by: Parawansa Assoniwora
“When a mining company starts operating in Eastern Kalimantan the local people have to give up their land either voluntarily or by force. The jobs that were promised never materialize. A province rich in natural resources is becoming further impoverished”.
In the past couple of years Indonesia has become a paradise for investors. Anybody who is willing to invest in the mining industry is welcomed. The country is rich in natural resources and the government is doing its best to ensure that it is easy to establish new mines.
One of Indonesia’s most important export products is coal. The production of coal has increased every year since 2000 and over the next five years the Indonesian government is planning to double production. The increased production will be exported to other countries in Asia, such as Japan and Taiwan.
Even though the Indonesian government wants to increase the production of coal, the Vice Minister for Energy and Natural Resources has admitted that there are severe environmental problems and land conflicts connected to mining. Population growth and attempts to protect the forests and water systems are also obstacles to expanding mines. The combination of these factors is creating pressure to shift from open mines to underground ones.
The environmental problems and land conflicts caused by the mining industry are also entwined in the new form of government in Indonesia. After the fall of Suharto’s dictatorship in 1998, the country has attempted to decentralize the previously highly centralized government. This has given power to districts, which are placed between provinces and sub-districts in the Indonesian regional hierarchy. In the current system, both the central government and local governments have the authority to hand out mining permits. Permits issued by both of these bodies have caused problems, but local governments especially have been eager to promote the interests of mining companies. Corruption is also a problem at the local government level.
Coal and contradictions
The province of East Kalimantan in Indonesia is rich in natural resources. The numerous mines in the area are producing increasing amounts of coal, just as the government has planned. But natural resources and the welfare of the local population do not always go hand in hand. In 2006, the number of people in East Kalimantan living below the poverty line was one of the highest in the country. And inequalities are also pronounced. This can be seen particularly well in the district of Kutai Kartanegra, which has the most poor people in East Kalimantan, but is also the wealthiest district in Indonesia.
There are about 20 coal mining companies working in Indonesia, the largest of which is Kaltim Prima Coal (KPC). This company works in an area covering 90,096 hectares in East Kalimantan and its mining permit is valid until 2021. Coal is being mined in six open mines and there are numerous coal reserves in the area that are not yet being used.
KPC has been mining in East Kalimantan for over a decade. Even though the mines are working as planned, the expectations of the local population for increased standards of living have not been met. The situation in the villages is very different from what the company originally promised. How did this happen?
How the land ended up in the hands of the mining company
In 1993, the local government sent a delegation to the village of Sekerat in Eastern Kutai district to inform the villagers that their land was to be taken over by the KPC mine. The villagers were lured into giving up their land with promises of huge benefits: the company promised to provide the villagers with drinking water and healthcare services, as well as to give them priority when employing workers for the mines. Short-sightedly the villagers agreed to give away their land.
The village land was then measured, after which the delegation paid each villager whatever they considered suitable for the acquired piece of land. The villagers began to notice the downside of the deal, but at this point they had no more say in the matter. They were told that the land would be taken anyway and those delaying the handing over process would be paid even less.
So the villagers lost their agricultural land, and despite their promises, KPC did not offer them jobs in the coal mine. The unemployed people tried to make ends meet in various ways, some of which resulted in the illegal felling of trees. A development programme was initiated to help the community, but it never dealt with the bigger issues such as the deteriorating condition of the environment. For example, the issue of water pollution was never dealt with; instead the schools in the village were given equipment and the villagers were convinced to give even more land to the mining company.
One Indonesian civil society organisation launched a programme to ensure that the KPC would be more responsible towards the local communities. The programme brings together various stakeholders: representatives from the government, the mining company and local communities. However, the uneducated local communities are not equipped to take part in this type of process on the same level as the other stakeholders. In practice, the villagers became mere spectators in the process, a stamp that legitimises the community responsibility programme.
Support programmes on a stable base?
