Perbandingan Sistem Pemerintahan Daerah Irfan (Departemen Ilmu Administrasi)

Bagaimana membandingkan sistem Pemerintahan daerah yang notabene multidimensi?

Berbagai aspek dalam kelembagaan (organisasi dan administrasi) pemerintahan daerah Pembagian wewenang Struktur pemerintahan: lembaga politik dan birokrasi Sumberdaya: keuangan dan SDM Aspek susunan wilayah administrasi/ daerah otonom Pertalian kelembagaan antar asas pemerintahan Mekanisme manajerial: perencanaan, pengorganisasian, pemantauan dan pengawasan.

Conyers (2000) Membandingkan kebijakan desentralisasi termasuk praktek pemerintahan daerah di manapun dapat dilakukan dengan membandingkan kinerjanya antar daerah dalam satu kurun waktu di suatu negara bangsa, dapat antar waktu. Dapat pula dilakukan dengan membandingkan antar negara dalam satu kurun waktu atau antar waktu. Yang terpenting adalah apa dasar pijak (teoritisnya)? Sehingga dapat dikenali ‘anomali’ dari gejala empirik yang diamati.

Norton (1994) Alan Norton membandingkan praktek pemerintahan daerah di berbagai negara maju dengan indikator-indikator yang mudah dibaca: (1) jumlah susunan dan banyaknya daerah otonom (struktur secara nasional); (2) pembiayaan daerah; (3) dasar pembentukan; (4) karakter wewenang; (5) pengawasan aspek hukum; (6) wewenang Kepala Daerah; (7) sistem perwakilan dan kepartaian; dan (8) partisipasi masyarakat.

Leemans (1970) Various basic patterns of relationship exist between central government field administration and representative local government institutions 1. Fused model 2. Dual model 3. Split model

Fused model “The central government field organization is fused with local representative institutions. This pattern may be called fused or single hierarchy model. In such a case, only one integrated organization for government and administration exist at each level, composed of central government officials and local representatives.” Perancis dan beberapa negara di Asia dan Afrika menggunakannya. Jerman juga mengacu sistem ini pada level ‘Kreis’, sehingga banyak pakar menyamakannya dengan sistem Perancis.

Dual Model “There are two hierarchies of decentralization: the central government field administration (…) and the representative local government institutions. Each hierarchy is composed of several levels of local government or administration, each responsible for areas of decreasing size. This pattern may be called the dual hierarchy model.” Sistem ini diwujudkan dengan menempatkan aparatus Pemerintah yang ada di Daerah mengawasi unit pemerintah daerah. Belanda dulu menerapkannya untuk Hindia Belanda dengan mengembagkan controlleur dan Assistant controleur yang bertugas mengawasi pejabat Pribumi.

Lanjutan Saat ini sangat sulit ditemui sistem pemerintahan daerah yang murni mengembangkan ‘dual hierarchy’, kecuali instansi vertikal dari departemen sektoral yang masih dikembangkan di berbagai negara seprti di Inggris dan Perancis. Dan apabila terjadi pada wakil pemerintah, umumnya dikembangkan pada level yang berbeda sehingga dikenal sebagai ‘split model’.

Split model “In what might be termed the split-hierarchy model, only central government field organizations are found on some levels of the local government and administration hierarchy, and only local representative institutions on others.”

Lanjutan Sebenarnya hampir semua negara di dunia ini mengacu sistem ‘split’ ini dimana level teratas pemerintahan dijadikan tempat munculnya aparatus pemerintah, yang bisa dimungkinkan tidak adanya mekenisme desentralisasi. “The absence of a local representative element at the higher level”.

