The IKN Law states that a new Jakarta Law must be formed two years after it is passed. The formulators of the Jakarta Law must adequately prepare the specificity argument. One important key to note is urban governance.
It will be soon that efforts to realize the new state capital (IKN) in North Penajam, Kalimantan, will soon be recognised in line with the strong commitment of President Joko Widodo and his staff.
Commitment is also directed at preparing for the improvement of Jakarta, which will soon not become the capital of the Republic of Indonesia in the future. The IKN Law states that a new Jakarta Law must be formed two years after it is passed. This deadline is getting closer. We must immediately revise the existing Jakarta Law, namely Law No. 29/2007, concerning the Provincial Government of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta as the Capital of the Republic of Indonesia. If not, the new IKN development program can be hampered.
Jakarta has fulfilled the title of a city above “metropolitan”, according to the World Bank (1995). The existing city of Jakarta is at the provincial level, and from an urban scale, it has the character of multi-aspects and multi-centres of economic activity. A “mega(lo)politan” city.
This character is accompanied by a network pattern formed even beyond the administrative boundaries of the province. The metropolitan nature of this city has been surpassed. The number of economic activity centres in Jakarta reaches that of an urban with a massive external network.
Jakarta, as a mega(lo)politan, can also be used as an argument to defend its specificity. The strongest argument, it is the only urbanized city in Indonesia and has a long history as the centre of governance of the Indonesian nation-state. The formulators of the Jakarta Law must adequately prepare the specificity argument.
In Indonesia, this feature also exists in Medan, Surabaya, Makassar, Bandung and Semarang, but Jakarta still has the highest degree. The high degree of urbanization is also accompanied by the degree of problems it faces.
Many problems are felt, starting from traffic jams, floods, garbage, slums, pollution, etc. Issues like this keep piling up if not managed properly. Unfortunately, the bigger the city, the less able it is to deal with this problem independently. There must be vertical and horizontal coordination (Prude Home: 1995). Over time, this situation will also be experienced by other cities in Indonesia.
The key, especially in urban governance. Meanwhile, the legal umbrella for urban management in Indonesia has yet to be formulated adequately, and the issue of urban control in Indonesia is still accommodated in general regional government regulations.
Mega(lo)politan considerations
There are several considerations in formulating the Jakarta mega(lo)politan based on “Regional and Administrative science” (Leemans: 1970). This is also important for the accuracy and speed of welcoming the IKN so that it is not hampered.
First, the organizational design paradigm of local government within the nation-state. However urban governance is part of the genus “local government”. AF Leemans said there are two patterns in this regard: function basis; and territory base.
Considering the basis of function, the Jakarta mega(lo)politan will prioritize the power of its functional units at the centre of government to manage all corners of the city. Provincial offices must have solid and agile processes and able people. Each agency competes to be the best according to the rational considerations of the sector, so the mapping of work areas must be accurate.
Services to the community and the urban area of Jakarta from each agency must be as vital as possible. The consideration that there is an arrangement of community levels is not the main thing in this case, but rather the optimum demands of the sector.
In contrast, on a regional basis, governance of the mega(lo) politician Jakarta is more likely to be delegated to its territorial units. As we know, within Jakarta, there is a government at the administrative city and regency level, even sub-districts and sub-districts.
At this point, the issue of two levels of autonomy has surfaced even though one still wants “specificity” for Jakarta, one story or two groups. Between these two patterns, perhaps in the future, a mixed approach will emerge pragmatically as stipulated in the revision of the Jakarta Law.
Second, the specialities of Jakarta in the future should not only be related to one level of autonomy. What is unique about Jakarta? Profound breakthroughs must be made so that the formulation of the draft Law on Jakarta does not think about “junk” but something new and out-of-the-box, one of which is that the Jakarta bureaucracy is a developed city bureaucracy with a great future besides the design of political organs. Local.
The label mega(lo)politan can refer to Jakarta’s future “province”. Below it also follows the form of “metropolitan” for the city level and “laminate” for the Thousand Islands Regency. The term “service” is also out-of-date; it must be called differently. His posts have also been left behind. Plus, its governance must be unique, and different from the others.
Third, Jakarta must provide opportunities at the practical level in the future for the discretion of the managers who fill it. Mega(lo)politan autonomy must be given an adequate place, different from others.
Jakarta managers must be able to carry out massive and extensive vertical and horizontal coordination in a quality manner for the benefit of their city. With attention to these considerations, the mega(lo)politan Jakarta will become a world-class city, able to compete at the ASEAN, Asian and even global levels.
Irfan Ridwan Maksum Permanent Professor of Administration and Public Policy, Chair of the Center for the Study of DeLOGO-FIA-UI aspects of organizational strategy. In time, Jakarta’s governance and the strength of its resources will be driven by its administrators. Thus the draft Jaka Law