The Kaltim Prima Coal company received a community responsibility prize in 2005. It was voted the best company in Indonesia for its social, economic and environmental awareness. A committee with representatives from the Ministry of Social Affairs and various universities decided upon the winner. Some members of the committee visited the mining areas and stated that the community support programmes were built on a stable base.
Thanks to the prize, KPC can now present itself as a company with community responsibility at an international level. It is also easy for the company to reject the arguments presented by activists concerned about social and environmental issues.
The award given to KPC offended most of the population of East Kutai who have been involved in organising, gathering and distributing critical information on the mining areas. The problems caused by the mining company are not restricted to mistreating the local communities, they also include discrimination against workers and conflicts with the local government.
When the KPC started its operations, the local community thought they would become wealthier after getting work in the mine. Nearly 15 years later, it has become apparent that this will not happen. The uneducated people from the villages are not employed in the mines and employees are brought from towns. The role of local communities has been to deal with the loss of their lands and the environmental legacy of the mine.
Damage to forests and water
In the Bengalon sub-district in Eastern Kutai, local people have always been deeply connected to nature, especially the forest. The forests have provided a livelihood and medicines for the people, and forests have significant cultural and spiritual meaning. Along with sawmills and logging, nature has begun to vanish around the villages of Bengalon. The final blow has been dealt by the mines: forests have vanished completely under massive land transfers.
Deforestation has also led to other problems. Floods in the area have become much worse. For example, in December 2005, Sepaso Induki village, located next to the KPC mines, experienced its worse floods in 20 years. Farmers especially experienced losses, but the damage caused by the floods reached wider: prices have gone up, theft has become more common, disease has increased and the quality of drinking water has declined. Many locals have had to locate to higher ground.
Another key problem is the lack of clean water in villages downstream from the mines. In the sub-district of Bengalon the level of pollution is so high that the water in the river has turned brown and has become undrinkable. In addition to this, erosion of the river banks has destroyed the roads leading to the villages. One elderly villager from Bengalon told us: “The condition of the river is critical. The river has changed dramatically since the mining companies arrived.”
The villagers must not remain bystanders
The farmers' groups in the operating area of Kaltim Prima Coal have protested against the company twice. For example, when the company did not pay the compensation it had promised, the farmers organised a demonstration. In conflict situations, the company has usually turned to the government, the army and the police, and the security machinery has then pressured and threatened the people belonging to the farmers' groups. Many members have been taken to the police district headquarters to hear accusations of extortion and torture for no reason. Many members of these groups have paid a great price for their resistance. It is not acceptable for the KPC to use the Indonesian security forces to pressure villagers who are holding on to their rights for their land and livelihoods. Many civil society organisations in East Kalimantan are educating the rural villagers in environmental issues so that ordinary people are better able to defend their rights to natural resources. The awareness of local people must be increased and they must become active – otherwise they will remain mere spectators in the participatory planning meetings of mining companies.
Senin, 12 Juli 2010
Minggu, 11 Juli 2010
Public Sector Reform in Indonesia
By: Parawansa Assoniwora
Public sector reform is efforts at changing the methods of managing, controlling and accounting for the concrete production of such services. Associated with the issue, there are at least two key-questions that need to be addressed on public sector reforms in Indonesia. There are to say, how government’s bureaucracy interpret the reforms, and how people present their political rights within a strong civil society.
Firstly, government is an organization that has authority to make laws or regulations on behalf of state. Because of the authority, the organization has competence to take full controls towards public services. The public services which are presented to public interests have to be well-managed. That is why a main point is how accountability and transparency of the organization is in managing the public services, so called good governance principles. In addition, one of main characteristics of the public services is that it should stand up for the poor.
Secondly, not only do the reforms need the good governance principles, but it must be also supported by a strong civil society. The strong civil society refers to the people’s abilities to provide their political controls associated with the public services. A key-word dealt with this is how the people take a part in policy process, so called political participation. In other words, the participation becomes a civil power in controlling and presenting people’s views related to their interests in the policy process.
