The political context of decentralization has been linked to democratization with an emphasis on giving citizens more voice in shaping public resource allocation (Smoke, Gomez, and Peterson, 2006). Decentralization and democracy are engaged in an intricate dance. Over the past two decades, nascent democracies in the developing world have designed and worked with new decentralization programs in order to increase participatory governance (Gomez, 2006). In attempting to assess how effective these new initiatives have been in achieving these objectives, scholars have begun to unravel and explain the political logic of decentralization (Samuel and Montero, 2003; Willis et. al., 1999).

Samoff (1990) defines political decentralization as the transfer of decision-making authority to previously “under-represented or marginal groups” and perceives it as an effort to determine who rules and who has access to decision-making. Furniss (1974) identifies two forms of legal decentralization. The first is to establish new elected authorities “without the diminution of central functions or prerogatives”, while the other is to transfer power from the center to other new entities.

Moreover, Rondinelli (1990) suggests a representative government, citizen participation, and democratization as factors correlated with political decentralization. Jun and Wright (1996) add self-governing, self-determination, local independence, home rule, and political autonomy to situations expressing decentralization. Political decentralization is created when major functions and activities are distributed between the central and local governments. Local units are autonomous and have authority to make independent decisions without any intervention from the central government. Therefore, political decentralization aims to empower local units through transferring power or authority over decision-making.

For many scholars, especially Manor (1999), the political dimension of decentralization is a necessary condition to establish decentralization in general. The objectives of decentralization, as stated by Smith (1985), are to ensure support for development policies by making them better known at the local level and to produce greater participation in development planning and management. Decentralization is to transfer power to local governments by eliminating administration concentration at the center. It has various structures enabling the combination of different functions. Under decentralization, authority is delegated and power is devolved to local governments. Autonomy given to territorial units and democracy of decision-making are important components of political decentralization.

Along with this, Smith (1985) also mentions that politically, decentralization could strengthen accountability, political skills, and national integration by bringing government closer to people. Moreover, it provides training ground for citizen participation and political leadership, both local and national. In brief, scholars such as Jones (1985), Cheema and Rondinelli (1983) and Crook and Manor (1998) argue that decentralization and the creation of local governments reflect a commitment to pluralism, as well as promoting democracy.

Reference

Cheema, G. Shamir and Dennis A. Rondinelli. 1983. Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementation in Developing Countries. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publication.

Crook, Richard C. and James Manor. 1998. Democracy and Decentralization in South Asia and West Africa: Participation, Accountability, and Performance. Cambridge University Press.

Furniss, Norman, 1974. “The Practical Significance of Decentralization.” Journal of Politics 36 (4): 958-982.

Gomez, Eduardo. J. 2006. “Decentralization’s Horizontal, Vertical, and Policy-Fluctuation Mechanism: Method for Cross Regional Analysis.” In Paul Smoke, Eduardo J Gomez, and George E. Peterson eds. Decentralization in Asia and Latin America: Toward Comparative Interdisciplinary Perspective. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Jones, George. 1985. “Conclusion: Implication for Policy and Institutions. In Stewart Ranson. George Jones, and Kieron Walsh eds. Between Centre and Locality: The Politics of Public Policy. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Jun, Jong S. and Wright, Deil S. 1996. “Globalization and Decentralization: An Overview.” In Jun, Jong S. and Wright, Deil S. eds. 1996. Globalization and Decentralization: Institutional Context, Policy Issues, and Intergovernmental Relations in Japan and the Unites States. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Manor, J. 1999. The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Rondinelli. 1990. Decentralizing Urban Development Programs: A Framework for Analyzing Policy. Washington DC: Office of Housing and Urban Programs of the US Agency for International Development.

Samoff, J. 1990. “Decentralisation: The Politics of Interventionism.” Development and Change, 21, 513-530.

Samuels, D. and A. Montero. 2003. Decentralization and Democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Smith, B.C., 1985. Decentralization: The Territorial dimension of The State London: George Allen and Unwin.

Smoke, Paul, Eduardo J Gomez, and George E Peterson. 2006. “Understanding Decentralization: The Need for a Broader Approach.” In Paul Smoke, Eduardo J Gomez, and George E. Peterson eds. Decentralization in Asia and Latin America: Toward Comparative Interdisciplinary Perspective. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Willis, E., C. Da, C. Garman, and S. Haggard. 1999. The Politics of Decentralization in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 34 (1), pp. 7-56.

Review of article “How do participation and social capital affect community-based water projects? Evidence from Central Java Indonesia” written by Jonathan Isham and Satu Kahkonen.

 

Introduction

The observation that apparently similar communities exhibited very different track records in managing common resources or organizing for the common good is the important point in this work. This case study from Indonesia by Isham and Kahkonen empirically documented the importance of social capital for key areas of development. It examines community-based water services in the Central Java province of Indonesia and analyze why some services have succeeded there while others have failed.

