autonomy law has born Law No 32 year of 2004 which is implemented as a
better version of the previous law. Nonetheles, the decentralization still emerge some problems expecially on the public services delivery. Further, direct local election that
enacted in 2005 as expected to be local participation to increase the democracy values as well to provide a better public services seems to ruin the goals of decentralization.
Beside consumpt local and national budget to conduct election, direct local election has openly risen new problems such as local conflict that tend to be a massive demonstration,
riots and violences among candidates’s supportes, cultural and social unrest, politization of bureucracy, the use of public budget for supporting the election, the attention of elected
head of region for public concerns were left out and the concern of reelected and secure the position is mostly the elites focuses instead of guaranttee the public services. This
paper is written to explore on decentralization and local election, how they are interrelated to increase public services and how local election has partly ruined the decentralization.
How is the decentralization and local election has a negative impact on public services delivery. To answer the question, some studies present on decentralization concept, local
election concept, the fact of Indonesia decentralization and the relation of decentralization and local election in providing public services institutionalism of decentralization, the
influences of local election to the decentralization, and Local election’s perfomance on Public Services.
A. Institutionalism of Decentralization
Generally, decentralization has been perceived as a transfer of authority from central government to local government with the aims to implement closer the public
19
Local Government in Asia and the Pacific: A Comparative Study http:www.unescap.orghusetlgstudycountryindonesiaindonesia.html
services delivery. Decentralization basically is a reduce of authority of central government to the provincial and local government. Expecting to be closer to their constitutient then
local election was also held in Indonesia since 2005. The Regional Autonomy Laws No 25 year of 1999 and the extended revision Laws No 32 Year of 2004 were intended to
have a better local government performance in building their own regions. In other words, these laws were meant to solve regional and local problems which will free central
government from spending much time and energy dealing with local problems; such as number of schools needed, hospital, road, and any public utilities. It is expected that the
central government will focus thinking on strategy and supervisory, to deal with globalization issues and to provide and promote the best need of the country. to maintain
the national integration and most important is to guide, to supervise, to guard and to control the implementation of decentralization.
Related to this authority transfer, a working paper of UNDP and Germany also proposed a definition of decentralization as stated below:
“....decentralization or decentralization governance , refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between
institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the
system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of subnational levels...... Decentralization could also be expected to contribute to key elements of
good governance, such
as increasing people’s opportunitinies for participation in economic, social and political decisions, assisting in developing peoples capacities;
and enhancing government responsiveness, transparancy and accountabulity
20
Indonesia actually has law of decentralization year of 1974, somehow under President of Soeharto rule, the strong centralization of any lives of government was
applied. Then, riot and demand for reformation happened in 1998, the heaviest strikes ever occured in Indonesia that parliament stood to step down President Soeharto. The
flows of reformation then insist in four areas of changes, namely : law enforcement, civil- military relation; regional autonomy and a support for economic development. When
Presiden Habibie replaced President Soeharto, there have been tremendous changes have been made to answer people demand. One of the system changed is the regulation
of regional autonomy. Somehow, due to the lack of supervisory from the central government, the decentralization has been applied in different perspectives, not only
among local governments, power relation between local government and provincial level but also central government and local government. For example, the head of
KabupatenKota make government organizations more than the actual need.
There is proposition that electoral incentives can play a central role in the success of decentralized delivery of local public goods. The presence of formal local institutions,
particularly electoral rules that enable voters to reward and punish locally-elected officials, is key for reaping the benefits that decentralization can provide. When constitutional rules
20
Decentralization: A Sampling of Definition, Working paper in connection with the joint UNDP-Government of Germany Evaluation of the UNDP role in decentralization and local governance. October 1999 page 5
do not support electoral accountability, introducing other mechanisms of political rewards and citizen control becomes all the more important.
However, making local government organizations without a necessity assesment only consume local revenue and budget including to pay all the officials expenses. As the
impacts, so many program for public services were abandoned due to the insufficient budget, for example training for physician and nurses, training for teachers, local
economic empowernment, and other program for public benefits.
21
Therefore, the law of regional autonomy in 1999 was revised and the law of decentralization 2004 become
more details in what ares that the local government response for and what is the central government obligation. As stated in UNDP-Germany research recommendation below,
decentralization essentially for the much benefit for the local public services.
“.... while decentralization or decentralization governance should not be seen as an end in itself, it can be a means for creating more open, responsive and effective
local government and for enhancing representational system of community —level
decision making. By allowing local communities and regional entities to manage their own affairs and though facilitating closer contact between central and local
authori ties, effective system of local governance enable responses to people’s
needs and priorities to be heard, thereby ensuring that government interventions to meet variety of social needs. The implementation of strategies is therefore
increasing to require decentralized, local participatory processes to identify and address priority objectives for poverty reduction, employment creation, gender
equity and environmental regeneration
22
This statement clarifies that decentralization is not enough by only transferring authorities to the local government. It needs further participation of local society to make
decision. The system should assure that the effective local government is to enable responses of people need. Therefore as one package of decentralization is to count local
society participation in the decision making process. It is no longer applicable for any
public decision inclusively only determined by elites without people’s concern. Role of Central Government vs Local Government
Eventhough the practice of local governance in Indonesia has made progress since the reform period, as a enactment of Law No. 22 of 1999 onRegional Government.
