Central and regional relations reconstruction in dynamics Regional autonomy

Introduction

            Regional autonomy brings significant changes in the government system in Indonesia. The centralized governance system is no longer in line with the understanding of democracy then it has been replaced by decentralization. Decentralization is created to build political equality  at the local level or create democracy in the region. Because during this related policy created by the Centralistic government is not in accordance with the desires of the region. So the decision making directly in the area (power over decision make)  directly exists in the local government so as to create a refonsive government. The change of legislation from No. 22 know 1999 to ACT No. 32 year 2004 further strengthen the role of the region because of the greater authority and leaders in the area elected directly by its people. But this became the beginning of the egocentric problem in the region because they considered the regent or mayor is no longer under and responsible to the central equist. The leaders in the area were responsible to the communities in the area so that "little kings" were likely to abuse his power as an example of the amount of corruption that befalls the head of countless regions. Regional autonomy is considered to only manage government in the region or divide the authority between regional centers only. This erroneous perspective is the retry to be straightened out in line with the regional autonomy principle that decentralization is not intended to provide autonomy only to local governments, but more than that it must strengthen the role and position of citizens in the decision-making process locally (Prasojo, 2009:146). It confirms that decentralization to create community participation in the region as well as a more responsive government. Because of decentralization instead of creating  good local governance  but raises  bad governance  in the region. For example talk about the performance of government in the area only a few areas that have a good performance from almost 500 districts/cities in Indonesia. In decentralized dynamics to date regional autonomy tends to separate central and regional relations. This was conveyed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who asserted that many central government policies stopped at the local government. The central government should make national standards and policies, while local governments lower them in standards and policies at provincial and Regency/city level. Both sides of both the central and regional governments often clash with each other in relation to national policy. Because the national policy of the central government is not necessarily in line with the policy in the area and tends to overlap so the implementation does not run optimally.

            Pola hubungan antara pusat dan daerah dalam otonomi daerah sering sekali menjadi problematika di lapangan. Hal ini terkait pelimpahan kewenangan kepada daerah (devolusi), seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Syaukani, Gaffar, Rasyid (2009:311) bahwa seharusnya para menteri kabinet mengkoordinasi kegiatan dalam departemennya untuk memberikan supervisi kepada daerah dalam rangka penyerahan kewenangan tersebut. Para menteri memberikan instruksi kepada para pejabat di departemennya (sekjen dan irjen) untuk membantu daerah guna menyiapkan mereka dalam rangka transisi penyerahan kewenangan. Sehingga nantinya dapat mengidentifikasi kewenangan apa saja yang dapat dilaksanakan di daerah terkait dengan kebutuhan, manfaat, dan dukungan sumber daya yang dimiliki daerah. Sebagai contoh kebijakan sektor pendidikan yaitu hal-hal apa yang bisa diserahkan ke daerah dan yang tidak diserahkan ke daerah. Akan tetapi dalam perjalanan otonomi daerah hingga saat ini proses kewenangan antara pusat dan daerah  cenderung saling melindungi kewenangan masing-masing. Sebagai contoh perihal keuangan dan sumber daya alam di daerah yang tidak sepenuhnya milik daerah tetapi sebagian besar di serahkan kepada pusat karena pemerintah pusat tidak ingin kehilangan pendapatan negara dari sektor tersebut. Departemen melalui menteri terkait mempunyai kepentingan-kepentingan dalam pelaksanaan otonomi daerah yang cenderung merusak nilai partisipasi politik lokal, nilai dan budaya lokal akibat lebih kepada dipaksakan. Departemen pendidikan tidak lagi mempunyai akses kepada pemerintah di tingkat kabupaten, Kantor Pendidikan Nasional telah digantikan oleh dinas pendidikan yang tidak vertikal dan menjadi instansi otonom di daerah. Tetapi kantor pendidikan nasional ada di tingkat provinsi yang nantinya berfungsi melakukan pengawasan terhadap kinerja pendidikan di daerah apakah telah sejalan dengan standar yang telah ditetapkan untuk penyelenggaraan pendidikan. Hal ini yang memunculkan kontrovesi di daerah, karena daerah tidak bisa dengan mudahnya menyelenggarakan pendidikan sesuai dengan standar lokal dan nilai-nilai setempat. Sering kali untuk kabupaten/kota di wilayah timur indonesia dimana kualitas dan kuantitas pendidikannya rendah dan mereka harus mengikuti kebijakan pendidikan nasional seperti nilai standar kelulusan UAN. Standar kelulusan UAN ini semakin memarjinalkan pendidikan terutama di daerah karena sulit menerapkan pendidikan berstandar nasional karena di satu sisi falisitas belajar mengajar sampai dengan guru sangat berbeda antar daerah. Jadi intinya kewenangan pusat kepada daerah cenderung dipaksakan karena ketidakmampuan atau ketidakmauan untuk melihat kondisi daerah tersebut sehingga merusak esensi otonomi daerah.