By using the qualitative and quantitative data, the author come to the conclusion that the answer depends on the extent to which demand-responsive approach embedded in community-based water projects was actually implemented. In village with high levels of social capital-in particular villages with active groups and association-household participation in design is likely to be high and monitoring mechanism are more likely to be in place. In those villages, households are accustomed to working together, and social ties deter free-riding. This is especially important in the case of piped water system; whose design and monitoring are more dependent on collective action.

 

Summary

Isham and Kakonen began with the introduction of three types of community-based water projects. Two projects partially financed by the World Bank were implemented by the government of Indonesia, the Water Supply and Sanitation Projects for Low Income Communities (WSSLIC) and the Village Infrastructure Project (VIP). In addition NGOs in Central Java have implemented water projects that were partially funded by bilateral donor (NGO).

The impact of community-based water projects in Central java has varied widely, with projects funded by VIP and NGOs tending to achieve better health outcomes than projects funded by WSSLIC. The percentage of people who were “very satisfied” with service was also higher in villages with VIP or NGOs projects than in village with services funded by WSSLIC. Why have some water projects performed well and others performed poorly?

To answer this question, Isham and Kakonen reviewed how closely those water projects followed the community-based approach. Their works examine whether services provided were demand-responsive and whether rules governing the design, construction, and O&M of services provided incentives for user participation. In particular, it examines the effect of different rules promoting and coordinating user participation in service design, construction, and O&M on the performance and impact of these services.

The content and enforcement of the rules governing user participation and service delivery may be influenced by social capital, as measured by the prevalence of social networks and pattern of social interaction among users. Social capital may affect how successfully users act collectively to craft and implement rules and whether they comply with the rules. Collective action is not automatic, low levels of user participation in service delivery and users inability to form water committees to manage the service-and the subsequent poor performance of the water service-can be partially attributed to low levels of social capital.

After Isham and Kakonen found that design outcomes and household participation in service design and decision making varied widely across projects and villages, they moved to the important critical question that “Did informed participation and decision making by households lead to the different technology choices in Central Java? The results show that informed participation and decision making by households did affect the type of service selected and the level of service selected. Given the opportunity to choose their own type of service, household were likely to choose piped water system with private connection. In contrast, village leader and outsiders tended to select communal well.

These results reveal the importance of involving households in service design and decision making by the households led to different technology choices. This result implies that if households are not involved in service design and decision making, service provided are not likely to correspond to demand.

The community-based water projects in Central Java called for households’ participation in service construction and O&M. In practice, household participation in construction and O&M in Central Java has been modest. While some households have contributed to the construction and O&M of services in all projects, not all households using the services have contributed their required share. Isham and Kahkonen argued that household participation in construction and O&M is indeed associated with better performance of water services. They found that household contributions to O&M and monitoring of these contributions promote the performance of all types of water services.

Combined with the results presented earlier, results on effect of design, construction, operation and maintenance outcomes on impact suggest the following chain of causality from design, construction and O&M participation to improved household health. First, when given the opportunity for informed participation and decision making, household in Central Java express a preference for a piped service. Second, rules that promote and ensure user involvement in service construction and O&M lead to better performance of these services, including the availability of water every day. Finally it leads to improved health.

Last section discusses the effect of social capital on impact and performance of community-based water services. The ability of household to work together to design, construct, and operate and maintains water services may depend on social capital. This social capital can be measured by the existence of active civic associations and networks, pattern of social interaction, and norms of trust and reciprocity among households. Several indicators were used by Isham and Kahkonen to measure social capital. The indicators are: Social capital index, density of membership, meeting attendance, participation index, and community orientation, number of joint village activities, social interaction, and neighborhood trust.

The case study data lend support to the conclusion that by reducing the cost of collective action and promoting cooperation among users, social capital can improve the design, construction and O&M of community based water projects, improving the impact of piped water services. Social capital is matters for piped water system because designing and constructing piped system require more skills and more joint efforts-operating and maintaining piped system requires more collective efforts and cooperation.

It comes to conclusion that in villages with high levels of social capital-particularly in village with active village groups and association-household participation in design is likely to be high and monitoring mechanism are more likely to be in place. In these villages, households are used to working together, and social ties deter free riding. In village with piped water system, higher levels of social capital are associated with stronger household-level impact.

 

Comment and Question

Isham and Kahkonen works is very persuasive since they empirically shows the effect of social capital in community-based water projects by using convincing quantitative and qualitative data. They are focusing on the cohesion of community social ties as the crucial factors for social capital in the community-based water projects.

In regard of Bonding and Bridging social capital, it seems that in this case, regardless of its negative effect, bonding social capital is very important for the success of community-based water services in Central Java. Is it true in this case? In what condition should we consider the importance of bonding social capital or bridging social capital?

