Indonesian
bureaucratic reform in the making
Eko Prasojo, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS MINISTER
SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 8 Maret 2012
The
government has made administrative reform, widely known as bureaucratic reform,
one of its commitments. It is a fact that administrative reform is one of the
measures needed to address various problems within nationhood and statehood.
However, commitment on its own is not enough. A well-structured and gradual agenda is needed to create a reform trajectory.
Administrative reform without a well-directed trajectory will not only become exhausting but also bear no fruit.
Experience shows that among the reasons of Indonesia’s failure to undergo administrative reform is the lack of such a trajectory.
Just as a person walks, a reform needs direction, a route to follow. Pollit and Boukaert (2000) defined trajectory as an intentional pattern — a route that someone is trying to take. It leads from a starting point to some desired place or state of affairs in the future.
A future vision that will be achieved through administrative reform, without a starting point and clear trajectory, will only amount to utopia. Conversely, a reform starting point with a clear route, but without final vision, will create the same result.
The success of administrative reform will be much determined by the availability of mapping of the current problems, well-directed reform and purposes to achieve in the future. Administrative reform cannot be done in zig-zag manner, especially when it lacks clear goals.
It is also this matter that distinguishes change from reform. Change tends to be a reactive response toward an environment for a temporary moment, while administrative reform is a planned change to design the readiness of the state administration for organizational-environment changes which will take place in the future.
Often, administrative reform is a scenario prepared to face changes that will happen in the future. As a scenario, administrative reform (or modernization) therefore consists of three main elements: initial situation mapping, a reform agenda trajectory and future situations.
As for trajectory in particular, there are several important aspects to highlight, including context, concerning all aspects that will be reformed; and process, concerning how the agenda is implemented.
Looking at what has been happening in administrative reform in Indonesia, there are some points to be noted.
Despite the fact that administrative reform has been, for a long time, declared and put into the national agenda, the agenda seems to have yet to give any substantial influence to the improvement of government, services and development qualities.
In fact, the presence, instead of the absence, of bureaucracy is often perceived as a burden for society. When it is linked to the administrative reform scenario, then we can identify the main reason for administrative reform failures in Indonesia.
Firstly, the lack of presence and integration of the reform trajectory to be followed in the long term. This trajectory reflects the sustainability of the target between the short, middle and long terms.
Secondly, this absence of a reform trajectory has caused disharmony within the reform agenda from one administration to the next.
The administrative reform trajectory is always cut off and moved back to square one every time there is change of government.
In other words, every change of the national leadership results in a new reform agenda that is unconnected with the past.
Thirdly, even if a particular government initiates an administrative reform agenda, it lacks a well-directed trajectory for the long term.
The question then is why it should be started with performance-benefits reform? What are the previous reform agendas that have already been done?
Will the increase of performance benefits solve the existing problem, especially recalling the fact that Indonesian bureaucrats are used to extravagant lifestyles?
What would be the next reform agenda? And is this performance-benefits reform related to a future vision that will be achieved?
The fourth problem concerns process. That is, the fact that the Administrative Reforms Ministry has not been unable to consistently maintain the administrative reform agenda trajectory.
If the ministry is to be given a full mandate to protect the trajectory, then an institutional and personnel revitalization should be carried out at the ministry.
The mandate to safeguard should not only deal with authority, but also sufficient funds resourcing. The President’s decision to mandate Vice President Boediono as the chief of administrative reform should be appreciated in order to integrate all trajectories and sectors in the implementation of the reform.
Thus, a strong, innovative and consistent reform machine to run reform agenda is necessary.
Administrative reform should not only shape the government’s good image in the short-term. Yet this is the real difficulty.
The relatively short-term period of every government, i.e. five years, or 10 years at the most, often spark impatience and demands for immediate changes and results.
Administrative reform is a “climbing road” and it will definitely cause resistance from both bureaucrats and politicians.
Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that the resistance can
actually be well managed because it is a normal phenomenon in any reform.
It is upon this basis that the trajectory of administrative reform agenda must be well designed to ensure that it doesn’t lie on a steep slope as it will cause more resistance and cost. But it shouldn’t too flat, either, to avoid the implementations running too slow.
The slope of the administrative reform trajectory is a function of political support, human resource capability and budgeting, complexity of dynamic bureaucratic condition and the President’s political commitment.
The bureaucratic reform launched by the President and the Administrative Reforms Ministry is to help formulate the administrative reform agenda.
The next question is: what can be made as the scope and component of the trajectory in administrative reform?
There are several things that can be considered, including a state financial management system (e.g. based on output performance, outcome and impact; accountable goods procurement), state apparatus/personnel (open promotion systems, performance-based salaries), government organization (such as restructuring, coordination and decentralization), improvement of government business processes (simplification of procedures) and the strengthening of state apparatus morals and ethics (modest lifestyle, prohibition of conflict of interest, and reverse investigation of officials’ assets).
Those various scopes and components can actually comprise the sub-trajectory that should also be made in well-directed manner.
Every state should have a different administrative reform trajectory, and therefore the selection of trajectory should embark from the current problem and the expected situation in the future.
In the Indonesian context, the scope and component of a trajectory that should be given a priority is the improvement of the state apparatus/civil service.
The sub-trajectory that can be selected and implemented is an open and independent bureaucratic
position promotions and the strengthening of morals and ethics monitoring. Both can be made as the initial trajectory for administrative reform in Indonesia.
Another problem facing the government is the implementation of every administrative reform agenda.
In this case, the reform could follow a top-down approach from the central to local government, or the reverse. The success of administrative reform at a local level is always hindered by the laws at national level.
In the Indonesian context, administrative reform would be better to be implemented top-down from the central to local government, both in terms of policy as well as implementation.
