Making Papua Communities Prosperous Through the Revision of Papua’s Special Autonomy
By: Princess Tiara) *
Towards the end of the receipt of Papua’s Special Autonomy (Otsus) balance fund in 2021, the discourse on the revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law has become more prominent, but has been marked by opposition from the Papuan people. This is for example, in 2014 Alm. Oktavianus Pogau, journalist and activist who observed the discussion and revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law, said that some Papuans did not want an evaluation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law because it was considered a failure, and offered dialogue and referendum as a solution to the Papua problem (Berita Indonesia, 2014). The latest is at the Papuan and West Papua student demonstrations at the Merdeka Palace on August 28, 2019, the rejection of Otsus was conveyed by the Korlap, namely Ambrose, who said that Papuan students and society strongly reject the extension of Otsus and agreed to request a referendum (Abdi, 2019) .
In fact, the Papua Special Autonomy Law is indeed problematic because it has not been able to improve the welfare of the people of Papua, so it needs to be evaluated. Quoted from Tjahjo Kumolo, some of these problems include governance that is not yet based on good governance; the lack of sense of belonging of the people of Papua towards the special autonomy policy; Otsus funds are asymmetrical; and planning for the use of special autonomy funds has not been based on participatory planning / bottom up approach (Paath, 2019).
Despite the problems, the solution offered by a number of Papuans above is by conducting a referendum, in fact it is not a win-win solution either for the Indonesian Government or for the people of Papua. The solution is very premature and even dangerous for the people of Papua themselves. Timor Leste is one proof of how the referendum has a negative impact on its people.
Nearly 20 years since Timor Leste gained independence from Indonesia, the country’s economic condition has not improved. Timor Leste is facing a cash crisis, and their productive economic sector has not been able to drive growth. In addition, about 40 percent of East Timorese people live in poverty, and analysts see it is unlikely that Timor Leste can independently develop their offshore oil and gas fields (World, 2019).
On the other hand, a referendum on Papua if carried out will only provide political economic benefits to a handful of Papuan oligarchs, namely the owners of capital and the economic authorities in Papua. This is a reflection of the condition of Indonesia at the local level after the New Order which still tends to be controlled by oligarchs or political leaders representing the interests of capital owners, so that democracy has not provided maximum benefits for the community.
Meanwhile, if the Papua referendum proposal is approved and results in a decision that Papua separates from Indonesia, then there is a great potential for conflict due to the diversity of ethnic groups in Papua and the still dominant problem solving with adat mechanisms. This will complicate the integration between tribes in Papua itself to become a single state, and potentially make Papua a federal state compared to a unitary state. If Papua becomes a federal state, foreign intervention on the people and land of Papua will certainly be greater so that the impact on not achieving the referendum objective is to improve the welfare of the Papuan people themselves. With the growing desire of the people of Papua to conduct a referendum, it helps us to recall the 1962 New York Agreement concerning the integration of the Papuan people into Indonesia. The agreement is the final legal basis which states that Papua is an integral part of Indonesia.
The Special Autonomy Law in Papua needs to be evaluated because the implementation is problematic. However, the evaluation does not actually justify the discourse that the referendum is the best solution for the people of Papua. The referendum will never solve the main problem that is not the welfare of the people of Papua, but with the evaluation and revision of the Special Autonomy Law and the establishment of a number of mechanisms to ensure the transparency of the Special Autonomy Fund and so that the use of the Special Autonomy Fund reaches the Papuan people directly, this will be the welfare of the people of Papua.
) * The author is a FISIP UI Alumni