Here, what I am going to say is that the public sector reforms in Indonesia at least have to contain two main pillars. These are to say, good governance and strong civil society. Both pillars must be a unity. In other words, the public sector reform will achieve its goal if good governance and strong civil society can be resulted at the same moment. However, if a subsequent question is where we begin, I will say that the strong civil society can create good governance, otherwise the good governance is nothing without supporting a strong civil society.
Public sector reform is efforts at changing the methods of managing, controlling and accounting for the concrete production of such services. Associated with the issue, there are at least two key-questions that need to be addressed on public sector reforms in Indonesia. There are to say, how government’s bureaucracy interpret the reforms, and how people present their political rights within a strong civil society.
Firstly, government is an organization that has authority to make laws or regulations on behalf of state. Because of the authority, the organization has competence to take full controls towards public services. The public services which are presented to public interests have to be well-managed. That is why a main point is how accountability and transparency of the organization is in managing the public services, so called good governance principles. In addition, one of main characteristics of the public services is that it should stand up for the poor.
Secondly, not only do the reforms need the good governance principles, but it must be also supported by a strong civil society. The strong civil society refers to the people’s abilities to provide their political controls associated with the public services. A key-word dealt with this is how the people take a part in policy process, so called political participation. In other words, the participation becomes a civil power in controlling and presenting people’s views related to their interests in the policy process.
Here, what I am going to say is that the public sector reforms in Indonesia at least have to contain two main pillars. These are to say, good governance and strong civil society. Both pillars must be a unity. In other words, the public sector reform will achieve its goal if good governance and strong civil society can be resulted at the same moment. However, if a subsequent question is where we begin, I will say that the strong civil society can create good governance, otherwise the good governance is nothing without supporting a strong civil society.
Sabtu, 10 Juli 2010
"Trust" Warga Negara
by: Parawansa Assoniwora
Indonesia dikenal sebagai negara demokrasi terbesar ketiga di dunia, setelah Amerika dan India. Dengan julukan tersebut, Indonesia menjadi “magnet” bagi banyak scientist (ilmuwan) dunia untuk mempelajari perubahan sosial-politik di Indonesia karena dianggap memberikan konstribusi pada proses evolusi demokrasi sebagai sebuah sistem yang telah dianut oleh banyak negara di dunia ini. Paling tidak, ini adalah salah satu sumbangsih bangsa kita terhadap majunya peradaban dunia, walau sebatas sebagai laboratorium sosial saja.
“Jantung” dari demokrasi ditentukan oleh bagaimana hubungan antara negara dan warga-negara. Dengan kata lain, sistem yang berjalan akan disebut demokratis jika warga-negara memiliki andil dan dukungan yang besar dalam menentukan haluan kebijakan sebuah negara. Ini alasan utama mengapa di negara-negara maju yang demokratis, seperti Amerika, persoalan trust (kepercayaan) warga-negara terhadap pemerintah, sebagai pemegang otoritas yang akan menjamin kelangsungan hidup warga-negara, menjadi sangat penting dan memiliki pengaruh yang sangat besar terhadap jalannya sistem pemerintahan yang baik.
Demokrasi “semau gue”
Sejak runtuhnya rezim otoriter orde baru lebih dari satu dekade yang lalu, wajah negeri ini telah berubah total. Setiap saat, dimana saja, orang bebas berbicara, mengkritisi, bahkan mencaci pemerintah tanpa dianggap melakukan kejahatan terhadap negara. Belum lagi hampir setiap hari, ada saja kelompok masyarakat yang melakukan aksi tuntutan untuk hak-hak mereka yang belum diberikan. Sedangkan di parlemen, para wakil-wakil rakyat bersemangat untuk tampil beda, sehingga nampak (walaupun mungkin tidak) wajah institusi perwakilan rakyat yang dinamis.
