Gabriele
Ferrazzi
Brandon
University
Indonesia cast off Dutch-imposed federalism in favor of a unitary state.
Soeharto's centralization madefederalism taboo in the New Order. In the current
reform period, however, the concept is re-emerging, but federalism has yet to
be discussed in an open, inclusive, and balanced manner. Decentralization
policy is focused on the district, neglecting the political demands of the
larger province. This policy is accompanied by a confused and misleading
official discourse that is consistent with the ideology of power retention and
maintenance of patrimonial governance. As a result of greater democratization
of the polity, federalism is slowly entering official discourse. Although its
prospects in the short term remain dim, support may grow for federal principles
within Indonesia's unitary structure.
The current reform period in Indonesia has unleashed
a torrent of regional discontent. The centralization of power and resources is
being reviled. Political upheaval has facilitated Timor Loro Sae's exit from
the republic, plus secessionist movements in the provinces of Aceh, West Papua,
and Riau. All provinces are demanding a better deal, making clear that wider
forms of autonomy, and possibly federalism, may be the price to pay for
national peace. Regional unrest has highlighted deep divisions and divergent
interests in the nation. Polls indicate that the populace is deeply worried
about separatism. There is pressure on the national government to hold
Indonesia together, and yet come to terms with the root causes of regional
dissatisfaction. Politicians are anxious not to preside over Indonesia's
disintegration, but the new government of President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur)
appears unable to generate a genuine dia- logue. The president himself has
great difficulty even uttering the word "federalism" when pressed to
discuss the issue. This essay examines background on federalism in Indonesia to
explain the strong resistance to the federal model. It draws on a review of
govern- ment documents, proceedings of various public fora, participant
observa- tion, and personal interviews. Following a brief introduction to the
analytical framework, the historical roots that shed light on center-region
relations are examined in order to understand the center's tendencies toward
unifi- cation and integration as tools for nation-building and domination. The
current policy of emphasizing the smaller second-tier regions (more than 300
districts and cities), rather than the larger first-tier regions (26 prov-
inces)' where federalist models might be more applicable, is placed in his-
torical context.
ANALYTICAL
FRAMEWORK
The treatment of discourse about the state should be
linked to "sociostructural and historical factors that condition its organization
and administration."2 For Indonesia, this means highlighting the state's
patri- monial character and examining the debate on federalism in terms of the
material interests of the dominant central elite.
Patrimonialism Imperiled
Decentralization has become a two-edged sword for
the fractious post- Soeharto elite. The reconstituted elite includes many of
the same elements that made up the Soeharto elite. This is particularly true
for the bureau- cracy, where the patrimonial style of governance of the New
Order contin- ues to prevail. To gain legitimacy, a precious commodity today,
the elite must undertake decentralization. In doing so, it is undercutting its
power base and, thus, the sources of legal and extra-legal tributes that were
com- monplace in Soeharto's patrimonial regime.3 Herein lies the tension that
infuses the regional autonomy policies of the government and the official
discourse on alternate forms of decentralization. Compounding the tension is
the significant degree of democratization yielded by the central elite in the
early days of the reform movement that toppled the New Order. Exacted from the
Soeharto elite as the price of staying in the game (avoiding revolution), the
new freedoms are making the old communication strategies of the government less
effective. As a result, the legitimacy of government policies is more difficult
to earn, and this is evident in the government's decentralization policies.
Reduced le- gitimacy threatens the elites' tenuous hold on power and the
"tribute" streams that flow toward centralized power. Discourse
Analysis The discourse analytical perspective is gaining attention,
particularly due to its ability to link micro-level interaction to
macro-contexts re-Using the "F" Word search.4 It starts with the identification
of actors and their interests and positions. Communication patterns can then be
analyzed to note how the dominant ideology, political power, and governmental
relations are sustained. In Indonesia, the lack of open high-level policy
discussion is in part compensated by the ubiquitous seminar and workshop
circuit, in the past largely sponsored or dominated by the government. The
seminar/workshop approach to communication, persuasion, and mobilization has
been taken up with gusto in the post-Soeharto period by civil society and
quasi-government organizations. A more aggressive press is also generating more
commentaries and exchanges that enlarge the po- litical discourse, adding
opportunities to note lexicon and rhetorical strat- egies of government
officials and other players.5
DOWNLOAD FILE....
DOWNLOAD FILE....