The relationship between central and local governments become more decentralized, except six powers that remain in the central government, most of the authority delegated
to the regions in the field of governance. In general, the law No. 22 Year 1999 on Regional Government has a lot to bring progress to the region and also for the improvement of
peoples welfare.
21
As a consultant of Grand Design of Regional Automony, funded by the World Bank cooperate with ministry of Home Affairs, I have interviewed local bureucracy in three provinces, NTT, West Java and Central
Kalimantan that were concern on Public services support such as health practitioners, teachers and businessmen, most of them argued that decentralization has been implemented without sufficient
supervision.
22
ibid,
The balance of power between central and local government is matter to improve the lives of local society and communities. If there is balance of power between central
and local government lies, then there lies the responsibilities and accountabilities for the delivery of improvement. A need for central government to set and monitor national
strategic goals, while local government must have its own autonomy to shape the development of their communities. However, as it is also statad in the research done by
the World Bank, that the actual balance between central and regional authority is not justabout a conscious division of labour but also about concrete struggles overpolitical
and economic resources as illustrated in Indonesia, where decentralizationhas resulted in confusion about the distribution of power andauthority between different levels of
government. Rather than a technicalgovernance issue, the confusion stems from a tug of war between competinginterests which has a concrete, material basis.
In the Central government, powerful coalitionsretain a vested interest in maintaining some controlover local resources and authority over taxes, royalties and
investmentpolicy, while attempting to balance this against aspirations for greaterlocal autonomy. On the other hand, local elites especially at the subprovinciallevel are intent
on taking direct economic control, typicallyciting the injustice of past practices that allowed
Jakarta to exploitIndonesia’s vast riches. In the meantime, provincial authorities are stuckin the middle, struggling to retain some power and not to fall into theoblivion of
political and administrative redundancy. The result: ratherthan breaking up centralized state intervention and promotinginvestment,decentralization has so far opened the door
to a host of uncertainties whichfrighten investors.
23
Further, the research also stated for cautions that decentralization ‘may not always
be efficient, especially forstandardized, routine, network- based services’. It can also
‘result in the lossof economies of scale and control over scarce financial resources by thecentral government’. In fact a central theme has been a wariness that
‘weakadministrative or technical capacity at local levels may result in servicesbeing delivered less efficientl
y and effectively in some areas of the country’.
24
As seen in the Chart 1, central government only has six powers over the local government, they are Foreign Relations; Defense; Security; Judicial; Monetary andFiscal;
Religion. On the other hand, local government has been transferred 31 decentralization authorities in addition to 8 optional authorities. Having that lots of authorities supposedly
make the local governments worked more with establishing downward accountability to citizen levels.
Further the authorities make the local government perform the public goods levels maximized under decentralization. Centralization, on the other hand, produces
the surplus maximizing public goods levels only if the districts are identical. Thus, with identical districts, decentralization dominates when spillovers are small and dentralization
23 24
Decentralization and Democracy in Indonesia: A Critique of Neo-Institutionalist Perspectives Vedi R. Hadiz the Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,
National University of Singapore.
dominates when spillovers are large. With non-identical districts, decentralization is still better when spillovers are small.
25
One of the most important matters in decentralization is the accountability from local elected governments to the central government level. Transfer of expenditures and
political responsibility to the local authorities may be supported to alleviate the burdens on the central government. It may also be a means of more revenue generation by
mobilising more local resources. This means that decentralisation can be a “win‐win situation” for both central and local governments. Decentralisation processes may simply
provide positive development and democratisation options which a centralised governmental system does not offer.
Chart 1. Indonesia Central and Loval Government Authorities
Central Government
6 Authorities Provincial Government, Local GovernmentMunicipality: 31
Decentralization Authorities + 8 Optional Authorities
6powers in the Central Government:
Foreign Relations;
Defense; Security;
Judicial; Monetary
andFiscal; Religion
31 Compulsary Action: Social environment; Trade;Marine and Fisheries; Forestry;
Education; Health; SMEs; Workers Transmigration;Farms and Estates Mining; Transportation; Investment; Culture and
Tourism; Population; Empowerment of Women; Family Planning and Family Welfare; Industry;PU;Management of space; Youth
and Sports; Information and Communication; Housing; Archives; Defense; The Unity of Nation and Politicsl; Statistics;PUM; PMD;
Personnel; Library ProposedAction:
Marine and Fisheries; Agriculture; Forestry Energy and Mineral Resources;Tourism;Industry;Trade, and Transmigration
Source: compiled of law No 32 2004 on Local Goverment
26
B. The Influence of Local Election to Decentralization