Considering that villages in Central Java is not so much different and they have same root of tradition and custom including the tradition for collective work, what factor may affect the different amount of social capital in each village? Isham and Kahkonen emphasize on the active of village groups and association and the fact that household are used to working together, Is it enough to explain the different amount of social capital among villages?

Book Review on Ethnicity, Capital Formation, and Conflict: Evidence from Africa written by Robert H. Bates and Irene Yackovlev.

 

This study is situated at macro perspective by focusing on the role of social capital in preventing or contributing to political conflict and change. It examines how the size of different ethnic groups in a country is related to that country’s ability to reach closure on policy decision in a peaceful manner. It presents evidence from Africa on the accumulation and destruction of social capital and investigates whether these processes can be influenced by policy setting.

In the beginning, the author presented the idea of two sided coin of ethnicity. On the one side, it provides the capital for urban migration and the acquisition of skills for industrial employment, ethnic groups promoted the forces of modernization; they constituted a form of social capital. On the other side, ethnic conflict leads to costly acts of violence, ethnic groups organize politically; occasionally they engage in acts of violence, destroying wealth and discouraging the formation of capital. Ethnic group can thus both generate benefits and inflict costs on societies.

Using data from Africa, Bates and Yackovlev explore both faces of ethnicity. After examine very deeply on the positive side of ethnicity, Bates and Yackovlev calculate the other face of ethnicity especially the relation between ethnicity and violence. They use a data set containing economic, social, and political information on forty-six African countries between 1970 and 1995.

As the conventional wisdom would suggest, ethnic tension are indeed pervasive in Africa, but the data show that, notwithstanding the conventional wisdom, acts of protest and violence are relatively rare. They find that the presumed link between ethnicity and violence is more complex and less threatening than generally assumed. Specifically, they find that as the size of the largest ethnic group in a country increases, the odds of protest increase initially, but the odds of violence decrease. When the size of largest ethnic group enters a “danger zone” of 40-50 percent of population, the opposite pattern occurs.

They conclude that the forces of ethnicity, and the social capital it represents, provide a mean of both rendering intergenerational contract binding, thereby promoting private investment, and mobilizing private resources for public purposes, thereby promoting the formation of public goods. While violence may have ethnic roots, even in the societies with strong ethnic tension, diverse ethnic groups can peaceably co-exist. Ethnic politics appear to be most volatile when an ethnic bloc is large enough to permanently exclude others form power.

The remedy would appear to be to avoid strengthening the incentives to exclude and to institutionalize incentives to promote interethnic cooperation (bridging social capital). They suggests that the most desirable institutions would be those that weaken the prospect of winner take all outcomes and assuages minorities fear of permanent political exclusion. The creation of ethnically homogenous regional political units can be dangerous if they replicate “danger zones” of ethnic dominance at local level.

Dimuat di Harian Umum Lampung Post 17 september 2007.

available at http://www.lampungpost.com/cetak/berita.php?id=2007091702431460

 

Wajah Pelayanan Publik Lampung

Pelayanan Publik di Indonesia selalu meninggalkan kesan yang kurang baik bagi masyarakat pengguna. Proses pelayanan yang super pelik, waktu penyelesaian yang lambat, ketidakramahan para pelayan masyarakat dan wajah para pelayan masyarakat yang jarang sekali tersenyum adalah gambaran yang akan terlintas bagi para pencari pelayanan publik menjadi menu sehari-hari dan menjadi bahan kritikan dan analisis oleh para pengamat dan akademisi. Semua masalah tersebut bisa dikatakan sebagai suatu ketidakramahan birokrasi. Dalam keadaan ini, definisi pelayanan publik menjadi tidak bermakna karena kata tidak adanya unsur pelayanan.

Di lampung sendiri keadaan ini sudah menjadi fakta yang sulit dibantah dan menjadi permasalahan yang sangat penting dalam pembenahan birokrasi dalam rangka good governance. Banyak pengamat dan akademisi mengkritisi permasalahan pelayanan publik bagi dari sudut politik, administrasi publik, dan lain sebagainya sebagai upaya pembenahan good governance. Penulis sendiri kali ini ingin memperlihatkan bagaimana keramahan birokrasi harus menjadi unsur yang tidak bisa dipisahkan dalam pembenahan birokrasi sehubungan dengan pemberian pelayanan publik dengan memberikan gambaran keramahan birokrasi di Kobe Jepang tempat penulis tinggal selama kurang lebih 2 tahun.