            As explained regarding regional autonomy tends to create "small kings" in the region and expertain the KKN to the area. This is because it does not control the power in the area because of weak checks and balances   by the DPRD, different and NGOs. Actually, the regent and mayor have a fundamental interest in the autonomy of the region, which has great authority in running the government wheel in the area.  Related areas increase the economy through the excavation of economic potentials, because later to provide and improve service and protection to the community in the region. But the false perception by local governments is that they do not need any more control by the central government such as supervision, mentoring and coaching. So that the emergence of egocentric attitudes in the region because they are directly elected by the people and responsible directly with the community. The result is often a dispute especially between the district/city both with the province and the center. As an example of a road repair policy that then throw each other responsibility between the local government and provinces. Not to mention the central policy that is considered unfavorable in the area then the implementation half-heartedly as complained by SBY at a work meeting some time ago in Bogor.

Reconstruct the pattern of central and local relations.

            Actually the Department of Home Affairs has confirmed a new relationship pattern between the central government and the areas related to decentralization and regional autonomy (Said, 2005:128).  First,  the pattern of relations is governed by binding regulations against the provincial and regional governments. For example, the management of tax and regional retribution is clearly regulating the tax and levies that are managed by the province and the region and then how much the tariff is imposed on the tax.  Secondly,  the principal responsibility of the affairs of the District government remains the responsibility of the central government. Although the authority has been bestowed into the area (devolution) but the central government remains responsible in the implementation process in the field. Do not see the authority that benefits one party only but many parties to the local community in particular.  Thirdly,  the central government's role in regional autonomy is evident in the determination of macro policies, the implementation of supervision, control, monitoring, evaluation and empowerment of local governments, while local governments will be responsible for the implementation of the policy. But as it has been explained that many national policies are less appropriate to the circumstances in the area so it is difficult to implement to achieve a target that has been established by the central government. For example, RPJMN (State Medium Term development plan) as opposed to RPJMD is compiled by regions. So that the regional government confusion running which on the one hand wants to advance the area but not in line with RPJMN.

            Regarding the problem of relationship between the center of the area in fact there are three central issues that should be examined more deeply so that the solution can be expected in the next [1]  :

1. There is an ambivalence at the conceptual level — the ideological orientation vs the technical orientation. In general it can be said that the pendulum of the relationship of authority between the central and local governments in Indonesia is so far more likely to lead to a centralization pole than decentralized. Although the LAW No. 22/1999 at a minimum level has tried to shift the pendulum of the trallization towards a decentralized pole, LAW No. 32/2004 tends to return it to its original position (centralization). It is proven that central government remains reluctant to devolution related to the management of natural resources. Ideological orientation here is intended that regional autonomy has a clear purpose of creating local democracy through community participation.  But in the stage the technical orientation strictly control of the central government still occurs tends to re-centralize. For example, through tax laws and retribution that do not reflect local democracy because there is a remote area there is only 1 hotel and how could the hotel tax be implemented, consequently making 1 hotel such as "dairy cow" for the area.
2. There is a bias between elite relations as an implication of shifting state and community relations. The realities of implementing decentralization policies and regional autonomy must also be occupied and understood in the context of shifting the relationships of the nations (  statesociety relation)  in the new post-order period. Thus, it is known that the "bias" policy implementation that occurred so far is not entirely a direct impact of decentralized reform and regional autonomy, but also as an implication of the "shifting" pattern of interaction between State and society (State Society relation) in the post-New order period. The role of the political elite in the region is very dominant nowadays, thus shifting the role   of the civil society  Consequently there is bargain interest in the area up to the center level.
3. A reform Agenda that emphasizes the efforts to build the country's image, but minus capacity improvements. The reality of decentralized implementation and regional autonomy also cannot be released from the "Bias reform agenda" that takes place in the homeland. Within the first ten years (1999-2009), the focus of the attention of the reform agenda was more devoted to the efforts to improve and build state institutional reform. This is contrary to the meaning of reform in order to build democracy to the local level to produce a policy that is capable of reaching grass root. The mandate of decentralization and regional autonomy is run half-heartedly due to strict control and the central benefit of the Cederung area. As an example of the investment policy of natural resources such as gold, petroleum almost all representative offices are in the center than in the area. This reflect the center still takes advantage so do not blame when the biggest money circulation is in JABOTABEK.

            Here the author tries to build a new relationship pattern between regional central governments in decentralized dynamics and regional autonomy namely:

1. Rebuilding the concept of decentralization and regional autonomy relates to the extent of the devolution between the central government and administrative decentralization built. Because if maintained it will tend to benefit local governments. Need to be fundamentally reshuffle so that the central authority can synergize with regional authority in the creation of decentralization. It is indeed tried to be examined by the central government through a trade that is trying to revise the LAW regarding the relationship pattern between central and local areas. In the future, central and local relations can be between  Separation of power  and  Sharing of power. Separation of power  here as well as federal Dinegara-negara, because later to create full autonomy. It means that the local government with the community has full authority for policy making until the implementation level is particularly policy outside the central government authority. While the Sharing of power is   adjusted to the scope of sectoral powers of regional circumstances such as widespread autonomy, limited autonomy and special autonomy.
2. The policy approach should prioritize local decentralization but also the implementation stage in the area should be aligned. Thus, in the implementation of decentralization policy should also pay attention to the characteristics, potentials, and specificity of each region owned (plurality of local/regional). This means that the context in the region should be a reference to the central government in creating a policy of fate and not generalized in general. And the central government should be open to local policies that are felt urgent rather than impose authority on the area.