Mereformasi Birokrasi di Tengah Ketidaksabaran

Mereformasi Birokrasi di Tengah Ketidaksabaran Eko Prasojo  ;  Wakil Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi

JAWA POS, 23 Mei 2013

MENGAPA kita melakukan reformasi birokrasi (RB)? Sebagaimana diterapkan negara lain, RB merupakan fondasi penting kehidupan berbangsa dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Kalau kita pelajari semua keputusan politik penting dari parlemen, presiden, gubernur, bupati, atau wali kota, ujungnya yang melaksanakan adalah birokrat. Sehebat apa pun keputusan yang lakukan birokrasi. Kita punya banyak konsep bagus, tapi mengapa tidak baik saat dilaksanakan? Problem kita adalah mesin yang tak jalan. Hanya sedikit orang yang memberikan perhatian kepada RB. Umumnya orang suka berita politik.

Isu RB menjadi isu marginal. Belum menjadi gerakan nasional, hanya menjadi program. Bersyukur, Presiden SBY meletakkan ini sebagai program nasional pada awal pemerintahan. Tetapi, itu belum cukup karena sulit dipraktikkan. Kita butuh dukungan politik luar biasa. Umumnya birokrasi kita inkompeten. Jumlah banyak tapi jarang ditemukan kalau cari dengan spesifikasi keahlian.

Problem lain adalah nepotisme. Bermuara pada kerusakan moral. Ini penyakit sistem, bukan individual. Masuk ke sistem korup akan ikut korup. Kalau tidak ikut korup akan ''kesakitan''. Karena itu, satu keharusan reformasi cepat dan terukur untuk terobosan pembangunan. Kalau tidak, kita membiarkan bangsa ini terus gagal. Sebab, konsep yang baik itu tidak bisa dijalankan, tidak bisa dipraktikkan. Ini baru satu hal. Kita belum bicara inefisiensi birokrasi dari sisi yang lain. Kalau tidak bisa dijalankan saja nggak apa-apa. Tapi, sudah tidak bisa dijalankan, merugikan negara pula.

Kita tidak mudah diyakinkan bahwa reform sangat penting. Kita memang tidak menanam pohon musiman yang dapat dipetik hasilnya dalam 3-4 bulan. Mungkin musim panennya 20-25 tahun mendatang. Tapi, politisi sering tidak sabar, lima tahun harus ada perubahan. Apalagi kalau masyarakat sudah tidak percaya kepada rezim, sehingga banyak hal yang tidak bisa dicapai dalam lima tahun. Kalau kita pelajari, Korea butuh waktu 30 tahun untuk bisa menjadi seperti sekarang.

Kita baru tahap bagaimana mengubah kultur orang. Itu pun kalau kita mulai hari ini. Kalau dimulai besok, mundur lagi. Ditunda setelah pemilu, mundur lagi. Ini problem besar kita. Meyakinkan orang untuk berubah itu menimbulkan resistansi. Sebab, orang pada dasarnya tidak suka berubah, status quo. Pertahankan zona nyaman. Kalau disuruh berubah, pasti cari cara agar tidak berubah. Karena itu, kita butuh kekuatan ketiga. Bantuanpressure dari masyarakat, perguruan tinggi, pengusaha, lembaga swadaya, dan media. Kalau ditekan, pasti bisa berubah.

RB sebuah keniscayaan. Ia harus jadi gerakan nasional. Menjadi kepercayaan, keniscayaan harus diubah. Mesin birokrasi kita sejak zaman kolonial tidak berubah. Ibarat kendaraan, mesin tidak berubah, meski cat, jok, spion, dan sopir berubah. Akibatnya, kita tidak bisa tinggal landas, tidak bisa terbang. Negara lain yang bertambah maju sudah memperbaiki mesinnya. Di sisi lain, persoalan kompleksitas masyarakat makin berat. Harapan masyarakat bagaikan deret ukur, tapi perubahan birokrasi kita seperti deret hitung. Itu pun kalau kita melakukan perubahan. Kalau tidak, bisa dibayangkan.

Suatu saat, kita akan tertinggal jauh. Kalau sudah tertinggal, masyarakat sudah tidak butuh pemerintah. Padahal, satu titik di atas reformasi adalah revolusi. Harapan kita, reformasi tidak meningkat menjadi revolusi. Kalau revolusi, semua tidak terkontrol. Yang sudah memulai reformasi birokrasi, mudah-mudahan kulturnya terjaga. Perubahan, reform, itu yang penting adalah perubahan paradigma, mentality, persepsi. Jangan sampai kalau pemimpin pergi, kembali ke habitat lama. 

Strategi RB di tingkat makro dilakukan melalui kerangka aturan. Kalau SBY tidak menjabat lagi, fondasi hukum sudah diletakkan. Sekarang sedang dituntaskan RUU Aparatur Sipil Negara, RUU Administrasi Pemerintahan, dan RUU Sistem Internal Pemerintah. Kerangka regulasi itu harus selesai sebelum 2014. 

