A study says the system of devolving power to the regions, or regional autonomy, is spurring the advent of tribalism and disunity in the nation.

The study, carried out by Yapikka Yapikka (Civil Society Alliance for Democracy) over the period 2001-2005 in fifteen regencies and municipalities within the provinces of West Sumatra, Banten, North Sulawesi and East Nusa Tenggara, examined the issue of decentralisation of power from Jakarta to local governments. 1,800 people, from ordinary folk to “activists”, academics, local leaders and council members were surveyed.

Originally perceived as a method of improving accountability and the provision of public services regional autonomy is instead, as attested to in the study, seen as fueling the rise of ethnocentrism and tribalism in Indonesia. Eko Prasodjo, one of the researchers, told the Jakarta Post that the regional autonomy law gave too much authority to regencies.

We all know that the administrative borderline for regencies in the country was drawn based on an ethnicity fault line. And empowering regencies also means giving room for ethnocentrism to thrive.

One of the study’s conclusions noted:

Nepotism based on royal bloodlines, ethnicity and political affiliation have marred the recruitment, assignment and promotion for certain positions in the regions.

The study found that incumbent officials or those running for office resorted to the glorification of their, apparently, noble lineage to lend them some extra authority and appeal.

In certain regions, new royal titles were created to augment the powers of regent or mayors.

Another example of resurgent tribalism was frequent use of the terms putra asli (indigenous son) and laskar (militia).

Greater financial aid from the central government and revenue from natural resources were being diverted to fund local political activities, the report claimed. As part of the political wheeling and dealing from newly elected officials funds from the central government were being spent on expanding the bureaucracy, rather than improving services.

Although centralization has its own set of problems the researchers recommend returning to the provincial administration a more beefed-up regulatory and oversight role. Eko said that direct local elections for the post of governor and regent were the key to public control, and would ward off a return to the authoritarian New Order era.

______________________________________________________

March 25th 2007.

A new study says most Indonesians are willing to die to prevent separatism but at the same time are exhibiting stronger tendencies toward regionalism. lsi

Conducted by the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) the poll confirms that regional autonomy, which started seven years ago predominantly to address the problem of separatism, has not solved the “problem” of regionalism.

Of 1,240 respondents from 33 provinces surveyed between March 5th and March 15th, these were the results:

• More proud of? – ethnic group (26%) or Indonesia (74%).
• Prepared to go to war to defend Indonesia? – Yes 78%, No 22%.
• Allow secessions from Indonesia? – No 86%, Yes 14%.
• Level of Indonesian-ness? – Strong 67%, Weak 33%.
• Tolerant toward (Indonesian) migrant workers in your area? No 38%, Yes 62%.
• Local people should be elected to local and provincial government positions? Yes 46.5%.
• What is better, the existing regional autonomy system or the previous system? Now 64%, Previous 27%, Don’t Know 9%.
• Do you support regional autonomy? Yes 73%, No 27%.

Anis Baswedan, a senior researcher at the LSI, said of the results:

The statistical analysis shows that the sense of local autonomy is not correlated to the sense of national unity.

The implication of nationalism should be reflected in people’s minds and in the state policy of equal opportunity. We have a problem with nationalism here because six out of 10 Indonesians are not tolerant toward their fellow citizens from other parts of the country.

Generally people felt there was no difference between the previous centralized system and local autonomy. This indicates that local autonomy has not reached the goals expected by the public.