>>but I must admit the Bupati (district chief, literally
>"master
>>of the earth" in sanskrit - gives an indication how this
>role
>>is usually conceived) is a good guy, clean, enthusiastic, &
>>genuinely interested in improving the lives of locals. but
>the
>>system is too entrenched for lone rangers to make much of a
>>difference.
>
>is he an elected official or a traditionnal ruler ?

since the new law on regional autonomy in 99, the Bupatis have become locally elected. before that, under the Republic they were appointed by the provincial governor. under the Dutch, in most of Indonesia they were traditional rulers. they had higher protocol rank than the Dutch "residents", who were officially just diplomatic representatives of the governor-general.

but the Bataklands historically did not have any regular form of political organization bigger than the set of villages that shared a single irrigation source for their rice fields. all decisions were made through clan councils.

so when the Dutch introduced the Bupati system (which had developed in the 17th & 18th century in Java, where there had been large kingdoms for over a millennium), there were no obvious "traditional rulers" to appoint at the district level. all colonial Bupatis were respected clan elders (such as my grandfather), but they had no traditional claim on the loyalty of anyone outside their own clan & village.

>aka the nigerian syndrom.
>(from 3 regions to 36 states.. actually there is a number of
>people arguing that the rules for state creation are direct
>incentive for state creation.. sub-groups of ethnic groups
>tend to differentiate themselves for the sake of having a
>state and a budget and an university and an airport and a city
>in their village)

that's exactly what appears to be going on in parts of Indonesia today.

(witness the “mud volcano” in east java caused by
>>faulty gas drilling, that has been swallowing up country
>side
>>under toxic superheated mud since may 2006, scientists have
>no
>>idea how to stop it:
>>http://www.crisp.nus.edu.sg/coverages/mudflow/index.html )
>
>ouch.

just thought of checking youtube, because still images don't do justice to how fucked up this thing is:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ae_i69BPM2U

>>>Cabinda, Katanga, Biafra..
>>
>>hardly cases of easy replication! even supposing that the
>>states they were seceding from had just let them go
>>peacefully, I think for example Biafra itself would have
>>developed problems between the Igbo majority & other ethnic
>>groups in its territory.
>
>(aka why Tanzania and Zambia recognized Biafra 2 years deep in
>the war: at that point the territory controlled by the
>biafrans was Ibo)

but even then, is a territory ever really 100% ethnically "pure"? maybe in a few places in Africa that is a realistic possibility, but for the most part I don't think creating separate administrative units for every ethnic group to call its own is possible or desirable. hence, "Africa must unite".