SISTEM PREFEKTORAL DAN FUNGSIONAL Leemans (1970) dan Fried (1963), Cheema dan Rondinelli (1985), Smith (1985), Hoessein (1993, 1995, 2002)

PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM PRFECTORAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM 1. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY IS DIVIDED INTO AREAS OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND EACH OF THESE IS PLACED A GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (PREFECT) 2. EACH OF THE CENTRAL MINISTRIES ISSUES COMMANDS TO ITS FUNCTIONAL COUNTERPARTS IN THE FIELD VIA PREFECT 3. MOST STATE SERVICES USE THE AREAS OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT PRESIDED OVER BY THE PREFECT   4. THE PREFECTS AREA OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ALSO CONSTITUTES AN AREA OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT 5. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER MINOR UNITS OF GOVERNMENT TENDS TO BE (A) MORE PENETRATIVE THAN IN FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, (B) ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE; (C) UNIFIED UNDER THE PERFECT 1. THERE IS NO GENERAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THE VARIOUS REGIONS OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY 2. LINE OF COMMANDS IN DIRECTLY FROM CENTRAL MINISTRIES TO THEIR FIELD SERVICES  3. STATE SERVICES, USE VARYING SETS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS 4. THERE IS NO NECESSARY IDENTITY BETWEEN FIELD ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS 5. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL TENDS TO BE (A) LESS PENETRATIVE, (B) LEGISLATIVE RATHER THAN ADMINISTRATION, (C) DISPERSED AMONG SEVERAL CENTRAL AND FIELD INSTITUTIONS.

INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND UN-INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM AND UN-INTEGRATED PREFECTORAL SYSTEM   CHARACTER IPS UPS 1. LOCUS OF AUTHORITY 2.COMMUNICATING   3.  AUXILIARIES SERVICES IN FIELD 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT    5. AREAS 1.  PREFECT   2.  SOLELY PREFECT 3.  WHOLLY BY PREFECT ITSELF 4. PREFECT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 5.    USE PREFECT AREA 1.   SPECIALIST   2.    NOT SOLELY NOT EXCLUSIVE IN PREFECT 3.    CENTRAL MINISTRIES 4.    SEPARATELY 5.    INDEPENDENTLY OF

Humes IV (1991) “The power to govern locally is distributed two ways: areally and functionally. On an areal (also called territorial) basis, the power to manage local public affairs is distributed among a number of general purpose regional and local governments.”

Lanjutan “On the functional basis, the power to manage local public services is distributed among a number of specialized ministries and other agencies concerned with the operation of one or more related activities. Thus the way power is distributed affects which central agencies exert control over which local institutions”

Distribution of Power: Functional and Areal Channels level General Governments Functional Agencies National Regional Municipal National Governments National Ministries/ Agencies Areal/ Territorial Regional Governments Municipal Governments Regional Governments departments/ agencies Ministries Field Agencies

lanjutan “In comparing system of local governance it is useful to consider at least two criteria for distinguishing approach. One is the extent to which hierarchical control is essentially either inter-organizational or intra-organizational. Second is the extent to which such control is focused in a single agency or spread among many functional or specialized hierarchies. These two criteria provide the vertical and horizontal dimensions for a framework for comparing the major approach to local governance.”

Ada dua dimensi, yakni: (1) dimensi I -–sebutan Humes IV adalah ‘control hierarchy’—- yakni pengawasan yang pola spektrumnya dari antar-organisasi sampai intra-organisasi; dan, (2) dimensi II –sebutan Humes IV ‘functional control’--, yakni pengawasan yang spektrumnya antara sektoral (functional basis) ataukah holistik (areal basis), yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah.

Di satu sisi, dimensi I (Pengawasan Hirarkis) dirinci menjadi empat macam karakter, yakni: (1) inter-organisasi (regulations); (2) Subsidiarization-hybrid; (3) Supervision (hybrid); dan, (4) intra-organisasi (subordination)

Di sisi lain, dimensi II (Pengawasan fungsional), terdiri atas 3 karakter: (1) areal, jika hanya mengandalkan Wakil Pemerintah Pusat (WPP) di daerah atau WPP memiliki peran yang sangat kuat di daerah; (2) dual, jika terjadi percampuran antara WPP dan administrasi lapangan departemen sektoral/ LPND; dan (3) functional, jika hanya mengandalkan administrasi lapangan departemen sektoral/ LPND

Lanjutan Karakter yang disebut ‘Dual’ oleh Humes IV dalam dimensi II ini terbagi menjadi dua: (1) Dual-areal, jika dominasi WPP lebih besar katimbang Departemen sektoral/ LPND; dan (2) Dual-functional, jika dominasi WPP lebih kecil (terbatas) katimbang Departemen sektoral/ LPND di tingkat lokal.

