Smart cabinet, not ‘slim’ or ‘fat’ Purwo Santoso and Joash Tapiheru ;   Purwo Santoso is a professor and head of the Department of Politics and Government at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta; Joash Tapiheru is a freelance researcher living in Magelang, Central Java

JAKARTA POST, 21 Agustus 2014

                                                

                                                                                                                                   

There has been ongoing discourse regarding whether the next government should form a “fat” or “slim” Cabinet, but what we really need is a “smart” one. A smart Cabinet would ensure the government’s workability amid the country’s complexity. In our presidential system, the president is tasked with realizing his/her vision during his/her fixed term of five years. Therefore, the president’s Cabinet is a mere instrument to meet his/her promises. The idea of a smart Cabinet has become more important than ever as the governance paradigm here has shifted from controlling to steering. Its institutional setup has been highly decentralized. The central government’s ability to consolidate various policy actors in Indonesia relies more on its ability to inspire and facilitate the regions to pursue their interests through mutual cooperation. In such soft power play, where command and authority has become less relevant, knowledge plays a much greater role. The recent presidential election displayed the remarkable mobilization of public knowledge — when well managed public knowledge turns into a formidable political force. Unfortunately, the discourse on forming the next Cabinet has yet to touch on how to use public knowledge to realize the future president’s vision. In public discourse on the Cabinet, professionals are perceived to be disinterested, more committed to policy performance than political interests, contrary to the image of political party activists. This view prefers a slim Cabinet; regarding the fat cabinet as having overlooked the prime issue of securing the effective delivery of government policy. The liberal tone of such discourse is in line with the premises of de-bureaucratization and liberalization, favoring a minimal role of the state, its association of a large Cabinet with the idea of inefficiency; corruption and so on. Actually, the minimum role of the state is not what the Indonesian public expects; as revealed by a current collaborative survey led by Gadjah Mada University, titled Power, Welfare and Democracy, launched earlier this year. Indeed, the public rejects authoritarian rule but maintains old expectations of a broad role of the government in providing and ensuring public services. A large Cabinet is simply seen as too costly. In a smart Cabinet, the main issue is not the number of posts, but the capability of making and delivering the policy and governance scheme effectively. Learning from Soeharto’s era, a long-term policy is extremely important, and, hence, the formation of the next Cabinet should be treated as an investment in future governance. Given the importance of political parties for Indonesia’s democracy, merely barring political party activists is counter productive. In fact, a number of political parties have been working hard, and to some extent effectively, to reproduce great members. Therefore, the dichotomy of professional vs. political party activists is flawed. There are political party activists who are as qualified as the so-called professionals. Challenges to forming a smart Cabinet are huge, and the next Cabinet will not be able to accommodate this idea in its entirety. However, there are simple but important things to begin with. First, the issue of courage. A slim Cabinet is not necessarily effective. In terms of policy-making, Indonesia has been typically soft. It is entrapped within dilemmas and policymakers are unable to secure policy implementation. Another acceptable excuse would be the large territory, the huge population and the wide geographical and cultural diversities. In addition, we tend to take governance for granted. So those involved in forming the Cabinet should not be worried about the stigma of a large Cabinet, providing that the ministers would be able to set effective policies and invest in long-term progress. Second, the operationalization of the promised policy platform of president-elect Joko “Jokowi” Widodo — a revolusi mental (mentally grounded revolution). Such a revolution requires well-informed ideologists and ideologically motivated practitioners. Based on experience, professional experts tend to lack the political support base derived from political parties — in times of crisis they become the most potential target of scapegoating. Thus, what we need are not mainly ministers from the professional camp, but ministers capable of making their ministries work professionally. Providing that the Constitutional Court does not alter the winner of the presidential election, ministers should be qualified to run the so-called revolusi mental within the bureaucracy. Third, the backbone of policymaking. Discourse on the formation of the incoming Cabinet tends to be reduced merely to the recruitment of persons for particular posts. Given the importance of delivering the political promises of the elected president, the discourse should be within the framework enhancing Indonesia’s institutional basis of being a strong but not repressive state. This includes many things, specifically the reenhancement of think tanks and the transformation of political parties. The legacy of the New Order’s economic glory was made possible by the vital role of think tanks and the politics of knowledge. Apparently, the favorability of professionals as future ministers is the good legacy of the New Order government. Its bad legacy was the marginalization of political parties. Most parties are obsessed with winning votes, and not very successful at performing their key roles in policy-making. In forming a smart Cabinet, we should risk transforming political parties into future policymakers. To start, we should let the Cabinet and its support system become the real training ground for such a role. Fourth, strengthening the role of deputy ministers. This position has become discredited under the preference of a slim Cabinet. Law No. 39/2008 on state ministries does not regulate deputy ministers, but President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono justified their relevance in practice. This office could be used to post more people with the required capacity to support the related ministers. We suggest the deputy minister be tasked with equipping the minister with material for smart policy and policy-making. Hence, his or her role would not be redundant with that of the secretary-general or director generals of the ministry. ●