|
BOSTON:
The current widespread demand for greater
decentralization emerged primarily from the dismal
performance of the highly centralized development
policy under the New Order regime. The regime not only
failed to improve the social and economic conditions
of the nation but also alienated the people and local
and regional authorities from the decision- making
process of vital policies.
Defined broadly as a transfer of authority from a
higher to lower level of government for the management
of public functions, decentralization is considered an
effective strategy to resolve our national problems in
improving planning and implementing national
development programs at the local level. This argument
is based at least on two reasons.
The
first and more important is that decentralization will
enhance the people's participation in the development
process. Through the people's participation, the
practice of democratic principles at the grassroots
level can be fostered and national unity can be
promoted.
Greater
participation of the people and local governments will
also reduce potential sources of conflict. Certainly,
the people who are directly affected by a decision
will not always make the right choice. If they make a
mistake, they will suffer the consequences and this
will give them the awareness to make wiser choices in
the future. However, if someone else made that
decision for them, they would have every reason to
direct their anger at the responsible institution. The
separatist movements in Aceh and Irian Jaya can be
viewed as expressions of anger at the central
government in Jakarta.
The
other reason is based on the principle of
optimal-level decisions. Jan Tinbergen (1981), a Noble
prize winner in economics for having developed and
applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic
policies, identified two properties of an optimal
level decision. First, it is the lowest possible level
that a maximum of participation and information is
used. Second, it is high enough to entail negligible
effects on the welfare of individuals living outside
the area for which the central planners are
responsible.
This is
very important since central planners often do not
care about the consequences of the decisions they make
on local and regional development policies. A classic
illustration is the World War I Gallipoli campaign of
1915 to 1916. As portrayed in the film Gallipoli, a
general in a bunker deep behind the front lines used
his telephone to order wave after wave of young men to
storm a heavily defended trench, ignoring the local
commander's advice that the effort is futile. As a
result of the general's order, all the men died.
Experience
shows, however, that many decentralization programs,
especially in developing countries, do not live up to
initial expectations. In several African, Asian and
Latin American countries, decentralization programs
paradoxically boosted centralization.
By
examining the effects of local government reforms in
six countries, including Malaysia, Thailand and
Indonesia, Nooi (1987) concluded that decentralization
programs not only failed to enhance local autonomy,
they enhanced the centralization of power. Experience
from countries such as Tanzania and Kenya also
suggests that the people's participation as a means of
decentralization did not materialize; instead the
control over development policies remained highly
centralized.
The
story from Latin American countries reveals the same
results. Mawhood (1993) noted that economic failings
in the region were a result of centralized development
policies neatly veiled beneath the avowed
decentralization policy statements of governments.
The
failure of decentralization in many countries to
enhance the people's participation has eroded the
euphoria about its virtue as an effective strategy to
improve national development programs. There were
suggestions of returning to centralization, especially
with the economic success stories of the "Asian
Tigers". The Tigers -- Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Korea and Taiwan -- have proven that economic
power and a higher standard of living can be attained
not through the decentralization of power but also the
concentration of power in the hands of the central
government.
Yet, the
demand for decentralization is never diminished. The
criticism expressed at the failure of decentralization
was primarily a result of the lack of increased
participation by the people. Another explanation is
that power was decentralized to the wrong people,
either central government appointees or the local
elite. It is also believed proposed reforms have not
been implemented as intended and there has not been a
significant decentralization of power and authority.
The
lessons for us are clear. Decentralization should not
be seen as a general solution or a quick fix for all
of our current national problems. Significant
improvements in development and the participation of
the people cannot be achieved merely by decentralizing
our development programs. It is a necessary step but
not sufficient by itself.
It is
also imperative to underline that the implementation
of decentralization requires strong political and
administrative commitments from national leaders. The
experience of the New Order regime revealed that
national leaders misused decentralization programs for
their own economic and political interests. The
programs were designed in such a way that boosted the
authority of the central government.
In
addition, decentralization requires a fundamental
change in the cultural behavior of local and central
government officials. Our local and regional
authorities are used to functioning as agents of the
central government in communicating its instructions.
The virtue of decentralization is not only the
transfer of power from higher to lower- level
authorities, but also from the government to the
people. Unless people are the center of any
decentralization program, there will always be a swing
back to centralization.
Last but
not least, decentralization has to be supported by
adequate financial resources, skilled personnel and
physical infrastructure at the local level. Also,
decentralization programs have to be followed by rural
financial reform. Almost 70 percent of our population
still live in rural areas. Without giving them access
to financial resources, any new decentralization
programs will only join the list of past failures.
Your
comment
Back to
top
|
The Prospect
is published by The Indonesian Institute. Our messages are
study, democracy and unity.