Refleksi Pelayanan Publik di Kobe Jepang

Bagi setiap penduduk dimanapun berada, pembuatan KTP adalah suatu kewajiban. Di Kobe sendiri, setiap mahasiswa asing diwajibkan mempunyai KTP dan pelayanan KTP di berikan oleh Pemerintah Kota Kobe dan didelegasikan ke tiap-tiap kecamatan yang ada. Pelayanan KTP ini diberikan secara gratis disertai prosedur yang tidak rumit. Kondisi yang membuat saya nyaman adalah keramahan para pelayan masyarakat tersebut, pelayanan disertai dengan senyum dan diselingi permintaan maaf jika terdapat sesuatu yang dianggapnya merupakan suatu pelayanan yang kurang. Tidak sampai lima belas menit proses pelayanan KTP selesai dan penulis diberikan surat untuk mengambil KTP tersebut pada hari dan waktu tertentu. Salah satu prinsip dari keramahan tersebut adalah prinsip “Kalau bisa dibuat mudah, kenapa harus dipersulit”, sampai dengan fotokopi dokumen dilakukan oleh para pelayan publik tersebut sementara para pengguna pelayanan cukup mengisi dokumen dan duduk sampai proses selesai.

Keadaan ini tidak hanya ada di Kantor Kecamatan yang merupakan tombak pelayanan publik, namun juga merupakan keseharian di tiap kantor pelayanan publik seperti Kantor Pos, Kantor Imigrasi, Rumah Sakit Pemerintah Daerah dan lain sebagainya. Seorang teman saya mempunyai pengalaman tertinggal uang di mesin ATM Kantor Pos dan di saat teman saya tersebut sudah akan merelakan uangnya, teman saya tersebut mencoba memberitahukan keadaanya ke Kantor Pos terdekat. Yang terjadi adalah pegawai di Kantor Pos tersebut menelepon ke Kantor Pos tempat tertinggalnya uang tersebut dan menemukan fakta bahwa uang yang tertinggal tersebut sudah diamankan oleh Kantor Pos setempat dan teman saya tersebut dipersilahkan mengambil uang tersebut dengan menunjukkan bukti pengambilan atau buku tabungan pos tersebut.

Dua pelayanan tersebut sedikit banyak menggambarkan bagaimana keramahan birokrasi menjadi bagian dari pelayanan publik yang baik dan unsur keramahan ini menjadi salah satu sumber kepuasan dari masyarakat yang menjadi objek pelayanan publik itu sendiri. Yang menjadi pertanyaan selanjutnya adalah bagaimana membentuk keramahan birokrasi ini?

Membangun Kultur Melayani

Salah satu sebab yang banyak dikedepankan sebagai sumber permasalahan penyakit birokrasi dalam rangka pelayanan publik adalah tidak cukupnya gaji para pelayan masyarakat tersebut dan pemberian kenaikan gaji adalah solusi mudah yang bisa diajukan. Meskipun penulis tidak menentang solusi semacam ini, namun solusi tersebut bukanlah yang utama untuk menyembuhkan penyakit birokrasi ini. Melihat struktur gaji dan penghasilan dari para pelayan masyarakat di Kobe, kita tidak bisa mengatakan bahwa mereka hidup berkecukupan. Dengan gaji yang mereka dapatkan, standar kehidupan meraka hanyalah cukup untuk kehidupan sehari-hari.

Pembentukan kultur melayani dari pelayan masyarakat tersebut adalah satu solusi yang dapat diketengahkan disini dalam rangka mencapai keramahan dalam rangka pelayanan publik. Solusi mungkin terlihat mudah namun sebenarnya tidaklah demikian karena pembentukan kultur melayani mencakup dan melibatkan elemen-elemen good governance seperti proses rekrutmen, pelatihan dan pembinaan, perubahan pola pikir dari pejabat pemerintah menjadi pelayan masyarakat, serta pengawasan yang baik.

Beberapa daerah di Indonesia sudah ada yang menerapkan keramahan birokrasi dalam rangka pelayanan publik dalam bentuk one stop service. Yang sangat disayangkan adalah keramahan birokrasi ini hanya terdapat dalam satu unit atau dinas tertentu yang bersifat spesifik namun tidak diterapkan bagi semua elemen pemerintah daerah sebagai tombak pelayanan publik. Namun demikian, perkembangan dalam bentuk pelayanan publik seperti ini merupakan suatu titik cerah untuk mewujudkan keramahan birokrasi dan diharapkan menjadi pemicu lahirnya keramahan birokrasi dalam pelayanan publik oleh pemerintah daerah di Indonesia.

Selain itu, dukungan dari institusi hukum seperti perda dan dan turunannya juga jangan sampai dilupakan dalam usaha membentuk dan membangun kultur melayani karena institusi hukum seperti ini akan menjadi sesuatu yang membatasi dan mengarahkan bagi para pelayan masyarakat dalam melaksanakan fungsinya. Jika institusi hukum ini belum terbentuk, maka tugas pertama adalah membentuknya dan menegakkannya. Dengan demikian dapat memberikan dukungan bagi pembentukan dan pembangunan kultur melayani.

