Jangan Bermain-main dengan Nasib Rakyat Rizal Ramli   ;  Menko Perekonomian 2000-2001

MEDIA INDONESIA,  10 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

TINGGINYA curah hujan yang menerpa sebagian wilayah Indonesia (seharusnya) membuat suhu politik ikut turun. Bahkan menjelang pelaksanaan pemilihan umum, suhu politik justru makin meningkat. Naiknya suhu politik dan persoalan pangan, utamanya yang belakangan sedang ramai terkait dengan impor beras ilegal dari Vietnam, suka-tidak suka membuat kita harus berpikir kemungkinan keterkaitan persoalan perut rakyat dengan masalah politik. Sungguh aneh ketika pejabat masih tega bermain-main dengan nasib puluhan juta petani. Slogan bahwa Indonesia adalah negara agraris lama-lama hanya terdengar sebagai omong kosong belaka. Jangan lagi bicara soal swasembada pangan, tapi bicara saja siapa mendapat apa dan berapa. Sebab, hal itu sering justru jauh lebih realistis. Hanya, yang tidak bisa diterima rakyat ialah ketika impor-impor gelap ini tidak pernah diungkap secara terang benderang. Siapa pelakunya, siapa pemainnya, berapa bagi hasilnya, seolah hanya mirip lagu bernada sumbang. Bila kita perhatikan, modus kasus impor beras ilegal dimulai dengan penggabungan nomor harmonized system (HS) beras dari dua menjadi satu HS. Dari sini dalam dokumen impornya dilaporkan beras kelas umum. Namun, kenyataannya beras yang diberi izin impor adalah kualitas premium. Harga beras di pasar internasional (4/2), beras Vietnam dengan kualitas 5% broken (premium) mencapai US$410/ ton, sedangkan beras kualitas 25% broken harganya US$375/ton. Beras ilegal yang diimpor itu konon nyaris 20 ribu ton. Biasanya, harga beras di Indonesia minimal 35% lebih mahal ketimbang harga internasional. Dengan nilai tukar US$1 setara Rp12 ribu saja, ada selisih harga US$2,87 juta atau sekitar Rp34,4 miliar. Uang inilah yang mungkin dibagi-bagikan ke para pelaku yang terdiri dari pengusaha dan pejabat. Aneh kalau kemudian kementerian yang bersinggungan langsung dengan masalah impor pangan menyatakan tidak tahu-menahu. Apa alasan Kementerian Perdagangan kok malah menerbitkan izin impor beras premium ketika Kemente rian Pertanian dan Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) menyatakan bahwa produksi beras surplus, tetapi impor terus dilakukan. Akibatnya, beras menumpuk di gudang. Beras yang terlalu lama disimpan di gudang akan nyaris busuk. Celakanya, beras yang nyaris busuk inilah yang kemudian dibagikan kepada rakyat dalam bentuk beras untuk warga miskin (raskin). Impor bukanlah barang haram yang tidak boleh dilakukan. Namun, hal itu harus dilakukan dalam keadaan darurat, seperti musim kemarau berkepanjangan, sehingga mengancam produksi pangan. Menjadi tugas negaralah untuk menjaga rakyatnya jangan sampai kelaparan. Tetapi, jangan hanya karena nafsu mengumpulkan dana untuk kepentingan politik, semua aturan ditabrak. Petani yang sudah miskin semakin tidak berdaya karena banyaknya pangan impor. Akibat mental korup, impor beras sering dilakukan tanpa kebutuhan mendesak. Motivasi ingin dapat komisi lebih besar daripada keinginan untuk melindungi petani dan mengejar kedaulatan pangan. Padahal, impor hanya akan menguntungkan petani Thailand, Vietnam, dan lainnya, tapi membuat petani kita menderita. Impor beras menghambat cita-cita Indonesia mencapai kedaulatan pangan. Tanggung renteng Soal pangan tersebut juga menjadi tanggung jawab Kemenko Perekonomian. Menko-lah yang seharusnya mengoordinasikan masalah produksi, kebutuhan, bea masuk, dan penjagaan arus keluar-masuknya dengan Kementerian Pertanian, Kementerian Perdagangan, Bulog, Kementerian Keuangan, serta Bea dan Cukai. Kalau akhirnya sampai terjadi impor ilegal, artinya selama ini tidak ada check and balance sehingga kejadian penyeludupan terjadi terus berulang-ulang. Sebelumnya menurut Menteri Perdagangan Gita Wirjawan, impor beras Vietnam tersebut atas rekomendasi Menteri Pertanian Suswono. Namun, Suswono membantah dirinya pernah merekomendasikan untuk mengimpor beras tersebut. Bagaimana bisa impor yang sedemikian banyak, tapi kementerian teknis justru saling lempar tanggung jawab? Saya juga tidak habis mengerti ketika Wakil Menteri Perdagangan mengatakan ini hanya soal persaingan dagang. Kalau memang itu hanyalah praktik persaingan dagang, selisihnya paling Rp100 Rp200/kg. Tapi kalau selisihnya mencapai Rp2.000/kg, ini jelas penyelundupan. Padahal, keuntungan dari impor beras rata-rata 2 juta ton per tahun itu sangat besar, cukup untuk membangun 1 waduk per tahun. Adanya kecenderungan pejabat untuk impor beras dilatari untung yang besar dan transaksi bisa dilakukan di luar negeri. Padahal kalau mau dilakukan kajian lebih dalam, Indonesia belum tentu membutuhkan beras impor di tengah kesediaan beras dalam negeri yang masih surplus. Hal itulah yang harus dihentikan, apalagi bila impor ilegal dan dilakukan terus-menerus. Ganti sistem Kalau memang ingin melaksanakan tekad swasembada pangan, sebetulnya tidaklah sulit. Negara cuma harus berpihak kepada rakyat dan membuat serangkaian program prorakyat. Katakanlah di Sulawesi Selatan yang menjadi lumbung padi nomor tiga, produksi berasnya bisa ditingkatkan. Caranya dengan membangun 4-5 waduk, memperbaiki irigasi, dan memberikan bibit unggul. Dengan surplus beras yang ada, Indonesia bahkan bisa mengekspor 2-3 juta ton per tahun. Terlebih bila kebijakan harga juga berpihak pada petani, kedaulatan pangan akan tercapai. Hapus saja sistem kartel/kuota dan diganti dengan tarif, serta lakukan investasi besar-besaran dalam bidang pertanian. Pemerintah harus gencar membangun irigasi dan memberi subsidi pupuk sehingga rasio harga gabah dan pupuk 2:1. Kalau petani untung dan sejahtera, negara ini akan sejahtera. ●