Namun, banyak kalangan yang menganggap, demokrasi kita kebablasan. Tidak heran, demokrasi seolah-olah mengalami pergeseran makna menjadi protes, intrupsi, pilkada, blokir-jalan, pemekaran, konflik penguasaan sumber daya alam, dan lain-lain. Jika ditanya kenapa seperti itu, maka jawabannya adalah ini demokrasi. Kata demokrasi telah memiliki makna baru “semau gue”.
Pergeseran makna demokrasi tidak lepas dari kegagalan pemerintah. Pemerintah yang seharusnya mampu menjamin keadilan, keamanan dan ketertiban, menciptakan kesejahteraan bersama, dan kebebasan dengan kontrol sosial yang kuat antara warga-negara, belum juga terwujud. Akibatnya, masyarakat atau warga-negara lebih suka bertindak sendiri dan cenderung berbeda, atau justru bertentangan, dengan sikap pemerintah.
Pemerintah dan masyarakat yang seharusnya berjalan searah dalam mewujudkan cita-cita luhur bangsa untuk menciptakan tatanan masyarakat yang adil dan makmur, sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi, justru bertemu pada titik yang berbeda. Celakanya lagi, yang terjadi kemudian adalah sikap saling menyalahkan.
“Trust”
Di negara-negara maju, seperti Amerika, Inggris, Kanada dan Australia, kepedulian scientist (ilmuwan) terhadap hubungan pemerintah dan warga-negara menjadi topik pembahasan yang penting, atau bahkan urgent (mendesak). Mereka sangat menyadari, misalnya, rendahnya kepercayaan publik terhadap pemerintah, akan menjadi ancaman internal terhadap sistem pemerintahan yang sedang berjalan karena mengurangi legitimasi kekuasaan yang ada. Akibatnya, ini bukan saja akan merugikan pemerintah, namun juga pelayanan pemerintah terhadap warga-negara tidak akan berjalan dengan maksimal.
Tidak heran jika kemudian di negara-negara tersebut, pemerintah mengalokasikan dana yang cukup besar bagi para ilmuwan untuk melakukan penelitian mendalam mengenai persepsi atau kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap program-program pemerintah atau kepercayaan terhadap prosedur tata pemerintahan yang sedang dijalankan.
Sayangnya, tradisi yang sama tidak terjadi di negara ini. Sangat sulit menemukan data-data atau informasi-informasi penelitian, misalnya Longitudinal Research, yang memaparkan bagaimana tingkat kepercayaan masyarakat Indonesia secara holistic (utuh) dari waktu ke waktu terhadap pemerintah, baik struktur, aparatur, program, dan kebijakan. Begitupun dengan instrumen-instrumen demokrasi, seperti aktor politik, partai politik, pemilu dan lain-lain. Seolah-olah, “trust” menjadi missing link dalam hubungan pemerintah dan warga-negara, sehingga semua pihak kesulitan untuk menemukan titik masalah utama yang melanda bangsa ini.
Kuatnya dominasi pemerintah dalam menjalankan kebijakan, yang tidak sesuai dengan keinginan (atau mungkin hanya karena tidak dipahami) masyarakat melahirkan kesenjangan hubungan pemerintah dan masyarakat. Belum lagi banyaknya masalah yang dihadapi pemerintah, seperti penggelapan pajak, mafia hukum dan kehutanan, kasus century, korupsi dan lain-lain, semakin memperdalam kesenjangan tersebut. Kesenjangan ini bisa saja melahirkan gerakan sosial, misalnya, pemboikotan pajak atau pemilu, yang semakin menghambat proses demokrasi yang sedang berjalan. Sejatinya, pemerintah harus mulai melakukan instrospeksi diri, dengan menggali kepercayaan atau persepsi masyarakat terhadap apa saja yang telah dan sedang dilakukannya. Paling tidak, ada dua pertanyaan kunci yang kemudian harus terjawab, what is going on? dan why is it going on?.