Proses ini tidaklah mudah dan membutuhkan waktu dan fakta ini harus selalu kita tekankan bersama, bukankah solusi yang mudah dan cepat telah sering terbukti tidak bisa menyelesaikan akar masalah yang sebenarnya. Penulis berharap mimpi untuk mendapatkan keramahan birokrasi dalam pelayanan publik di Lampung bukanlah sekedar mimpi yang lain.

Disarikan dari Buku Model-Model Pengujian Konstitusional di Berbagai Negara oleh Prof. Dr. H. Jimly Asshiddiqie.

 

Peristilahan “judicial review” dapat dibedakan dengan istilah “constitutional review” atau pengujian konstitusional. Pembedaan dilakukan sekurang-kurangnya karena dua alasan. Pertama, “constitutional review” selain dilakukan oleh hakim dapat pula dilakukan oleh lembaga selain hakim atau pengadilan, tergantung kepada lembaga mana UUD memberikan kewenangan untuk melakukannya. Kedua, dalam konsep “judicial review” terkait pula pengertian yang lebih luas objeknya, misalnya mencakup soal legalitas peraturan di bawah UU terhadap UU, sedangkan “constitutional review” hanya menyangkut pengujian konstitusionalitasnya, yaitu terhadap UUD.

Di setiap negara, konsep “judicial review” itu sendiri berbeda-beda cakupan pengertiannya dan batasannya. Karenanya pengertian istilah-istilah itu juga tidak boleh diidentikkan antara di satu negara dengan negara yang lain. Misalnya, Inggris, Amerika Serikat, Kanada dan Australia, meskipun sama-sama menggunakan bahasa Inggris, tetapi sistem konstitusi dan sistem pengujian konstitusionalnya berbeda-beda satu sama lain. Meskipun sama-sama menggunakan istilah “judicial review”, tidak boleh dipahami seolah-olah mempunyai pengertian yang sama persis satu sama lain.

Konsep “constitutional review” itu dapat dilihat sebagai hasil perkembangan gagasan modern tentang sistem pemerintahan demokratis yang didasarkan atas ide-ide negara hukum (rule of law), prinsip pemisahan kekuasaan (separation of powers), serta perlindungan dan pemajuan hak asasi manusia (the protection of fundamental rights). Dalam sistem ‘constitutional review’ itu tercakup 2 (dua) tugas pokok. Pertama, menjamin berfungsinya sistem demokrasi dalam hubungan perimbangan peran atau interplay antara cabang kekuasaan legislatif, eksekutif, dan lembaga peradilan (judiciary).

Dengan kata lain, “constitutional review” dimaksudkan untuk mencegah terjadinya pendayagunaan kekuasaan oleh satu cabang kekuasaan sedemikian rupa sehingga cabang kekuasaan lainnya; Kedua, melindungi setiap individu warga negara dari penyalahgunaan kekuasaan oleh lembaga negara yang merugikan hak-hak fundamental mereka yang dijamin dalam konstitusi

Di dunia saat ini, sejarah institusi yang berperan melakukan kegiatan “constitutional review” berkembang pesat melalui tahap-tahap pengalaman yang beragam di setiap negara. Ada yang melembagakan fungsi pengujian konstitusional itu dalam lembaga yang tersendiri bernama Mahkamah Konstitusi. Ada pula yang mengaitkan fungsi pengujian itu kepada lembaga yang sudah ada, yaitu Mahkamah Agung. Ada pula yang memberikan tugas untuk menjalankan fungsi pengujian itu kepada badan-badan khusus dalam kerangka lembaga-lembaga lain seperti badan-badan pengadilan yang sudah ada; dan ada pula yang tidak menerima adanya fungsi pengujian semacam itu sama sekali. Pengalaman di berbagai negara di dunia memperlihatkan bahwa tradisi yang mereka ikuti tidak sama dari satu negara ke negara yang lain.

(Disarikan dari Hak Menguji dalam Teori dan Praktek oleh Prof. Harun Al Rasyid)

Perlu dicatat bahwa istilah “hak menguji” berbeda dengan “judicial review”. Kalau kita berbicara mengenai “hak menguji”, maka orientasinya ialah ke kontinental Eropah (Belanda dan Jerman), sedangkan “judicial review” orientasinya ialah ke Amerika Serikat.

Dalam literatur hukum Belanda dan Indonesia, istilah “hak menguji” mencakup dua macam pengertian, yaitu formal dan material. Yang dimaksud dengan “hak menguii formal” (formele toetsingsrecht) ialah kewenangan hakim untuk menyelidiki apakah suatu produk legislatif telah dibuat secara sah.

Yang dimaksud dengan “hak menguji material” (materiele toetsingrecht) ialah kewenangan hakim untuk menyelidiki apakah kekuasaan/organ yang membuat suatu peraturan berwenang untuk mengeluarkan peraturan yang bersangkutan, dan, apakah isi peraturan tersebut tidak bertentangan dengan ketentuan yang dikeluarkan oleh
pembuat peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi.