Matrix: Four Traditional approach to Local Governance: A Conceptual Framework Type of Control: General to Functional Areal: a general ministry/ agencies for coordinating local affairs has a strong role vis a vis functional ministries/ agencies Areal: a general ministry/ agencies for coordinating local affairs has a limited role vis a vis functional ministries/ agencies, some of which directly provide local services Dual Extent of control intra- to inter-organizational Subordinations (Intra-organization) Supervision (Hybrid) Subsidiarization (Hybrid) Regulation (Inter-organization)

French System The French system of local governance is a pattern of ‘dual supervision’. The French system –as it was developed to the revolution, transformed during the revolution, systemized under Napoleon and modified by successive transitions– conveys a sense of order, rationality and coherence derived in part from Roman concept of government…

Lanjutan This evolution has produced a system which combines strong central direction with local representative administration. The system provide an unbroken chain of command from the national government and its ministry of the interior through the region and its prefect, to the department and its prefect, to the commune and its major.

Lanjutan The specialized ministries with their field agencies are directly involved in the delivery of local services. The locally elected council and majors (whose role includes the function of central government agent) are politically potent but have little discretion regarding technical matters

Regional Prefecturate REGION Executive NATION Parliament Interior Ministry OTHER MINISTRIES Executive Regional Prefecturate REGION Assembly REGION LEVEL BRANCHES OF MINISTRIES Executive PREFECTURATE DEPARTMENTS COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS LEVEL BRANCHES OF MINISTRIES/ FIELD AGENCIES Arrondissement Sub-Prefect Executive COMMUNE COUNCIL LOCAL STAFF

Germanic System The Germanic system is a pattern of general or comprehensive ‘subsidiarization’…The result of such development has been a system of governance emphasizing administrative efficiency in which the sub-national governments exercise extensive autonomy and the local chief executives exert considerable authority.

Lanjutan As it has developed from the time of Bismarck, the system of the Federal Republic of Germany (hereafter referred to simply as the German system) may be distinguished by three characteristics: (a) each level of government relies upon the lower one of the management of public affairs; (b) central control is exercise through the ministry of the interior and its representatives; and, © local government have a great deal of autonomy.”

NATION Parliament MINISTERIES Parliament Interior Land Ministries EXECUTIVE NATION Parliament MINISTERIES Executive L and Parliament Interior Land Ministries Regierungs-bezirke Executive Departments EXECUTIVE Kreis Council Field Division Field Division Departments Gemeinde EXECUTIVE Council Departments

Soviet System The Soviet system is a pattern of ‘dual subordination’…It is this context which has led to the establishment of an integrative system in which a local agency is a part of both a national ministry and the local government.

Lanjutan The distinctive features of the Soviet system are ‘democratic centralism’ and ‘dual subordination’ and their corollary –the close integration of local government into the national system.

Lanjutan Not only is each regional and local jurisdiction generally responsible to a higher one, but each local department is also responsible to the corresponding department at a higher level

Lanjutan Jenjang yang ada antara lain: (1) nasional; (2) Republik (negara bagian); (3) Oblast (Province) dan (4) Raion (district). Pada jenjang Negara bagian ke bawah terdapat biro-biro dari perpanjangan Partai Komunis yang bersama-sama menentukan struktur pemerintahan. Di dalam pemerintahan daerahnya, secara keseluruhan merupakan perpanjangan dari hirarki atasannya. Oleh karena itu sangat ter-subordinasi.