Redenominasi Rupiah

Redenominasi Rupiah Rizal Ramli ;  Mantan Menko Perekonomian

SUARA KARYA, 30 Januari 2013

Tak ada hujan tidak ada angin, tiba-tiba saja dengan gagah berani Bank Indonesia (BI) dan pemerintah menyatakan akan memberlakukan kebijakan redenominasi rupiah. Dengan demikian, kelak diterbitkan mata uang rupiah baru dengan penghapusan angka tiga nol. Maka, mata uang Rp 1.000 saat ini akan diganti dengan Rp 1 mata uang baru. BI dan pemerintah (selanjutnya BI) mengklaim kebijakan redenominasi sangat banyak manfaatnya dan tidak sama dengan "pemotongan uang" (sanering). Tetapi sayang, tidak dijelaskan bahwa kebijakan itu juga merupakan "paksaan inflasi" (force inflation) karena daya beli golongan menengah ke bawah akan terpotong akibat kenaikan harga setelah mata uang baru diterbitkan. Biasanya, pemotongan uang atau sanering atau redenominasi dilakukan ketika inflasi di satu negara sangat tinggi (hyper inflation) dan ekonomi sedang dalam krisis. Langkah itu terpaksa dilakukan untuk stabilisasi ekonomi seperti banyak dilakukan negara di Amerika Latin, termasuk Indonesia pada 1966 ketika inflasi mencapai di atas 1.000 persen sehingga pemerintah terpaksa memotong uang dari Rp 1.000 uang lama menjadi Rp 1.000 uang baru. Namun, saat ini ekonomi Indonesia stabil, inflasi terkendali, mengapa dilakukan redenominasi? Sulit dipahami, kalau tidak hati-hati bisa menjadi sumber ketidakstabilan baru. Manfaatnya pun tidak jelas. Padahal BI punya tugas yang jauh lebih penting, yaitu menurunkan net interest margin (selisih bunga kredit dan simpanan) yang kini tertinggi di dunia (6-7 persen) dan berdampak mengurangi daya saing produk Indonesia. Yang penting sebenarnya adalah stabilitas mata uang. Justru negara yang berhasil memacu pertumbuhan ekonomi dan industrinya sengaja memilih kebijakan mata uang lemah (weak exchange rate policy). Contohnya, Jepang pada 1950-1970 yang berhasil tumbuh di atas 10 persen, atau China pada akhir 1980-an hingga 2010 juga berhasil tumbuh double digit. Kebijakan itu secara tidak langsung melindungi ekonomi dalam negeri dan meningkatkan daya saing produk ekspor mereka. Negara-negara yang berhasil memacu ekonominya tumbuh tinggi dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyatnya menolak tekanan internasional untuk memperkuat mata uangnya. China menolak mentah-mentah menaikkan nilai tukar yuan, kendati tiga Presiden Amerika Serikat sejak Clinton, Bush, hingga Obama datang ke Beijing untuk menekan Negeri Tirai Bambu. Sebaliknya, Jepang akhirnya menyerah dan setuju menaikkan nilai tukar yen sesuai dengan kesepakatan Plaza Accord di New York tahun 1986, setelah mendapat tekanan kuat dari Amerika dan Eropa yang khawatir produknya kalah bersaing. Sejak itu, ekonomi Jepang berubah dari ekonomi tumbuh tinggi (di atas 10 persen) menjadi ekonomi tumbuh rendah (kurang dari 2 persen). Negara-negara dengan pertumbuhan tinggi tidak perlu mengambil kebijakan redenominasi. Mata uang mereka otomatis akan menguat sendiri seiring dengan kemajuan ekonomi mereka. Seperti nilai tukar yen terhadap dolar Amerika (sekitar 350 yen/dolar AS) pada 1950 terus menguat menjadi sekitar 70 yen/dolar AS tahun 2010. Proses penguatan itu terjadi secara alamiah tanpa kebijakan pemotongan uang ala BI yang bersifat semu (artifisial) dan merugikan golongan menengah bawah. Karena itu, BI segera menghentikan rencana kebijakan redenominasi yang tidak ada urgensinya, tidak bermanfaat, dan merugikan daya beli mayoritas rakyat Indonesia. Kalau BI ngotot memaksakan redenominasi, akan timbul pertanyaan tentang kemungkinan adanya konflik kepentingan pejabat BI dengan pemasok kertas baru (fine papers). ●

Indonesia and the Rohingya

Indonesia and the Rohingya

Rizal Ramli ; A Former Cabinet Minister.

JAKARTA POST, 07 Agustus 2012

