Decentralization of Forest Administration in Indonesia, Implications ...

John McCarthy, Christopher Barr, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, and Ahmad Dermawan 35
departmental team to revise key political laws known as Team to Revise Draft of Laws
on Politics of the Ministry of Home Affairs (Tim Revisi RUU Politik Departemen
Dalam Negeri). As the departmental team involved seven people, it was nicknamed
‘Team Seven’ (Tim Tujuh). While Soeharto was forced to resign before this team
could hold its first meeting, Tim Tujuh soon set to work designing new laws. Initially,
the most pressing of these laws, known as RUU Politik, concerned the political parties,
the holding of fair elections and the composition of the national government’s two
state institutions (Lembaga Negara) – that is, the House of Representatives (Dewan
Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR) and People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR). However,
as the Law 5/1974 regarding regional government was by then deemed to be ‘too
centralistic’, the team also began to draft a new law on regional government (RUU
Pemerintah Daerah).
The team started working quickly, presenting the RUU Politik to President
Habibie by July 27, 1998 (Kompas, February 15, 1999). In June 1998, officials
within the Ministry of Home Affairs were also discussing the general design of the
overall regional autonomy reform (Suara Pembaruan, September 19, 1998). The
proposed legislation drew heavily on the concept of regional autonomy developed
in the 1974 law regarding regional government and later elaborated during the late-
1980s and early-1990s. Specifically, Law 5/1974 relied on three fundamental concepts
– decentralisation, deconcentration and co-administration (tugas pembantuan). 7
This law did not delineate the degree of autonomy to be given to the regions, only
suggesting that in principle regional autonomy would be ‘concrete and responsible’
(nyata dan bertanggung jawab).
In 1992, almost 20 years after Law 5/1974 was first passed, the Ministry of
Home Affairs developed implementing regulations for the regional governance law
(Government Regulation 45/1992) (Suara Pembaruan, October 30, 1998). Law
5/1974 had placed the centre of gravity (titik berat) for regional autonomy with the
districts (kabupaten) and municipalities 8 (kotamadya) – referred to as the Level
II Regions (Daerah Tingkat II) – and Regulation 45/1992 repeated this emphasis.
On April 25, 1995, the Ministry also adopted a regulation (Government Regulation
8/1995) that provided for the creation of pilot projects for improving administrative
arrangements in 26 districts. Although these pilot projects were later deemed to
be insufficiently successful, they were important in that they placed the ‘centre of
gravity’ of decentralization at the Level II Regions – that is, at the level of districts
and municipalities, rather than provinces (Suara Pembaruan, October 30, 1998). 9
This emphasis would be continued in the more far-ranging decentralization reforms
of 1998-1999.
In the Habibie administration’s efforts to adopt a more decentralised system,
Tim Tujuh at the Ministry of Home Affairs called for autonomy at the level of district
and municipality rather than the province. Support for this model also came from
politicians “concerned that autonomy at the provincial level would fuel local desires
for separation from the unitary republic” (Hull 1999). As there was a perception
that the districts were too small for separatist or federalist aspirations to take root,
government planners favoured decentralization at this level (Niessen 1999). It was
also likely that the central government would have “more influence over relatively