The
inevitable process of bureaucratic reform
in Indonesia
Alex
Yap, the Managing Director of
ASPEC Consultancy in Purmerend, the Netherlands
SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 10 April 2012
Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia has been
given a new impulse with the setup of the Administrative Reforms Ministry.
However, in a recent article in The Jakarta Post on March 8, Professor Eko
Prasojo indicated the enormous challenges that go with it.
Administrative reform is virtually senseless without clear goals and a well-defined path to reach them. Prof. Prasojo also noted that the changing of the guard in politics often means that any administrative reform program has no guarantee of continuity, particularly if a clear reform trajectory is lacking.
Any discussion of bureaucracy has various dimensions. Our approach here is purely macro-economical. Discussion of the complex issues and considerations involved is very often also highly controversial.
This is not just because of the political and social interests involved. The word itself is given nothing but negative connotations by the media and ultimately by the public.
Bureaucracies are envisaged as endlessly bigger but never smaller, synonymous with waste on a grand scale, inefficiency, poor service, inflexibility and costing the economy a fortune. Bureaucrats and bureaucracy, in other words, have no redeeming qualities.
It is a pity. Change the word “bureaucracy” to “administration” and we change our way of thinking. The modern state as we know it cannot exist without large-scale administrations to implement its programs.
Modern democratic governments are necessarily administrative entities. They create a better society for all of us. For the public, through the services they provide, and by giving businesses a safe context in which to operate.
Public administration is a process. It is an instrument for bringing social wellbeing and economic welfare to the nation.
Its alleged shortcomings — waste and corruption — are known well enough and definitely need to be addressed. But as an entity, its shortcomings and benefits cannot be measured and balanced like a profit and loss account.
Take the case of Indonesia. Today, it has a population of around 237 million people living in 33 provinces, comprising 399 regencies, 98 cities, 6,747 sub-districts and 78,198 villages spread over 17,504 islands with a total surface area of nearly 1.9 million square kilometers. The daunting task of administering these quantities is the job of 4.6 million civil servants.
Administering Indonesia well is an enormously complex task that demands a quality organization of committed staff who are proud of their jobs, well-trained and educated to handle it, no matter how complex it can be.
The administration’s tasks are to ensure conditions are present for the economy to flourish unhindered and safeguard the social welfare and the social wellbeing of the people. It needs to apply good public-governance guidelines to manage and govern the administrative process to achieve these goals.
In the past decade, the Indonesian economy has done quite well, growing by between 6 percent and 6.5 percent a year and facilitating an annual population growth rate of 1.5 percent.
In the last five years, inflation has been down from a 6 percent annual average to around 3.5 percent currently. The positive sentiment has also reflected in the Jakarta Composite Index outperforming peer countries in the region.
The upward trend of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into Indonesia resumed after the 1997/1998 economic crisis and has been rising more steeply since 2000. Foreign investors wanting to set up plants or businesses, or invest in the stock market, will only invest when the conditions are right and they are protected by the rules and regulations of the public administration.
Starting a business, dealing with construction permits and registering property have all become simpler in 14 cities of Indonesia, according to the World Bank’s recent report “Doing Business in Indonesia 2012”.
The contribution of the administration to this success may not be immediately apparent, but without the administration structuring and managing the space in which the economy operates, such an achievement is inconceivable.
It’s worth noting that total general-government expenditures have only been 8.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) each year for the past 10 years.
Social wellbeing, another major responsibility of the administration, has also improved in most areas over the last 30 years, according to the United Nation’s human development index.
The life expectancy at birth has risen by 11.8 years, expected years of schooling by 4.5 years, while income per capita has risen by 182 percent between 1980 and 2011.
The rising population-growth rate, the complexity of society, the impact of globalization, the trend toward further regionalization (ASEAN) and the responsibilities which go hand in hand with being the largest country in South East Asia and being a member of the G20 are all factors in the balance.
To handle the task, reform has to be built permanently into the structure and processes of the administration.
It is foolish to assume a task of this magnitude can be achieved quickly or even within a decade or two. According to the World Development Report 2011, transformations of society take a generation at the least. It took the 20 fastest-moving countries 20 years to achieve a quality functioning bureaucratic, 27 years to bring corruption under reasonable control and 36 years to have a “good enough” government that operates effectively.
This is not to suggest that such timeframes or benchmarks necessarily apply to Indonesia.
They merely demonstrate that the process of administrative reform never quite ends and the quicker the train is on the track the better.
With that in mind, the reform baton has to be passed on from one generation to the next, irrespective of changes of government and political leadership.
What can we realistically expect to achieve with such a reform process? The good public-governance guidelines of the National Committee on Governance (KNKG) are tailored to the national situation and anticipate a rapidly changing national and international environment.
These guidelines are already available and could be very useful as a reference during the reform process. In addition, a mapping and monitoring system for social and economic indicators can be set up fairly easily.
Indicators, like quality of education, healthcare, access to drinking water, electricity and crime solutions, could be used as proxies to see how well the process is being administered.