Kalau kita menyebut judicial review, maka kita beralih ke sistem peradilan Amerika Serikat. Hakim berwenang membatalkan tindakan pemerintah pusat yang dianggapnya bertentangan dengan undang-undang dasar, baik itu tindakan presiden (eksekutif) maupun tindakan kongres (legislatif), dan juga tindakan pemerintah negara bagian.

National models constrain the range of choices for institutional change. Institutional change that most directly affects the existing national model is likely to create revolutionary changes. Fung and Wright (2003) pointed out that the institutional forms of liberal democracy developed in the nineteenth century-representative democracy plus local good governance-seem increasingly ill suited to the novel problems we face in the twenty-first century. In the euphoria of reform after the fall of the New Order, Indonesia embarked on a radical attempt to devolve centralized power to the regions. Growing attention is being paid to the experiment of democratic decentralization, which, in essence, suggests devolving authority to lower levels of government and providing space for citizen participation in the decision-making process of key issues.

 

In the case of Indonesia, changes from centralization to decentralization would most likely be accompanied by a new way of thinking about how the policy in localities can best serve the development of localities themselves. With local autonomy, municipalities/regencies now have a more prominent role in how they finance, regulate, and interact with the front-line. Salient differences in governance and service delivery may not only be evident across regions, but also within regions in term of how regencies and municipalities level institutions interact with local facilities and villages/neighborhoods. Decentralization may also allow for more efficient process of discovery of best policies. By increasing the number of decision-making units, different policy options can be tried simultaneously in a natural experiment setting. In the competition atmosphere created by decentralization process, local governments compare their performance and learn from each other in order to choose the best policy without neglecting its uniqueness.

 

Indonesia has been implementing extreme decentralization for more than five years. There are many fundamental changes occurring during the implementation: intergovernmental relations, the decision-making process in the regions, economy-based community empowerment, and relations between citizens and the nation-state. More importantly, local initiatives regarding law institutions and the best policies are created to serve local development. In addition, strategies for tailoring approaches to local conditions vary according to the area of policy intervention. They may involve developing simpler rules with less discretion, relying more heavily on transparency, competition, and reinforcing local institutional safeguards. These strategies need to be complemented by efforts to strengthen local government capabilities.

 

Conservatives within the central government and experts on democratic theory insists that Indonesian people (let alone people in the regions) are “not yet ready for democracy.” Contrary to the statement, quite a few innovations in local governance have appeared during the process of Indonesia’s democratic decentralization. Thus, the onset of decentralization in Indonesia gives chances for local governments in Indonesia to improve local good governance and make chance to its consolidation.

The original 1945 Constitution of the RI had Article 18 on local administration, which provided that “the division of the territory of Indonesia into large regions and small regions with administrative organizations is stipulated under law that takes into account and determine to consider the principle of consultations at state administrative organizations as well as inherent rights of areas with distinct characteristics.” The provisions of Article 18 are generally interpreted as basis idea of decentralization

 

There are four statesmen who had great influence to the constitution: Soekarno, Hatta, Yamin, and Soepomo. They made the critical contributions to the creation of the Indonesian 1945 Constitution. Soepomo and Yamin were famous as legal experts at that time, influenced by the Germany law tradition through their education in law school, Soepomo himself got his post graduate law education from Netherlands. Soepomo and Yamin, among the four, can be said the main architect of 1945 Indonesian Constitution. Even though had his education in Netherlands, Hatta was a liberalist and he was influenced mainly by United States Constitution; he made famous argumentation in the Constitution Convention on citizen right guarantee in the constitution. Soekarno was pure nationalist; his view was greatly influenced by nationalist movement leader Dr. Sun Yat Sen and constitution in newly independence state in Asia at that time.

 

The founding fathers who draft the constitution were conscious with the decentralization right　as the indigenous right of the regions in archipelago. Their idea however, different from that in France where the intent was to break down traditional local autonomy but it was connected to the desire to respect the old customs and neighborhood solidarity.　Their intentions reflected in the constitution convention just before the declaration of independence. The determination to guarantee decentralization was an important part in the Indonesia debate on the Indonesian 1945 Constitution. However, there were wide differences arguments about the nature and degree of the decentralization to be achieved.

 

Soepomo who was the main architect of the constitution explained his thought regarding local government and local right, “Thus in Indonesia State based on integrality idea, each community and region which has distinguished characteristic will have its own legal position as an integral part of Indonesia State. Distribution of power between central government and local government will be based on principle relating with time, place and matters… Then in a big country with many big islands like Indonesia, many authorities shall be administered by local government” (Bahar, Kusuma and Hudawati, eds, 1995).