Beginning in June, there emerged reports of ugly racial violence ocurring in Myanmar. The Rohingya, a Muslim-denominated ethnic group located in the western state of Rakhine, have suffered considerably, and there have been calls by the United Nations and human rights groups around the world for the Myanmar government to take stronger measures to ensure the safety of the minority group.  So far, the Myanmar government has refused to even acknowledge the actual scale of the damage done, in terms of the lives lost and the reported 100,000 people who have been displaced. Indonesia has had a long-standing friendship with Myanmar, and now finds itself in a curious position when it comes to the plight of the Rohingya. Senior government officials, such as Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, have been critical.  According to Marty: “Our stance is clear: we refuse and are against the discriminatory treatment of anyone, anywhere. We cannot tolerate this, and we are asking the Myanmar government to manage this issue as Myanmar moves forward toward democratization.”  Sensing a mission that plays well with the domestic constituency, many jumped onto the criticizing Myanmar bandwagon, and argued that the House of Representatives should conduct its own diplomacy by sending House of Representatives (DPR) members to meet their counterparts in Myanmar.  Just why Indonesia now feels compelled to act upon the plight of a minority outside its own borders is a question worth posing, especially when one considers our history in places such as Timor Leste, Aceh and Papua.  In each of those secessionist conflicts, past governments, and the current administration, have made few efforts, if any, to recognize the human rights abuses that occurred, or make amends with innocent  victims of the past.  One could argue this is ancient history and it is not worth discussing (at least, this is what the national government would like us to believe). Yet the fact remains, scores of eyewitness accounts of senseless killings and torture tell us of tragedies for which we should feel, at the very least, the pangs of national shame. So far, that does not seem to be the case. For a nation that has prided itself on its diversity, and was founded upon the egalitarian principles of Pancasila, religion has become an even thornier issue.  It is relatively easy to make excuses for excess violence in the heat of secessionist war, but how does one justify tolerance for violence against people belonging to a religious minority?  There is no argument against the fact that the Yudhoyono administration has been grossly negligent by not addressing the growing virus of sectarian violence.  Under previous governments, with the leadership of Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri, there were at least sincere efforts to ensure religious minorities were not persecuted. Sadly, this is no longer the case.  The killing of members from the Muslim sect of Ahmadiyah is just one example where the government has failed in its constitutional duty of protecting the lives of all Indonesians and their right to practice their own religion without prejudice. Much of the same can be said about Myanmar, which has a Buddhist majority, and violence against a minority, in this case Muslims, is being carried out with impunity.  But the obvious issue that needs to be addressed is: why does the Indonesian government feel it has the moral right to demand the Myanmar government take stricter measures to protect its Muslim minority?  Furthermore, if Marty is serious when he says Indonesia is against the discriminatory treatment of “anyone anywhere”, why aren’t those standards being exercised at home? Obviously, the Yudhoyono government is being hypocritical when it tries to take the moral high ground with the generals ruling Myanmar. Double standards do not apply, and our government looks ridiculous when it tries to apply them. If the Indonesian government is to exert any credible leadership in the future on issues related to human rights, then first and foremost it must diligently tackle its own shortcomings on the domestic front.  Yudhoyono is famous for taking the normative stance, and his lectures on the need for religious tolerance and respect for human rights are fine. But unless one takes stern action as a government to ensure those rights, then the right to lead others is lost.  Setting good examples is a staple of good leadership. It is then, and only then, we can legitimately stand up for the rights of peoples who live in distant lands. ●