We can start at provincial level and work our way down to village level. With such an in-built monitoring system firmly in place, we can then track the process of administrative reform, signal deviations from the trajectory early on and correct them. ●
Administrative reform is virtually senseless without clear goals and a well-defined path to reach them. Prof. Prasojo also noted that the changing of the guard in politics often means that any administrative reform program has no guarantee of continuity, particularly if a clear reform trajectory is lacking.
Any discussion of bureaucracy has various dimensions. Our approach here is purely macro-economical. Discussion of the complex issues and considerations involved is very often also highly controversial.
This is not just because of the political and social interests involved. The word itself is given nothing but negative connotations by the media and ultimately by the public.
Bureaucracies are envisaged as endlessly bigger but never smaller, synonymous with waste on a grand scale, inefficiency, poor service, inflexibility and costing the economy a fortune. Bureaucrats and bureaucracy, in other words, have no redeeming qualities.
It is a pity. Change the word “bureaucracy” to “administration” and we change our way of thinking. The modern state as we know it cannot exist without large-scale administrations to implement its programs.
Modern democratic governments are necessarily administrative entities. They create a better society for all of us. For the public, through the services they provide, and by giving businesses a safe context in which to operate.
Public administration is a process. It is an instrument for bringing social wellbeing and economic welfare to the nation.
Its alleged shortcomings — waste and corruption — are known well enough and definitely need to be addressed. But as an entity, its shortcomings and benefits cannot be measured and balanced like a profit and loss account.
Take the case of Indonesia. Today, it has a population of around 237 million people living in 33 provinces, comprising 399 regencies, 98 cities, 6,747 sub-districts and 78,198 villages spread over 17,504 islands with a total surface area of nearly 1.9 million square kilometers. The daunting task of administering these quantities is the job of 4.6 million civil servants.
Administering Indonesia well is an enormously complex task that demands a quality organization of committed staff who are proud of their jobs, well-trained and educated to handle it, no matter how complex it can be.
The administration’s tasks are to ensure conditions are present for the economy to flourish unhindered and safeguard the social welfare and the social wellbeing of the people. It needs to apply good public-governance guidelines to manage and govern the administrative process to achieve these goals.
In the past decade, the Indonesian economy has done quite well, growing by between 6 percent and 6.5 percent a year and facilitating an annual population growth rate of 1.5 percent.
In the last five years, inflation has been down from a 6 percent annual average to around 3.5 percent currently. The positive sentiment has also reflected in the Jakarta Composite Index outperforming peer countries in the region.
The upward trend of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into Indonesia resumed after the 1997/1998 economic crisis and has been rising more steeply since 2000. Foreign investors wanting to set up plants or businesses, or invest in the stock market, will only invest when the conditions are right and they are protected by the rules and regulations of the public administration.
Starting a business, dealing with construction permits and registering property have all become simpler in 14 cities of Indonesia, according to the World Bank’s recent report “Doing Business in Indonesia 2012”.
The contribution of the administration to this success may not be immediately apparent, but without the administration structuring and managing the space in which the economy operates, such an achievement is inconceivable.
It’s worth noting that total general-government expenditures have only been 8.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) each year for the past 10 years.
Social wellbeing, another major responsibility of the administration, has also improved in most areas over the last 30 years, according to the United Nation’s human development index.
The life expectancy at birth has risen by 11.8 years, expected years of schooling by 4.5 years, while income per capita has risen by 182 percent between 1980 and 2011.
The rising population-growth rate, the complexity of society, the impact of globalization, the trend toward further regionalization (ASEAN) and the responsibilities which go hand in hand with being the largest country in South East Asia and being a member of the G20 are all factors in the balance.
To handle the task, reform has to be built permanently into the structure and processes of the administration.
It is foolish to assume a task of this magnitude can be achieved quickly or even within a decade or two. According to the World Development Report 2011, transformations of society take a generation at the least. It took the 20 fastest-moving countries 20 years to achieve a quality functioning bureaucratic, 27 years to bring corruption under reasonable control and 36 years to have a “good enough” government that operates effectively.
This is not to suggest that such timeframes or benchmarks necessarily apply to Indonesia.
They merely demonstrate that the process of administrative reform never quite ends and the quicker the train is on the track the better.
With that in mind, the reform baton has to be passed on from one generation to the next, irrespective of changes of government and political leadership.
What can we realistically expect to achieve with such a reform process? The good public-governance guidelines of the National Committee on Governance (KNKG) are tailored to the national situation and anticipate a rapidly changing national and international environment.
These guidelines are already available and could be very useful as a reference during the reform process. In addition, a mapping and monitoring system for social and economic indicators can be set up fairly easily.
Indicators, like quality of education, healthcare, access to drinking water, electricity and crime solutions, could be used as proxies to see how well the process is being administered.
We can start at provincial level and work our way down to village level. With such an in-built monitoring system firmly in place, we can then track the process of administrative reform, signal deviations from the trajectory early on and correct them. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar