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.