Tujuannya, dengan menjawab dua pertanyaan tersebut, pemerintah akan memiliki logistic baru dalam membuat strategi-strategi arah kebijakan yang memperoleh dukungan dari masyarakat. Saya yakin, apa yang terjadi saat ini, seperti persoalan terorisme (yang sering dianggap sebagai persoalan idiologis), kerusuhan Koja, dan lain-lain, hanyalah pada persoalan “trust” warga-negara. Jika kepercayaan masyarakat tinggi pada, dan apa yang dilakukan oleh, pemerintah menuju cita-cita luhur bangsa ini, maka pemerintah dalam menjalankan sistem pemerintahan akan memperoleh dukungan dari masyarakat. Sekali lagi, ini hanya persoalan “trust”. Sudah saatnya, kita memahami diri kita sendiri, bukan justru orang lain yang lebih memahami kita.
Indonesia dikenal sebagai negara demokrasi terbesar ketiga di dunia, setelah Amerika dan India. Dengan julukan tersebut, Indonesia menjadi “magnet” bagi banyak scientist (ilmuwan) dunia untuk mempelajari perubahan sosial-politik di Indonesia karena dianggap memberikan konstribusi pada proses evolusi demokrasi sebagai sebuah sistem yang telah dianut oleh banyak negara di dunia ini. Paling tidak, ini adalah salah satu sumbangsih bangsa kita terhadap majunya peradaban dunia, walau sebatas sebagai laboratorium sosial saja.
“Jantung” dari demokrasi ditentukan oleh bagaimana hubungan antara negara dan warga-negara. Dengan kata lain, sistem yang berjalan akan disebut demokratis jika warga-negara memiliki andil dan dukungan yang besar dalam menentukan haluan kebijakan sebuah negara. Ini alasan utama mengapa di negara-negara maju yang demokratis, seperti Amerika, persoalan trust (kepercayaan) warga-negara terhadap pemerintah, sebagai pemegang otoritas yang akan menjamin kelangsungan hidup warga-negara, menjadi sangat penting dan memiliki pengaruh yang sangat besar terhadap jalannya sistem pemerintahan yang baik.
Demokrasi “semau gue”
Sejak runtuhnya rezim otoriter orde baru lebih dari satu dekade yang lalu, wajah negeri ini telah berubah total. Setiap saat, dimana saja, orang bebas berbicara, mengkritisi, bahkan mencaci pemerintah tanpa dianggap melakukan kejahatan terhadap negara. Belum lagi hampir setiap hari, ada saja kelompok masyarakat yang melakukan aksi tuntutan untuk hak-hak mereka yang belum diberikan. Sedangkan di parlemen, para wakil-wakil rakyat bersemangat untuk tampil beda, sehingga nampak (walaupun mungkin tidak) wajah institusi perwakilan rakyat yang dinamis.
Namun, banyak kalangan yang menganggap, demokrasi kita kebablasan. Tidak heran, demokrasi seolah-olah mengalami pergeseran makna menjadi protes, intrupsi, pilkada, blokir-jalan, pemekaran, konflik penguasaan sumber daya alam, dan lain-lain. Jika ditanya kenapa seperti itu, maka jawabannya adalah ini demokrasi. Kata demokrasi telah memiliki makna baru “semau gue”.
Pergeseran makna demokrasi tidak lepas dari kegagalan pemerintah. Pemerintah yang seharusnya mampu menjamin keadilan, keamanan dan ketertiban, menciptakan kesejahteraan bersama, dan kebebasan dengan kontrol sosial yang kuat antara warga-negara, belum juga terwujud. Akibatnya, masyarakat atau warga-negara lebih suka bertindak sendiri dan cenderung berbeda, atau justru bertentangan, dengan sikap pemerintah.
