The relocation of the national capital has prompted Indonesia to work diligently in preparing Jakarta’s governance once it is no longer the capital city. This effort is evident with the draft of the Jakarta Special Region Bill (RUU DKJ) being discussed in the House of Representatives (DPR).

The draft has surprised the public due to the proposal that the governor of Jakarta will be appointed by the president as the head of the Indonesian government. This proposal is viewed by many as a setback for democracy.

The formulation of this governance model is seen as an effort to maintain Jakarta’s special administrative status. This matter requires careful and thorough consideration by the Indonesian people to prevent errors that could hinder collective progress.

Empirical evidence shows that Jakarta, as the nation’s capital and a megalopolitan city, maintains stability across various sectors. However, it is noteworthy that since the implementation of direct gubernatorial elections, there has been an increase in political turbulence—although still under control—due to Jakarta’s status as the capital city.

Jakarta is a strategic city that must be safeguarded with the utmost effort. Currently, its condition remains stable, but this stability may be threatened once the national capital officially moves to Penajam Paser Utara.

As Jakarta transitions into a standalone megalopolitan city, future direct gubernatorial elections may increase political friction and instability. This concern is amplified by the fact that key state institutions will also relocate to the new capital, leaving Jakarta without its former national significance.

Thus, maintaining the city’s stability will become a strategic issue for Jakarta’s future.

A world-class megalopolitan city cannot function effectively without stability. However, this stability could be jeopardized by political disputes during local elections.

This concern is echoed by Steve Leach (1991), who emphasized that urban governance, especially in large cities, must remain stable. According to Leach, representative democracy is better suited for urban governance than direct democracy, as large cities tend to focus on market-enabling policies.

In this regard, Jakarta’s special status could be maintained by adopting a system where the governor is elected by the Jakarta City Council (DPRD) instead of by direct public vote. However, if the current draft of the RUU DKJ is passed and the governor is appointed by the president, Jakarta may become overly stable—a condition that could stifle innovation and fail to reflect the will of its citizens.

Managerial Corporatism

As a megalopolis, Jakarta aligns closely with the concept of managerial corporatism (Pinch, 1985). Under this model, political leadership is chosen through representative democracy, while city administration is led by a CEO who manages the bureaucratic apparatus. Unfortunately, this concept is absent from the current RUU DKJ draft.

Jakarta requires a bold and innovative governance framework moving forward. Both the government’s draft bill and the Regional Representative Council (DPD)’s version of RUU DKJ (proposed in August) present only conventional solutions. Both drafts maintain Jakarta’s special status but merely reorganize existing special authorities.

To break away from the ordinary, the RUU DKJ should be renamed the Jakarta Megalopolitan Bill (RUU MJ). Under this structure, metropolitan areas would operate as sub-divisions of the megalopolitan government.

Additionally, Jakarta’s bureaucratic nomenclature should be modernized. Outdated terms like dinas (department), badan (agency), and UPT (technical implementation unit) should be replaced with departments, agencies, and offices. Furthermore, districts (kecamatan) should be rebranded with more progressive terminology, and urban wards (kelurahan) could function as local offices.

Given Jakarta’s extraordinary growth, stability must be ensured from the outset by redefining the governor’s role. The governor, once elected or appointed, could then select a CEO to manage the megalopolitan bureaucracy. This would distinguish Jakarta from other global cities that also serve as capital cities.

For example, Tokyo Prefecture—which includes Tokyo Metropolitan, Chiba, and Yokohama—operates at the provincial level. Interestingly, Japan’s national capital is technically confined to Tokyo Metropolitan, which is equivalent in scale to Central Jakarta. In other countries, the capital city often functions as a single autonomous district within a larger metropolitan area—such as Manila, Canberra (despite its status as a state), and New York City. In these cases, mayors are often elected by local councils rather than by direct public vote.

It is time for Indonesia to officially recognize Jakarta as a megalopolitan city and to protect its autonomy without merely copying foreign models that overlook the city’s unique character and importance. Even without its status as the national capital, Jakarta will remain a world-class city—but only if it is supported by modern, effective institutions.

Therefore, RUU DKJ needs significant revisions to ensure that Jakarta does not become an ordinary city. The law must strike a careful balance between autonomous stability and the encouragement of innovation and public aspirations.

May this vision for Jakarta’s future come to fruition.