---

The judicial review hearing of the Special Autonomy for Papua Province, Thursday (30/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—A special asymmetric decentralized design is needed for Papua because the problems there are also special. Protection is not enough, as acceleration is necessary.

This was conveyed by Bambang Purwoko, the expert presented by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law) as amended by Law No. 35 of 2008 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation In Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2008 on the Amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 on the Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua into Law.

The eighth hearing of case No. 41/PUU-XVII/2019, which was petitioned by Chairman and Secretary General of the United Papua Party Krisman Dedi Awi Janui Fonataba dan Darius Nawipa, took place on Thursday (30/1/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners argued that the phrase partai politik (“political parties”) in Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Papua Special Autonomy Law be declared unconstitutional.

Social-political sciences lecturer of UGM Bambang Purwoko explained that asymmetric decentralization is implemented in Indonesia on several urgencies. For example, to overcome conflicts such as in D. I. Aceh, for the national capital as for the Special Capital Region of Jakarta, as well as cultural reasons for the Special Region of Yogyakarta, the specificity of the border areas, etc. Whereas in Papua it is implemented because of very special issues.

"Since 2000, I have researched the regency/city areas of Papua, so politically, socially, culturally, Papua has special natural characteristics. So, to deal with the Papua problem, special handling is also needed,” Bambang explained in a session chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, along with the other eight constitutional justices. 

Functions of Local Political Parties

According to Bambang, in politics, especially related to the Papua Special Autonomy Law, there needs to be affirmation, both in the article being reviewed and in improvements. Affirmation is required of the local political parties that must be followed by management of the election design so that this can provide protection and affirmation for the indigenous peoples of Papua in the political structure prepared by the state. All this time, local politicians, who are Orang Asli Papua (OAP) or indigenous peoples of Papua, have met impartial political and administrative competence.

In addition, Bambang added, there should also be affirmation of how a local political party is carrying out its functions, such as education and especially functions as a means of actualizing the aspirations of local communities, because the formation of local party is part of fulfilling the constitutional rights of citizens, including OAP.

"Thus, complexity in Papua requires a special design in the form of a more adaptive instrumentation to the local context and the need for assistance so that the policies made and implemented have firm implementation for OAP," Bambang explained. 

Dialogue

Indonesian political communication expert from Aceh Fachry Ali, who was presented by the Court, said that the emergence of the local parties in Aceh is related to the Helsinki Agreement between Indonesia (Jakarta) and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) on August 15, 2005. At that time the military was weakening due to tsunami. This was then used to find a way out of the long conflict that occurred in Aceh. So, the agreement outlines several things including local political parties.

Fachry admitted that local political parties in Aceh were established by the local people voluntarily to mitigate conflicts, but without dialogue. Military actions were carried out but then dialogue was chosen next, one of which was by establishing local political parties.

"So with this peace can be created, democracy can also be created at the local level and began to form a hierarchical relationship between Jakarta and the region," said Fachry. 

Solution to Conflict

Adriana Elisabeth, who was presented by the Court, said that since 2001 the government has sought special autonomy to reduce conflict in Papua. She said that in 2004-2009 she and researchers of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) found issues in Papua, including those of ideology, security politics, and the pros and cons of the history of integration of Papua, indigenous issues, environmental damage, conflicts over natural resources, as well as violence and violations by the state due to a sense of marginalization experienced by the people of Papua.

According to her, several solutions can be taken by the Government to overcome the long conflict, such as recognizing and empowering Papuans, adopting development paradigms in accordance with Papuan characteristics, forming truth commissions and human rights courts, especially those related to long conflicts and trauma experienced by the Papuan people, and having a dialogue including through the formation of local political parties.

"Dialogue is called para-para by the people of Papua. It has been carried out by the community for a long time. So this path can be reclaimed as a model for handling problems in Papua. The formation of local political parties is one way to recognize the constitutional and democratic rights of Papuans and part of the implementation of Papua\'s special autonomy," said Adriana, who is also the Coordinator of the Papua Peace Network in Jakarta. 

More Complex than Aceh

As an expert who has been working on issues in Papua for a long time, Adriana acknowledged that indigenous peoples in Papua are very heterogeneous and its heterogeneity is very complex and even more complicated than Aceh. Referring to the Helsinki Accord, Adriana observed that there are parties who oversee the political process taking place in Aceh so that it can be said to be very participatory. On the other hand, in Papua, Adriana saw that there was none.

"It is necessary to consider an overseeing agency on the condition that it must be based on 7 customary territories in Papua. So, the central government should not be too suspicious of Papua," Adriana hoped.

The Petitioners argue that their constitutional loss started from a concrete case when the General Elections Commission (KPU) of Papua Province denied their political party from participating in the 2019 legislative election and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights annulled the Decree of the Ratification of the United Papua Party as a legal entity.

The Petitioners believe that initially in the Papua Special Autonomy Bill Article 28 paragraph (1) had been intended to protect the local population in Papua so that they would always be represented in the legislative body in the Papua Province. Because Papua Province of was finally given special autonomy based on the Papua Special Autonomy Law, according to the Petitioners, the political parties concerned were local political parties. Apart from the fact its support is solely in Papua Province, the main reason is that the legal basis is special in accordance with the legal principle lex specialis derogat legi generalis. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---