 

In the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence, Soepomo explained further his idea, “I truly believe that regions shall be given wide range of rights to administer their regions at their own initiative for their interest, but with understanding that the regions are parts of Indonesian State; regions needs and interests shall be acknowledged within the legal framework that guarantees the devolution of authorities to administer their own affairs” (Bahar, Kusuma and Hudawati, eds, 1995). However, Soepomo did not agree if the details of decentralization principle should be included in the 1945 Constitution, “The Council shall accept the basic principle of regions right, but I do not think that the devolution of the authority shall be included in our constitution instead of in specific law regarding local government” (Bahar, Kusuma and Hudawati, eds, 1995). He understood that the local rights principle in the form local autonomy should be acknowledged in the 1945 Constitution but refused further idea to put more details of deconcentration and decentralization principle in the constitution.

 

Meanwhile Yamin in BPUPKI meeting in July 11, 1945, expressed his opinion based on Germany Constitution that deconcentration and decentralization can be implemented not only in Federal Indonesia, but also its principle can be implemented in the Unitary State of Indonesia. Yamin further explained, “It is better for us to leave Federalism and shall only form Unitary State with the regions right within and throw away all centralization and bureaucracy form… Thus, I truly believe that Indonesian Constitution shall be formed based on Unitary State Principle and establishing all requisite for regions rights. Distribution of power in the central government itself and distribution of power between Central Government and Local Government shall be regulated by the justice and wisdom so that the regions can exercise their original right” (Bahar, Kusuma and Hudawati, eds, 1995).

 

Decentralization as right in Indonesian Constitution obviously has become national consensus as fundamental right. Benyamin Hoessein stated, “The existence of decentralization in Indonesia is a national consensus, in all constitution (1945 constitution, Indonesian Federal Constitution 1949, and 1950 constitution), there is always provision for decentralization as fundamental right” (Hoessein, 2002). However its existence is very vulnerable by the historical and legal interpretation of implementing it within the unitary state perspective. Centralization tendency occurred in the first place when comes to the option of unity and respecting the local rights in the form of local autonomy.

 

Since the passage of Law 22 Year 1999, the Constitution has been amended to include the principles of Law 22 Year 1999 and other changes that reinforce decentralization. The second amendment to the constitution included a clause that grants “as broad as possible autonomy” to local governments. The third amendment envisages a Local Representatives of Parliament (DPD) with the right to propose and review legislation affecting the regions, including the budget and tax legislation.

The rationale for local decentralization in Indonesia is to be found far back in history. There were serious political reasons to carry out a far-reaching political decentralization that would involve the devolution to the local governments of powers to design and implement policies on matters that were of their own interest. The first was the need to find a solution to an old problem that Indonesia is not, and never was, a homogeneous country.

 

The ancient states of the archipelago are known from the records, mostly often written in Chinese, and of inscriptions and monuments, like those in central Java. The work of historians has recalled the kingdom of Sri Vijaya, which seems to have centered in the regions of Palembang from the late eighth-century. States also emerged in Java, the greatest of which was to be the Majapahit Empire, which flourished in the fifteenth century CE (Tarling, 1998). Until the early twentieth century, Indonesia was formed by a set of kingdoms and independent regions. Some of these kingdoms had their own political and economic institutions, which were very different, from one another (Ricklefs, 2001). Local units existed as a political community governing themselves before the creation of the Indonesian state. The Dutch during their 350 years of colonization, as well as Japanese during their 3 years of occupation, acknowledged those local units and allowed them to continue self-governance (Schiller, 1955).

 

The regions and villages played and important part in the colonial era struggling against colonialism. One example is Aceh, which lies in the northernmost province on the island of Sumatra and the first part of modern Indonesia to have societies organized along Islamic lines, which probably began in the late 13th century. By the 16th century the Sultanate of Aceh controlled a substantial portion of Sumatra and parts of Malaya. Conquered only with great difficulty by the Dutch in the late 19th century, Aceh remained under more or less military control until the Japanese invasion in 1942. The Dutch never were able to regain a foothold in Aceh and many Acehnese fought against the Dutch near the city of Medan and raised money for the nationalist cause (Reid, 1979).

 

At the same time, when Diponegoro (the early nineteenth-century leader of the Java War against the Dutch), Tuanku Imam Bonjol (leader of early nineteenth-century Paderi War in Minangkabau regions in West Sumatra), Teuku Umar (a local ruler who at times led opposition to Dutch expansion into Aceh) and others fought in those days, there did not yet exist, there was not yet any hint of, any feeling of being Indonesia (Alisjahbana, 1977). Diponegoro fought for the land of Java, even then we cannot really say for the whole Land of Java. Tuanku Imam Bonjol fought for the Minangkabau, Teuku Umar for Aceh and others fought for their own region or local community. Even Javanese army at that time under Sentot Alibasjah became parts of Dutch army and fought against Aceh.

