Jokowi’s much-awaited bureaucratic reform Diaz Hendropriyono  ;   The founder of Kawan Jokowi, a volunteer group that supported Jokowi’s presidential bid

JAKARTA POST, 14 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

One of the highlights of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s presidency is his interest in trimming down the number of Cabinet positions. He has repeatedly stated his plan to trim down the number of ministerial portfolios from 34 to 27, primarily through Cabinet consolidation.  With his track record in trying to tame Jakarta’s bureaucratic inefficiencies, his intent to reform Indonesia’s national bureaucracy should not come as a surprise.  Jokowi’s interest in trimming the bureaucracy for the sake of efficiency is contrasted with several facts. First, it is important to note that Jokowi’s presidency has been made possible by the efforts and support of a broad coalition of political parties and volunteers. This makes slashing the bureaucracy more problematic from a political perspective.  Jokowi’s efforts to create inclusiveness in governing does not mean that everyone in his circle can and will get a position in the new government. Yet, the political implications of downsizing bureaucratic agencies should not be ignored. In 2000, then president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid tried to abolish the ministries of social affairs and information. As a result, he faced extreme bureaucratic resistance, which led to a rift between him and the House of Representatives. The political standoff grew even larger, serving as an impetus for Gus Dur’s impeachment.  Second and more crucial, is defining the issue of efficiency. The definition of efficiency has been contentious in the world of governance. Scholars disagree on how public administrations should define efficiency.  Most scholars agree, however, that the definition of efficiency tends to emphasize “technical efficiency”, a simple calculation of the benefit of input and output, setting aside other questions, such as equity, equality, or constitutional protection and many other issues.   Even with a technical definition, one needs to be cautious on the claim of efficiency that comes from Cabinet-level consolidation. From a financial perspective, research has shown that bureaucratic reforms do not always show money saving as intended. In addition, there are other costs associated with Cabinet consolidation, including opportunity costs or transaction costs, such as with organizational culture and biases, just to name a few.  It is also important that the effort to trim down bureaucratic agencies should not lead to an increase in bureaucratic costs in other ways. Paul C. Light in Thickening Government (1995) noted that, in the US, the initiative to decrease the number of bureaucrats led to an increase in the number of outside contractors to fill the positions the bureaucrats left behind.  In Blackwater (2007) Jeremy Scahill wrote that under the Republican administration of the period, which believed in “small government”, notorious private military company Blackwater saw its federal contract increased within a few years from only US$27 million when it provided security for then envoy Paul Bremer to almost $600 million in 2006. By that time, the number of US mercenaries in Iraq had reached 48,000, about one-third of US soldiers on the ground, totaling 160,000 troops.  Blackwater’s subsequent incarnations continued to receive at least $1 billion between 2007 and 2014 from the US State Department. It is said that the US federal government sometimes uses contracts and grants to hide the true size of government while keeping the number of quasi-governmental employees high, which unfortunately comes with less public accountability. However, Jokowi’s intent to reform the bureaucracy should be applauded. Trimming down the bureaucracy may or may not result in efficiency, as in the US. In the end, it is Jokowi’s leadership style that will have the largest impact on the bureaucracy’s efficiency and effectiveness. Hence, our greatest task as volunteers actually lies in ensuring that his leadership style does not change after his inauguration on Oct. 20, rather than discussing the “ideal” size of his administration. ●