Kita ingin pegawai ini menjadi aset nasional, sehingga tidak ada lagi istilah pegawai pusat dan pegawai daerah. Yang kita kenal hanya satu, pegawai negara. Karena itu, mereka bisa pindah dari Sabang sampai Merauke. Bahkan, pindah dari daerah ke tingkat nasional. Filosofi dasar dari sekadar catat-mencatat menjadi bagaimana mengembangkan human resources. Dari sistem karir yang tertutup berbasis pangkat, senioritas, menjadi terbuka berbasis kompetensi. Menurut drafnya, dewan pangkat ditiadakan dalam RUU itu, tapi pemerintah ingin pelan-pelan.

Saya selalu meyakinkan bahwa kerja ini demi generasi mendatang. Kegagalan masa lalu terjadi karena ketidakberanian ambil risiko. Jadilah pahlawan yang berani ambil risiko. Jangan sampai kita menjadi generasi yang tidak berani ambil risiko demi generasi mendatang. Ingat, daya dukung sumber daya alam (SDA) kita makin terbatas. Otonomi daerah mengakibatkan penggunaan SDA tidak terkontrol. Globalisasi makin dekat. Kita harus selamatkan generasi kita dari persaingan-persaingan yang akan datang, terutama dari negara tetangga.

Di Korea, 30 persen jabatan pemerintah diisi swasta. Tapi, kita tak sampai ke situ. Sudut elevasinya jangan ekstrem vertikal karena bisa mengenai kepala sendiri. Kami mulai mengisi jabatan eselon II dengan selektif. Ada orang yang merasa mampu, doktor dari Singapura ikut kompetisi, tapi tidak lulus dibanding pegawai daerah yang assessment center-nya lolos. Kami mengukur dari banyak hal. Misalnya, bisa atau tidak mengendalikan orang. Doktor pun kalau tidak mampu ya tidak diterima. Banyak orang yang ingin mengisi jabatan tertentu, tapi tempat terbatas. Karena itu, harus diciptakan kompetisi-kompetisi. ●

Mengubah Kultur Birokrasi

Mengubah Kultur Birokrasi

Eko Prasojo ; Wakil Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara

dan Reformasi Birokrasi (PAN dan RB)

JAWA POS, 30 Juli 2012

BIROKRASI dan politik kita, rasanya, tidak henti-hentinya dihebohkan kasus korupsi. Dua ranah ini baik secara sendiri-sendiri maupun secara berkelindan merupakan sumber dan wadah korupsi. Tidak hanya menyentuh birokrat biasa, tetapi juga para menteri. Banyak kasus korupsi klasik birokrasi yang melibatkan birokrat (sebagai pemegang otoritas kuasa pengguna anggaran) dan para politisi (pemilik kekuasaan untuk menentukan alokasi anggaran). Jika tidak berhati-hati, dapat saja para menteri yang tidak memiliki pengetahuan dan pengalaman birokrasi serta tidak memiliki niat untuk korupsi menjadi korban. 

Mengapa berbagai reformasi birokrasi oleh pemerintah, tampaknya, tidak memberikan dampak bagi perubahan birokrasi yang bersih dan melayani? 

Masalah dasar dalam birokrasi yang korup pada umumnya menyangkut sistem dan budaya. Prosedur yang tidak jelas, tumpang tindih, kontradiksi satu sama lain, jelas akan menghidupkan corruption by system (korupsi karena dipaksa). Misalnya saja sistem rekrutmen dan promosi jabatan yang tertutup dan kolutif. Demikian pula sistem penggajian yang tidak berbasis kinerja, keadilan, dan kecukupan akan menghasilkan corruption by needs (korupsi karena terpaksa). Jika dua jenis korupsi ini terhubung dengan kepentingan politik, akan tercipta corruption by greedy (korupsi yang memaksa).

Untuk penyebab masalah budaya, umumnya terjadi pembiaran perilaku korup di birokrasi. Misal, pemalsuan dokumen perjalanan dinas diterima secara umum. Dana-dana taktis yang diperoleh dari berbagai sumber pungutan pelayanan publik juga dianggap biasa. Sering pelanggaran disiplin dan kode etik, juga pelanggaraan etika dan integritas, tidak diberi sanksi yang menjerakan. Ada semacam rasa sungkan atau rasa tidak enak menjatuhkan sanksi kepada bawahan. Akumulasi terhadap pembiaran perilaku koruptif ini lama-kelamaan mengakibatkannya menjadi budaya yang diterima. Apalagi sikap mental masyarakat juga membiarkannya.

Persoalan sistem dan budaya dalam birokrasi ini memang sangat kompleks. Maka, perubahannya pun harus bersifat resiprokal dan secara paralel. Sistem yang baik dan unggul akan mengurangi atau mencegah praktik budaya yang korup dan mempercepat pembentukan sistem yang paripurna. 

Kesulitan reformasi birokrasi adalah lamanya waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk mengubah sistem dan budaya secara bersamaan. Perubahan budaya tidak bisa dilakukan secara instan dan sering hasilnya bersifat intangible (tidak berwujud). Demikian pula perubahan sistem birokrasi sangat juga dipengaruhi oleh sistem politik, sistem penegakan hukum, dan budaya masyarakat. 