 

The emergence of the idea of Indonesia was held in early twentieth century. The first three decades of the twentieth century witnessed a new territorial definition of Indonesia and the proclamation of a fresh colonial policy. The key developments of this period were the emergence of novel ideas of organization and the arrival of more sophisticated definition of identity. The former involved new forms of leadership and the latter involved a deeper analysis of the religious, social, political and economic environment. Ethic policy of colonial brought the impact on the rose of intellectual in Indonesia. Ideas of nation state from Europe were spread through education and organization.

 

The idea of emancipating Indonesian through the education was encouraged from an early stage by the journal Bintang Hindia (Star of Indies), first published in Netherlands in 1902. The Journal was distributed in Indonesia and was very widely read among the Indonesian elite before it ceased publication in 1906. The first modern organization was born under the name Budi Utomo in 1908. Budi Utomo primarily was organization for Javanese priyayi, an elite class of Javanese. It officially defined its area of interest as including the peoples of Java and Madura, thus reflecting the administrative unions of these two islands and including Sundanese and Madurese whose cultures were related to the Javanese (Ricklefs, 2001).

 

More active and significant organizations were soon formed. Some of them were religious, cultural and educational, some political, and several both. These organizations functioned at lower levels of the society and for the first time built links between villagers and new elite. The lesser priyayi class was important in several of these movements, but this was different branch of the lesser priyayi from the one who was active in Budi Utomo. Whereas Budi Utomo members were largely making their careers in government services, those who led more activist movements were almost entirely those who had gone through Dutch school but had then resigned or been dismissed from government jobs.

 

The idea of national Indonesian identity devoid of specific religious or local ties had even begun so widely accepted among the elite, and was being supported by developments in the cultural field. A new literature was growing, based upon the Malay language, which had been used for centuries as a lingua franca in the archipelago and was therefore essentially neutral in ethnic terms (Ricklefs, 2001). As this literature developed, Indonesian intellectuals stopped calling the language Malay and instead referred to it as the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia). The linguistic vehicle of national unity was thereby born.

 

The important stage of Indonesia Nation State formation was in 1928, when the cultural and political trend towards Indonesian unity were formally joined at a Youth Congress held in Batavia. In its ‘Youth Pledge’ (Sumpah Pemuda) the congress adopted three ideals: one fatherland, Indonesia; one nation, Indonesia; and one language, Bahasa Indonesia. Beside that, the writer, W.R. Soepratman, introduced national anthem of Indonesia Raya for the first time. In celebration of the congress, Muhammad Yamin wrote a collection of poems, which were published in 1929 under the title Indonesia tumpah darahku (‘Indonesia, Land of my Birth’) (Ricklefs, 2001). These reflected the self-conscious conviction among young intellectuals that they were Indonesian first, and only Minangkabau, Batak, Javanese, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

 

The youth pledge marked the process from region ethnic to Indonesia nation, considering that the congress participants were came from the regions all over archipelago-from west to east archipelago. Padmo Wahjono wrote in his book Negara Republik Indonesia that Indonesia Nation had been emerged and existed in this stage (Wahjono, 1986). Indonesia nation at this period time had been laid for the foundation of the Indonesia State, which was achieved by the Declaration of Independence in 1945.

 

Modern constitution around the world in many aspects influenced Indonesia Founding Fathers who drafted the 1945 Constitution. It is reflected from their idea of constitutionalism in the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI) meeting and Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI) meeting. Besides that, they sometimes refer their idea taking examples and based on the former modern constitution especially Germany Constitution. In the Investigating Committee meeting, Yamin referred to United States Constitution, took examples of Russian Constitution. He also mentioned Weimar Constitution of Germany to be followed as the modern constitution, which guaranteed the citizen welfare (Bahar, Kusuma and Hudawati, eds, 1995). Even though Soepomo had his own idea of genuine Indonesian Constitution based on integrality idea, he kept referring to many modern constitutions for his argument.

In examining the central and local government relations, Amakawa Akira uses the second axis of sharing and self-executing in addition to the axis of centralization and decentralization.

 

Originally Amakawa Akira designed this model to analyze the modern government systems of Japan chronologically, but it is often used for comparison between systems of different countries. The axis of centralization/decentralization indicates which is more influential in policymaking, the central or local governments, while Amakawa on the basis of a kind of job allocation defines the axis of sharing/self-executing.

 

JICA Team led by Muramatsu Michio defines ‘sharing’ as the conditions in which the range of concerns of the central and local governments broadly overlaps each other, and ‘self-executing’ as those in which the range of each hardly overlaps. The central-local government relations of Anglo-American countries tend to be ‘self-executing,’ while those of continental countries tend to be ‘sharing’ ones that use local governments as executive agencies of the central government (JICA, 2001).