Special autonomy granted to Papua in 2001 is not free from suspection and dissatisfaction. Papuans suspect central government using special autonomy as a cloak to silence the never-ending aspiration of self-determination. Indeed, most Papuans claim special autonomy as political compromise for the demand of independence.
Also, special autonomy is claimed as a project to destroy Papuans, as saying in the banners during the rally to return special autonomy several months ago.
Likewise, Papuans feel dissatified with special autonomy. Dissatisfication has been raised since special autonomy officially took effect. Papuans claim that special autonomy is not the solution to the numerous problems persisting in Papua .
The dissastifation reached its peak when Papuans decided to return special autonomy to Jakarta. Two significant events describe the phenomenon. First, on 12 August 2005, Dewan Adat Papua (Papua Customary Council, DAP)) with support from most Papuans took initiative to return special autonomy to Jakarta. They claim that special autonomy fails to improve not only the living conditions of Papua but also fails to recognise the basic rights of Papua.
Second, on 18 June 2010, Majelis Rakyat Papua (Papua’s People Assembly, MRP) took initiative and supported by DAP to return special autonomy to Jakarta. MRP claims as quoted by Suara Perempuan Papua Newspaper edition of 30 June-7 July 2010 that special autonomy law fails to protect and meet the expectation of indigenous Papuans.
As it fails, according to the head of MRP, Agus Alua, Papuans has dicided to return special autonomy to Jakarta. Alternatively, Papuans call for dialog or referendum to determine the political status of Papua. There are 11 recommendations signed by 22 representatives of Papuans from DAP, MRP, religous leaders, NGOS, women groups and many others in support of the demand.
These two events attracted about thousand of Papuans, taking to the streets and held a long march to the office of Papua government and Papua parliament. Although, statements about special autonomy fails keep being made, little attention has been paid to the importance of questioning on what aspect special autonomy fails. The most-used expression “special autonomy fails” is ambiguous. There is no a common agreement among Papuans and politicians in Papua on what conditions special autonomy fails.
There are three most-spoken language about the failure of special autonomy. First, legality issue. Some Papuans and legal experts in Papua claim that special autonomy law has a lot of problems. One example is about the definition of what constitute “Indigenous Papuans (Orang Asli Papua).” Special autonomy law has no clear definition about this aspect.
Different alternative has been suggested. Some suggest biologically that indigenous Papuan is those who are pure blood. In other words, their parents are both Papuans. Contrary, some suggest that indigenous Papuans can be mixed blood, either one is Papuan. Yance Yomaki and Yoppy Maipauw, two members of parliament Papua Barat province, suggest that a child born from a Papuan mother and non-papuan father should fall into the criteria of indigenous Papuans.
Moreover, in a seminar title, “Who is Indigenous Papuans” held in Cenderawasih University on 4 June 2010, Benny Giay, one of the speaker in the seminar, states that indigenous Papuans are those who had resided in Papua thousands years before Dutch and Indonesia took over Papua.
As the special autonomy law has a lot of problems and multi-interpretation and still does not accomodate the complexities of Papuan problems, some people have advised to amend special autonomy. Prof. Dr. W. Kambuaya, Rector of Cenderawasih University, agrees to have special autonomy revised, while DR. Muhammad Musaad, director of Cenderawasih University-based Democratic Center, prefer “reconstruction.”
Although the language used by Kambuaya and Musaad is slightly different-revision and reconstruction, the substance is the same. The discourse to amend special autonomy is rejected by MRP which says in one of 11 recommendations that there is no need to revise special autonomy as it has been proven fail.
Due to this legality problem, some Papuans claim special autonomy law has failed to protect the basic rights of indigenous Papuans and fail to accomodate Papuan’s aspiration. More importantly, special autonomy law fails to realize its three magic words-protection, empowerment and affirmation for indigenous Papuans.
Second, whether the “special autonomy fails” in the context of its implementation. In other words, legally, special autonomy is a a good law but the implementation is not as expected. Some Papuans claim that central government does not consistently and seriously implement special autonomy. For example, central government issue regulation such as presidential instruction no 1/2003 to accelerate the establisment of Papua Barat Province.
Likewise, the implemention of special autonomy has not significantly improve the living conditions of Papua. Papuans still live in poverty. Also, three prioritized areas of special autonomy, education, health and micro-economy remain the same ever since. Yet, special autonomy brings more harm than good. Since special autonomy was in effective, there have been significant increases in HIV/AIDS, corruption, violences.
Third, “special autonomy’ fails both in its legality and implementation. Legality and implementation has causal effect. If the legality of special autonomy has problem, consequently, its implementation will not effectively address the problem of Papuans face. For example, due to special autonomy does not specify the criteria of a local leader, MRP issue a decree No. 14/2009 which state prospective candidate must be regional leader in Papua province of the local indigenous people. This decree raise pros and cons among people in Papua and raise concern for Jakarta.
According to John Rumbiak, head of legal bureau Papua province, MRP's decree is discriminative and violate human rights. This decree is also rejected by central government claiming that MRP's decree is disrciminative. Due to this problem, the local election will use law no. 32/2004 about the procedures to local election. This rejection raises criticism among many Papuans as it reduces the rights of native Papua to govern themselves and become the leader of their land.
In conclusion, the expression of “special autonomy fails’ is ambigious. There is no clear definition on what aspect it fails whether it is about legality, implementation or both. If legality is the main problem, the revision or reconstruction can be the solution.
On the other hand, if the implementation is the problem, the next question should be asked is who should be blamed-whether central goverment, local goverment or indigenous Papuans or the system. Once the culprit is identified, it is easy to make changes. Likewise, if both fail, there should be another alternative to replace special autonomy law or it depends on Papuans to decide what best for them.
Deciding to return special autonomy or demanding referendum without a clear definition on what aspects “special autonomy fails” will be self-contradiction as no basis has been well established yet.