Pemerintah dan masyarakat yang seharusnya berjalan searah dalam mewujudkan cita-cita luhur bangsa untuk menciptakan tatanan masyarakat yang adil dan makmur, sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi, justru bertemu pada titik yang berbeda. Celakanya lagi, yang terjadi kemudian adalah sikap saling menyalahkan.
“Trust”
Di negara-negara maju, seperti Amerika, Inggris, Kanada dan Australia, kepedulian scientist (ilmuwan) terhadap hubungan pemerintah dan warga-negara menjadi topik pembahasan yang penting, atau bahkan urgent (mendesak). Mereka sangat menyadari, misalnya, rendahnya kepercayaan publik terhadap pemerintah, akan menjadi ancaman internal terhadap sistem pemerintahan yang sedang berjalan karena mengurangi legitimasi kekuasaan yang ada. Akibatnya, ini bukan saja akan merugikan pemerintah, namun juga pelayanan pemerintah terhadap warga-negara tidak akan berjalan dengan maksimal.
Tidak heran jika kemudian di negara-negara tersebut, pemerintah mengalokasikan dana yang cukup besar bagi para ilmuwan untuk melakukan penelitian mendalam mengenai persepsi atau kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap program-program pemerintah atau kepercayaan terhadap prosedur tata pemerintahan yang sedang dijalankan.
Sayangnya, tradisi yang sama tidak terjadi di negara ini. Sangat sulit menemukan data-data atau informasi-informasi penelitian, misalnya Longitudinal Research, yang memaparkan bagaimana tingkat kepercayaan masyarakat Indonesia secara holistic (utuh) dari waktu ke waktu terhadap pemerintah, baik struktur, aparatur, program, dan kebijakan. Begitupun dengan instrumen-instrumen demokrasi, seperti aktor politik, partai politik, pemilu dan lain-lain. Seolah-olah, “trust” menjadi missing link dalam hubungan pemerintah dan warga-negara, sehingga semua pihak kesulitan untuk menemukan titik masalah utama yang melanda bangsa ini.
Kuatnya dominasi pemerintah dalam menjalankan kebijakan, yang tidak sesuai dengan keinginan (atau mungkin hanya karena tidak dipahami) masyarakat melahirkan kesenjangan hubungan pemerintah dan masyarakat. Belum lagi banyaknya masalah yang dihadapi pemerintah, seperti penggelapan pajak, mafia hukum dan kehutanan, kasus century, korupsi dan lain-lain, semakin memperdalam kesenjangan tersebut. Kesenjangan ini bisa saja melahirkan gerakan sosial, misalnya, pemboikotan pajak atau pemilu, yang semakin menghambat proses demokrasi yang sedang berjalan. Sejatinya, pemerintah harus mulai melakukan instrospeksi diri, dengan menggali kepercayaan atau persepsi masyarakat terhadap apa saja yang telah dan sedang dilakukannya. Paling tidak, ada dua pertanyaan kunci yang kemudian harus terjawab, what is going on? dan why is it going on?.
Tujuannya, dengan menjawab dua pertanyaan tersebut, pemerintah akan memiliki logistic baru dalam membuat strategi-strategi arah kebijakan yang memperoleh dukungan dari masyarakat. Saya yakin, apa yang terjadi saat ini, seperti persoalan terorisme (yang sering dianggap sebagai persoalan idiologis), kerusuhan Koja, dan lain-lain, hanyalah pada persoalan “trust” warga-negara. Jika kepercayaan masyarakat tinggi pada, dan apa yang dilakukan oleh, pemerintah menuju cita-cita luhur bangsa ini, maka pemerintah dalam menjalankan sistem pemerintahan akan memperoleh dukungan dari masyarakat. Sekali lagi, ini hanya persoalan “trust”. Sudah saatnya, kita memahami diri kita sendiri, bukan justru orang lain yang lebih memahami kita.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)