  

Building clean government: Fry the big fish, not small ones

Building clean government:

Fry the big fish, not small ones

Rizal Ramli ; A Former Coordinating Economic Minister

SUMBER :  JAKARTA POST, 4 Juni 2012

Here is a pop quiz on Indonesian politics: What do one-third of the nation’s regents, one-fifth of its governors and one-half of the members of the House of Representatives’ budget commission have in common?

If you guessed they belong to a particular political party, such as Golkar party or Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party, you are only partly right.

Yes, many of these elected officials belong to one of the major parties. But they also happen to share another trait: Serving jail time for having committed felonies related to corruption, spanning the entire spectrum of crimes starting with the embezzlement of public funds and extortion to taking bribes from crony businessmen lobbying for special favors.

This corrupt state of affairs is not only a tale of lax morals. It also carries some heavy economic costs. With the extensive leakage of public funds as a result of corruption, the Indonesian economy still has managed to expand each year at around 6 percent, thanks to a resource boom and high commodity prices.

Many economists, including myself, believe that Indonesia has the potential for reaching higher levels of GDP growth, perhaps even in the double-digit range.

And corruption is, without a doubt, the main impediment to our country achieving these growth rates — which would, in the final analysis, catapult us into a leading position along with China as a place for doing business.

These astonishing statistics are often met with disbelief mixed with disgust and outrage over the level of rotten behavior that has infected the body politic.

Others — more sanguine and wanting to see the bottle half full rather than half empty — like to point out that if so many of our politicians are behind bars, then this must mean that we are making progress in the battle against corruption.

Based on the evidence before us, I would prefer to take sides with the pessimists. If the threat of incarceration were such a potent one and acted as a real deterrent, if we have hordes of politicians staring at four walls in tiny jail cells as penance for their sins (which is not necessarily true when one considers the stories of preferential treatment being dished out to “special prisoners” by our equally corrupt penal authorities), then why hasn’t corruption ebbed over the years?

In fact, the trend line of morality in government is a sobering one. Rather than seeing a real improvement, Indonesia has been consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

Sure, countries that are classified as failed states or dysfunctional (such as Somalia or Iraq) or run by dictatorships (Myanmar and North Korea being the best examples) rank lower than Indonesia in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index, but we still manage to languish in the bottom quartile.

Put in different terms and more precisely to the point, although there are more politicians in jail than there ever were during the Soeharto years (a dubious distinction given the fact the latter number approximated to zero), what we have failed to achieve since the demise of the New Order is to effectively break the culture of corruption.

Politicians continue to run roughshod over our laws and steal money from public coffers not only because of the obvious cause, which is their lack of conscience, but also due to something even more fundamental and imbibed in our modern politics: cynicism.

Cynicism, properly defined, means possessing a scornful attitude and mistrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.

Powerful individuals, especially those sitting within the highest echelons of government, can afford to be cynical about anti-corruption agencies and fancy talk about reform when they look at their peers and see them continue to
get away with egregious acts of corruption.