Lanjutan Pemerintahan daerah yang dikembangkan dengan sendirinya juga didominasi pula oleh Partai Komunis Soviet. Oleh karena itu, pengawasan yang ada tidak lain adalah pengawasan antara ‘atasan’ dan ‘bawahan’ semata karena pada hakekatnya tidak ada demokrasi di luar partai tersebut dan sistem yang dikembangkan tidak mengakomodasi adanya keterwakilan masyarakat dalam pemerintahan. “Local Government departments are field agencies of central government ministries.” (Humes IV: 1991).

Lanjutan Pemerintahan Uni-Soviet mengenal adanya wakil pemerintah di daerah yang menjabat pula sebagai kepala daerah dengan syarat adalah tunduk kepada partai Komunis. Disamping itu, dikembangkan pula instansi vertikal, dengan dominasi wakil pemerintah. Artinya, instansi vertikal dikoordinir dan dapat dikendalikan oleh wakil pemerintahnya.

Lanjutan DPRD relative dapat dikatakan sebagai lembaga penasehat Pemerintah sebab hanya Partai Komunis yanga da di sana dan KDH sudah ditentukan oleh partai tersebut. Disamping itu, KDH yang juga adalah wakil Pemerintah menjadi Ketua DPRD pula. Untuk itu, justru DPRD Uni Soviet bertanggungjawab kepada Wakil Pemerintah tersebut.

British System The system of local government in the united Kingdom has been noted for the relative autonomy of its local government, for the lack of a strong central coordinating ministry and for the absence of regional executives with strong local coordinating roles.

Lanjutan In this system the field units of some central ministries provide many local services directly. There are no regional bodies for coordinating the effort of the central field agencies and local government.

Lanjutan British local governments do not have a chief executive role comparable with those of France, Germany or the USSR. It is the council, and especially its committees, many of which work closely with their respective ministries, in which power is vested.

Ministeries Field Agencies Executive NATION Parliament MINISTRIES Ministeries Field Agencies Council County Committee Departments Council District Committee DEPARTMENTS

Matrix: Four Traditional approach to Local Governance: A Conceptual Framework Extent of control intra- to inter-organizational Type of Control: General to Functional Areal: a general ministry/ agencies for coordinating local affairs has a strong role vis a vis functional ministries/ agencies Dual Areal: a general ministry/ agencies for coordinating local affairs has a limited role vis a vis functional ministries/ agencies, some of which directly provide local services Subordinations (Intra-organization) Supervision (Hybrid) Subsidiarization Regulation (Inter-organization) Dual Subordination (Soviet) Dual Supervision (Perancis) Areal Subsidiarization (West Germany) Functional regulations (United Kingdom)

Board/ Administering Committees Possibilities Single-executive possibilities Single Executive only (No Committees/ No Boards Board (no Committees) Committees and Boards Committees (no Boards) Council Elected French municipalities Australian Municipalities Soviet municipalities Swedish municipalities Indian municipalities Centrally-appointed Spanish Municipalities Netherlands municipalities Norwegian province Many Sudanese municipalities Independently elected Japanese municipalities Some German and some Canadian municipalities Some Canadian municipalities Some US municipalities Council-appointed Irish counties, and some US municipalities Some German municipalities Finnish municipalities - No Chief Executive UK municipalities

Negara dan Tipologinya (PENGELOLAAN PERSONNEL) Tipe Pertama Tipe Kedua Tipe Ketiga Pemerintah Daerah berperan utama dalam pengelolaan Pegawai daerah: Perancis, Jepang, Belanda, USA Newyork State, Senegal, Yugoslavia, UK, Finlandia, Norwegia, dan New Zealand dimana QuanGOS sebagai lembaga yang menangani Kepegawaian daerah Tidak ada kepastian lembaga yang utama menangani Pegawai daerah: Brazil, Amerika Tengah, Cili, Indiana State USA, Kenya Srilangka, India, Irlandia, Thailand (Terdapat Lembaga tingkat Nasional, bisa oleh pemerintah Pusat, tetapi tidak menutup kemungkinan dibentuk oleh Asosiasi Pemda) Cina, Taiwan, Marocco, India, Nepal, Pakistan, United Arab, Ekuador (terdapat lembaga Pemerintah Pusat)