The meeting of the IKN Authority leadership and the KPK leadership needs to be welcomed positively. The goal is that the development of the nation’s capital city is free of corruption and is able to create a clean city in terms of institutional management and also physically clean cities.
This meeting is the nation’s effort to build an anti-corruption culture at the center of government which is expected to become a role model for all sectors, lines, and levels of government in Indonesia.
It is easily calculated from the public administration (law) point of view, the potential for corruption in the movement of financial management by the IKN Authority. Since the beginning of the IKN Law, the design authority is a special regional government led by a ministerial-level official without a people’s representative institution at the local level (Article 5 Paragraph 4 and Article 4 Paragraph 1 letter b). The official is also appointed directly by the President (Article 5 Paragraph 4).
It is stated that the authority can regulate and manage its own affairs (Article 5 Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 6). This is key from a public administration (legal) perspective. These articles are related to governance that is developed, created, and runs within IKN institutions, including the use of public finances in IKN development.
From this point of view, the authorities must be able to formulate regulations for the use of public finances within the IKN institutions themselves. There is an anomaly (law) of public administration here.
The right to self-regulate within the IKN is the source of the first anomaly. An institution such as an authority that does not have an organ that is counted as a political institution equipped with the authority to regulate is something unusual. Being declared a ministerial-level institution, but its jurisdiction only covers a few inches in the territory of a province in a nation-state called Indonesia, is the second anomaly.
Even though it is stated in the law as ministerial level, how this institution regulates itself, is determined by the top leadership, then becomes the basis for its own rules without an institution such as a council—whether it becomes governance that can be guaranteed to good governance because “oranges eat oranges”—can be easy. occur. Of course, vested interest is very wide open.
These two anomalies are the result of not properly reading the meaning of Articles 18 and 18B of the Constitution which is the reference for this Law. If you really want to become an authority, it is impossible to declare yourself at the ministerial level, because the scope of power is the domain of work. If it is serious, it is necessary to form an authority council or a ministry for IKN Authority affairs at the national level as the regulator, which in the future the authority in the field will only be the executor (manager). This authority without autonomy and administrative in nature only has the authority to administer.
The self-regulation provided by the IKN Law, which contains these anomalies, is also prone to abuse of power. Of course, the KPK will calculate, review, and audit whether there are arrangements made by the IKN authority leadership in carrying out/managing all aspects of IKN development.
The leadership of the IKN authority cannot immediately implement various laws related to state finances and others, without being lowered into regulatory products for themselves. The management cannot be done automatically by the IKN bureaucratic institution, which will work later. The leadership of the IKN authority must issue a number of IKN regulatory documents, including those concerning the use of public finances for the benefit of IKN development.
The above anomaly continues to the consistency of regulatory products set by the leadership of the IKN Authority for all legal products at the national level. Like the administrative government, it should only carry out everything running in the IKN area.
However, the first problem faced by IKN, with the title of ministerial level, is sectoral ego. This is not a trivial challenge. An easy path to take will result in all regulatory products being returned to the President as the main regulator of IKN since the enactment of the IKN Law.
If the IKN Law is developed consistent with Articles 18 and 18B of the Constitution, it will certainly make it easier for the leaders of the IKN Authority to move the wheels of their government. The reference that has been carried out has also been helped by the many regulations issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the IKN Law has a special regional government style based on a typical administrative area, which does not follow the rules of the Ministry of Home Affairs. So, do not face the problem of sectoral ego.
Under the existing conditions, according to the IKN Law, the leadership of the authority will use the President as a basis for formulating regulatory products. Institutions with several spans of territory in a province in Indonesia are all regulated by the President. This is the third anomaly that indicates a new injustice in the governance of the Indonesian nation-state.
The development of this regulatory product, of course, in practice will rely on the strength of proposals from internal IKN institutions which are led by the leadership of the authority. In fact, “oranges eat oranges”, and this must be considered by the KPK.
In managing state finances, it seems that the sources of IKN development will come from own sources (APBN) and sources of cooperation from other parties (outsourcing). In terms of regulating the use of various funding sources, it seems that the existing national regulations are complete and can be used as a reference, both by the KPK and the IKN Authority itself, to pay attention to them. Thus, what must be considered is the consistency of the arrangements that will be determined by the President or the leadership of the authorities themselves.
In the management dimension, it is even more detailed, whether there is money politics, whether there is bribery, whether there is vested interest, and other details that seem easy to read. The wealth report of the leadership of the IKN Authority has also attracted the attention of the KPK and the public. Until he was appointed as the head of the IKN Authority, it seemed that he was still classified as zuhud. Subsequent developments will be seriously monitored by all parties.
The meeting of the IKN Authority leadership and the KPK leadership is expected to be able to overcome the above difficulties. Hopefully.
by Irfan Ridwan Maksum, Permanent Professor of Administration and Public Policy; Secretary to the Board of Professors of the Faculty of Administrative Sciences, University of Indonesia
published in Kompas Daily