A

fter 16 years of reformasi one of the most fundamental aspects of regional autonomy is the increasingly centralized role of regional leaders. In 2013, the NGO Indonesia Corruption Watch reported that at least 35 regional heads were entangled in corruption cases. Until January 2014, the Home Ministry noted that since the introduction of local direct elections of governors, regents and mayors, at least 318 out of a total of 524 officials were detained for corruption. Most recent is the case of former Banten governor Ratu Atut Chosiyah.

Such information has led to views that local elections have become a main source of corruption involving regional leaders. But is such a premise true? Now, the government and the House of Representatives are discussing the regional election bill, which includes the crucial issue of the mechanism of elections that both the executive and legislative branches need to overcome.

Take the governors'€™ direct election. The bill stipulates that the elections be conducted by the local legislative council with the principles of direct, free, confidential, honest and fair elections. This article revokes the authority to elect the governor by the people and returns such authority to the legislative branch as in the past, in this case the local legislative body. Many consider this mechanism to be a solution in addressing the high rate of corruption involving regional leaders.

In its academic paper of the bill, the government cites at least two major problems that became catalysts for changing the election mechanism. First, Law No. 32/2004 on regional administration regulating the local government has created a loophole in replacing the autonomous province with autonomy of the regencies and municipalities '€” while the law confirms that the Governor is a government representative and thus answers to the President.

 Second, concerning the position of deputy governors, regents and mayors, which is not recognized in Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitution, which simply refers to governors, regents and mayors as types of regional heads, raises different interpretations on whether the position of deputy is a political, or a career position.

 The government and legislature should have known that the clause mentioning the governor as a government representative, who answers to the president, has nothing to do with the problem of the direct election being a source of corruption among regional leaders. There are at least three problems that cause this high rate of corruption involving regional leaders.

 First, the magnitude of the political cost needed to secure the seat of governor, regent or mayor. This causes the elected regional head to merely focus on remunerating political costs he or she spent during the campaign.

Second, existing regulations are used by regional leaders to perform budget deviations.

Third, the lack of oversight at the local level.

The governor as the government'€™s representative who answers to the President involves a business relationship between the central and regional administration that should be set firmly in the Regional Administration Law. If the government representatives answer to the president then it would be absurd for the local legislative councils to elect governors.

 The basic principal in regional autonomy is deconcentration rather than decentralization, with the province becoming an '€œfacilitator'€, among the central government and the regencies or municipalities. As a result, the focus of the province lies at the managerial level, aiming for efficiency.

Even so, the assumption that the directly elected governor is not aligned with the position of governor as a government representative seems wrong and premature. Direct election by the people is the mandate of the reform movement, as the people became the source of sovereignty that cannot be compromised. For the record, a polling on regional elections conducted by the Charta Politika research group noted 74 percent of the 600 respondents in nine cities still wanted a direct election.

The proposal that legislative councils should carry out local elections is clearly not a solution to the root problem of local autonomy. These efforts will even be judged as anti-democratic by society. Elections through local legislative councils will only result in compromise, leading to regional leaders with certain political interests. Besides, the regional head would lose his or her legitimacy because their '€œelection'€ had overridden the people'€™s sovereignty.

 The essence of decentralized power that draws people to direct elections is inseparable from autonomy. Therefore it would be wiser if the bill was more focused on efforts to strengthen the local election system, and to strengthen local autonomy within the framework of a unitary state.

The government and legislature must withdraw the regional election bill. The passing of the bill would only partially heal problems of regional autonomy.

Settling the fundamental weaknesses in the Regional Administration Law is more urgent than the discussion of the bill itself. We would virtually see a huge step back in regional autonomy if the government returned authority to legislative bodies to elect governors.