Inilah Strateginya 

Strategi akselerasi reformasi birokrasi difokuskan untuk menyelesaikan persoalan sistem dan budaya birokrasi. Memang tidak mudah. Struktur pemerintahan sudah sangat desentralistik, yakni praktik birokrasi di pemerintahan daerah sangat fragmented. Kesulitan mengubah birokrasi juga disebabkan kuatnya pengaruh politik. Pada sisi lainnya, sebagian agenda reformasi birokrasi bertujuan jangka panjang dan baru dirasakan 10 sampai 15 tahun. Juga ada yang bertujuan jangka pendek untuk memperoleh kepercayaana masyarakat yang secepat-cepatnya, bahwa birokrasi telah berubah. 

Karena itu, pendekatan reformasi birokrasi menggabungkan strategi pada level makro maupun mikro. Di tingkat makro reformasi sistem dan budaya dilakukan dengan perbaikan berbagai kerangka regulasi nasional, baik dalam bentuk UU maupun PP. Selain itu, secara makro juga dilakukan melalui pengembangan sistem yang terintegrasi dari berbagai macam subsistem dengan bantuan teknologi informasi dan komunikasi (TIK). 

Di tingkat mikro, reformasi birokrasi harus dilakukan oleh masing-masing kementerian/lembaga dan pemda. Bentuknya mulai dari perubahan mindset                                        dan culture set, perubahan sistem manajemen sumber daya aparatur, perubahan sistem akuntabilitas dan transparansi, hingga perubahan proses bisnis pelayanan.

Ada beberapa strategi yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah. Pertama, pemanfaatan TIK untuk membangun berbagai macam sistem dan menutup celah sistem yang memungkinkan terjadinya corruption by system. Misal, pemanfaatan TIK dalam layanan pengadaan barang dan jasa secara elektronik (LPSE) atau e-procurement, optimalisasi pelayanan publik berbasis IT dalam pelayanan terpadu satu pintu (PTSP), pemanfaatan TIK dalam rekrutmen PNS melalui computer assisted test (CAT), dan manajemen sumber daya pemerintahan yang terintegrasi (integrated planning, budgeting, delivering, and reporting system). Aplikasi TIK dalam birokrasi diharapkan akan mengurangi interaksi dan transaksi perilaku menyimpang dalam birokrasi.

Strategi kedua adalah penguatan kontrol masyarakat terhadap birokrasi melalui participative governance. Kultur birokrasi akan berubah jika ada tekanan politik dari masyarakat dalam pelayanan, pemerintahan, dan pembangunan. Penguatan kontrol masyarakat dilakukan melalui pembentukan sistem pengaduan masyarakat, penetapan maklumat pelayanan, pengukuran indeks kepuasaan masyarakat dan keterbukaan informasi publik (public disclosure). Perangkat hukum yang tersedia, antara lain, UU 25/2009 tentang Pelayanan Publik, UU 14/2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik, dan UU 37/2007 tentang Ombudsman RI.

Strategi ketiga adalah pembentukan sistem sumber daya aparatur negara yang berbasis kompetensi dan terbuka. Perilaku korup dimulai dari proses rekrutmen hingga promosi jabatan. Upaya untuk mengubahnya, diciptakan sistem rekrutmen PNS yang terbuka, independen, dan profesional. Sistem promosi jabatan harus dilakukan secara terbuka dan memberikan kesempatan kepada setiap calon yang memenuhi syarat kompetensi jabatan untuk melamar. Bukan sekadar kepangkatan dan senioritas. Dalam konteks NKRI dan dalam rangka mengurangi kooptasi politik, sistem promosi jabatan kelak akan dibuka antarinstansi, baik pusat, provinsi, dan kabupaten/kota dengan mempergunakan instrumen assessment centre.

Strategi keempat memperkuat akuntabilitas dan integritas aparatur negara melalui konsep zona integritas menuju wilayah birokrasi bersih dan melayani. Wujudnya melalui pelaporan harta kekayaan untuk semua aparat birokrasi, penegakan kode etik, penanganan konflik kepentingan, pembentukan whistleblower system, post-employment policy, serta penelusuran transaksi rekening yang tidak wajar. Banyaknya petugas pajak yang tertangkap akhir-akhir ini bisa pula dipandang positif hasil whistleblower di Kementerian Keuangan.

Untuk mendukung akuntabilitas dan integritas birokrat, perubahan sistem penggajian yang adil, layak, dan berbasis kinerja juga merupakan kunci perubahan kultur dalam birokrasi. Strategi ini gabungan antara perubahan sistem dan perubahan budaya secara bersama-sama. Tidak ada jalan pintas dalam reformasi birokrasi, tetapi berbagai strategi ini diharapkan dalam meningkatkan kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap birokrasi. Semoga. ●

The inevitable process of bureaucratic reform in Indonesia

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. ●

Indonesian bureaucratic reform in the making

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. ●