Finally, it is my belief that only with serious commitment in creating the agenda trajectory, administrative reform may succeed. ●
However, commitment on its own is not enough. A well-structured and gradual agenda is needed to create a reform trajectory.
Administrative reform without a well-directed trajectory will not only become exhausting but also bear no fruit.
Experience shows that among the reasons of Indonesia’s failure to undergo administrative reform is the lack of such a trajectory.
Just as a person walks, a reform needs direction, a route to follow. Pollit and Boukaert (2000) defined trajectory as an intentional pattern — a route that someone is trying to take. It leads from a starting point to some desired place or state of affairs in the future.
A future vision that will be achieved through administrative reform, without a starting point and clear trajectory, will only amount to utopia. Conversely, a reform starting point with a clear route, but without final vision, will create the same result.
The success of administrative reform will be much determined by the availability of mapping of the current problems, well-directed reform and purposes to achieve in the future. Administrative reform cannot be done in zig-zag manner, especially when it lacks clear goals.
It is also this matter that distinguishes change from reform. Change tends to be a reactive response toward an environment for a temporary moment, while administrative reform is a planned change to design the readiness of the state administration for organizational-environment changes which will take place in the future.
Often, administrative reform is a scenario prepared to face changes that will happen in the future. As a scenario, administrative reform (or modernization) therefore consists of three main elements: initial situation mapping, a reform agenda trajectory and future situations.
As for trajectory in particular, there are several important aspects to highlight, including context, concerning all aspects that will be reformed; and process, concerning how the agenda is implemented.
Looking at what has been happening in administrative reform in Indonesia, there are some points to be noted.
Despite the fact that administrative reform has been, for a long time, declared and put into the national agenda, the agenda seems to have yet to give any substantial influence to the improvement of government, services and development qualities.
In fact, the presence, instead of the absence, of bureaucracy is often perceived as a burden for society. When it is linked to the administrative reform scenario, then we can identify the main reason for administrative reform failures in Indonesia.
Firstly, the lack of presence and integration of the reform trajectory to be followed in the long term. This trajectory reflects the sustainability of the target between the short, middle and long terms.
Secondly, this absence of a reform trajectory has caused disharmony within the reform agenda from one administration to the next.
The administrative reform trajectory is always cut off and moved back to square one every time there is change of government.
In other words, every change of the national leadership results in a new reform agenda that is unconnected with the past.
Thirdly, even if a particular government initiates an administrative reform agenda, it lacks a well-directed trajectory for the long term.
The question then is why it should be started with performance-benefits reform? What are the previous reform agendas that have already been done?
Will the increase of performance benefits solve the existing problem, especially recalling the fact that Indonesian bureaucrats are used to extravagant lifestyles?
What would be the next reform agenda? And is this performance-benefits reform related to a future vision that will be achieved?
The fourth problem concerns process. That is, the fact that the Administrative Reforms Ministry has not been unable to consistently maintain the administrative reform agenda trajectory.
If the ministry is to be given a full mandate to protect the trajectory, then an institutional and personnel revitalization should be carried out at the ministry.
The mandate to safeguard should not only deal with authority, but also sufficient funds resourcing. The President’s decision to mandate Vice President Boediono as the chief of administrative reform should be appreciated in order to integrate all trajectories and sectors in the implementation of the reform.
Thus, a strong, innovative and consistent reform machine to run reform agenda is necessary.
Administrative reform should not only shape the government’s good image in the short-term. Yet this is the real difficulty.
The relatively short-term period of every government, i.e. five years, or 10 years at the most, often spark impatience and demands for immediate changes and results.
Administrative reform is a “climbing road” and it will definitely cause resistance from both bureaucrats and politicians.
Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that the resistance can
actually be well managed because it is a normal phenomenon in any reform.
It is upon this basis that the trajectory of administrative reform agenda must be well designed to ensure that it doesn’t lie on a steep slope as it will cause more resistance and cost. But it shouldn’t too flat, either, to avoid the implementations running too slow.
The slope of the administrative reform trajectory is a function of political support, human resource capability and budgeting, complexity of dynamic bureaucratic condition and the President’s political commitment.
The bureaucratic reform launched by the President and the Administrative Reforms Ministry is to help formulate the administrative reform agenda.
The next question is: what can be made as the scope and component of the trajectory in administrative reform?
There are several things that can be considered, including a state financial management system (e.g. based on output performance, outcome and impact; accountable goods procurement), state apparatus/personnel (open promotion systems, performance-based salaries), government organization (such as restructuring, coordination and decentralization), improvement of government business processes (simplification of procedures) and the strengthening of state apparatus morals and ethics (modest lifestyle, prohibition of conflict of interest, and reverse investigation of officials’ assets).
Those various scopes and components can actually comprise the sub-trajectory that should also be made in well-directed manner.
Every state should have a different administrative reform trajectory, and therefore the selection of trajectory should embark from the current problem and the expected situation in the future.
In the Indonesian context, the scope and component of a trajectory that should be given a priority is the improvement of the state apparatus/civil service.
The sub-trajectory that can be selected and implemented is an open and independent bureaucratic
position promotions and the strengthening of morals and ethics monitoring. Both can be made as the initial trajectory for administrative reform in Indonesia.
Another problem facing the government is the implementation of every administrative reform agenda.
In this case, the reform could follow a top-down approach from the central to local government, or the reverse. The success of administrative reform at a local level is always hindered by the laws at national level.
In the Indonesian context, administrative reform would be better to be implemented top-down from the central to local government, both in terms of policy as well as implementation.
Finally, it is my belief that only with serious commitment in creating the agenda trajectory, administrative reform may succeed. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar