Untitled - Api-fellowships.org

POTENTIAL OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES:A POSSIBILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?45Government Act 22 (1948) created autonomous localgovernments in three levels–province, county ormunicipality, and village or governor. It likewisemandated the creation of a local House ofRepresentatives and Local Advisory Boards. Otherenactments were the Local Government Act 1 (1957),Presidential Decree 6 (1959), Presidential Decree 5(1960), and the Local Government Act 18 of 1965(not implemented due to a change in the nationalgovernment).Local Government Act 5, which was adopted in 1974and remains in force, divides the country intoautonomous entities, as a manifestation of thedecentralization principle; and into administrativeentities, which is a manifestation of thedeconcentration principle. Under the decentralizationprinciple, two levels of autonomous entities werecreated: autonomous provinces and autonomouslocalities. These locality administrations are referred toas local governments. Under the deconcentrationprinciple, three levels of administrative regions werecreated–regions, county or municipality, and districts.Essentially, Indonesia is divided into regions which are,in turn, divided into county and municipality that arefurther divided into districts. An autonomousprovince is therefore necessarily an administrativeregion, while an autonomous locality is necessarilyeither a county or municipality. However, anautonomous entity does not necessarily have to be anautonomous one. In addition, under thedeconcentration principle, there are two smallerentities–the governor and the district. A governor is anadministrative entity within a county. A county isdivided into a governor (which in itself is divided intodistricts) and several districts. Meanwhile, amunicipality can only be divided into districts. Atpresent, there are 27 autonomous provinces and 300autonomous local governments in Indonesia, 3,605districts and 66,974 grassroots divisions of which61,924 are villages and 5,055 are urban villages.Indigenous Institutions, Authorities, and Decision-Making ProcessesIn contrast to the above structured system ofgovernance, the daily lives of Indigenous peoples areinformed and guided by traditional indigenousstructures and legal systems or customary laws despitethe existence of modern state institutions. Thesetraditional indigenous structures serve as the blueprintin asserting the Indigenous people’s identity;determining the social, political, and economicinteractions between them; upholding andmaintaining their traditional belief systems; and inkeeping peace and order within the community andacross communities, among others.Despite colonization and changes brought about byindependence, and despite modernization, this is stillthe case in both Malaysia and Indonesia. Customarylaws or adat remains the foundation of the existence ofindigenous communities and guides the traditionalindigenous systems. Although these structures andsystems vary from one community to another andfrom one country to another, as in the case of Malaysiaand Indonesia, there is a commonality in that theyshare the same principles and concepts, especially interms of decision-making processes. This also meansthat the development and strengthening of localgovernment structures in both countries are not takingplace in a vacuum. As such, existing traditionalindigenous structures must be taken into account.In an indigenous community, leaders and councilmembers play an important role in ensuring thecultural, legal, health, economic, and political integrityof its members. They are also charged to safeguard thecommunity’s development and intergenerationaltransfer of knowledge. The village leader or chief isoften tasked to preside over community meetings andhearings, and with the overall administration of thecommunity. The council members often advise thevillage leader or chief on important matters.As much as possible, all community members are freeto participate in discussions, whether directly orindirectly. Problems, disputes, or concerns are solvedusing procedures that engage all affected parties andexhaust dissent. Even in communities where there arestrict systems of hierarchy, decisions are still reachedthrough an inclusive and participatory process. Thechiefs or village leaders are expected to seek counselfrom elders, provide a fair hearing to all partiesconcerned, and give the community an explanation incases of disputed decisions. The main aim of such aprocess, whether in dispute resolution or theadjudication of other important matters, is tomaintain peace, unity, and harmony within thecommunity and/or with others outside.Indigenous decision-making institutions have variedstructures and systems; however, there is commonalityof purpose which is the maintenance of peace,The Work of the 2010/2011 API Fellows