Local government officials and junior legislators might have reason to pause and reflect on the risks before breaking the law, but when it comes to cabinet ministers and other politically gentrified classes, the cost-benefit analysis is dramatically different.

This cynicism, which is part and parcel of the implicit understanding within elite circles that one of the advantages of belonging to their very exclusive gentleman’s club includes impunity from the law, is one of the major reasons for our being subject to what I call a “criminal democracy”.

Which begs the question, is there anything that can be done to break the back of criminal democracy?

Here we can learn a lot from Robert Klitgaard, one of the most respected experts on corruption. Klitgaard, an American academic but also with a wealth of practical experience in working with governments in developing nations, points out that it is necessary to fry the “big fish”, not the small ones.

Tough anticorruption policies are largely ineffective, unless accompanied by legal authorities taking on the powerful and mighty. As the old saying goes, action talks louder than words. Imagine, for example, how much differently our elites would have behaved had former president Soeharto and his family been brought before the courts and prosecuted for their rapacious acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.

Instead, Soeharto spent his years of retirement in a status akin to national hero as opposed to being the poster boy for the country’s most wanted list, and his offspring still remain part of a group that could be classified best as “the untouchables”.

To this day, this ugly precedent of “imperial impunity” certainly has not gone unnoticed by Soeharto’s successors and their inner circles.

In sharp contrast there is the case of South Korea. Once a beehive of corruption and renowned for backroom deals between the political and business elite, the South Korean government now stands tall as one of the cleanest in Asia.

It is instructive to note that the country’s big fish have not been immune from punishment, even their heads of state. To wit, former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun was charged with corruption in 2009 — his response, rather than lose face before the public was to commit suicide.

Perhaps it is a bit naïve to assume that we will turn toward the South Korean model any time soon. But even if we don’t find the political will to fry the big fish, there are other ways in which we can start cleaning up our democracy.

The best place to start with this seemingly gargantuan task is to reform our election financing laws. The means by which candidates are allowed to raise funds for their campaigns have an indelible impact on how they will behave when they are in office.

Allowing wealthy businessmen to contribute money for campaigns is a Pandora’s Box that should never be opened: Once a politician is beholden to the corporate sector, the impulse to act in ways contrary to the public interest is a strong one.

Depending on the good conscience of an elected official to ignore the wishes of his paymasters should the situation warrant is bound for failure.

Hence we should do what even some US politicians in Washington have been arguing for decades: If you want a clean government, ban private contributions and make it obligatory for the state to cover the costs of all campaigns in a transparent and equal manner. Only then can we harbor realistic expectations that our politicians will be more honest. ●

Kinerja Pemerintahan Kian Lumpuh

Kinerja Pemerintahan Kian Lumpuh

( Wawancara )

Rizal Ramli; Mantan Menteri Koordinator (Menko) Perekonomian

SUMBER : SUARA KARYA, 05 Mei 2012

Beban pemerintah semakin berat. Berbagai persoalan tak kunjung terselesaikan, bahkan semakin menumpuk. Ini membuat kepercayan dan kredibilitas pemerintah di mata publik terus mengalami penurunan.

Krisis kepercayaan rakyat itu berada pada titik terendah manakala muncul keinginan pemerintah untuk menaikkan harga bahan bakar minyak (BBM). Kebijakan tidak populer ini mendapat tantangan dari berbagai elemen masyarakat.

Apalagi, pola kepemimpinan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) sebagai kepala pemerintahan pun memunculkan kritikan cukup pedas dari dunia internasional. Pola kepemimpinan Presiden SBY pun disebut-sebut sebagai the lame duck atau 'bebek lumpuh'.

Seharusnya hal tersebut menjadi cambuk bagi Pemerintah Indonesia pimpinan Presiden SBY untuk bersikap lebih tegas dalam upaya memperbaiki berbagai persoalan bangsa. Khususnya, masalah kemiskinan, pengangguran hingga korupsi, yang hingga kini masih menjadi duri toda pemerintahan SBY.

Namun, apa pun upaya yang dilakukan pemimpinan bangsa ini tampaknya justru malah semakin menambah masalah. Ini lantaran kesan sikap tidak tegas pemerintah, yang disadari atau tidak, justru kian memperlemah kewibawaan sosok SBY sebagai seorang pemimpin.

Karena itulah, sudah seharusnya Presiden SBY mampu menunjukkan ketegasannya, termasuk dalam mengevaluasi atau mengganti (me-reshuffle) menteri-menterinya yang tidak berprestasi.

Tentunya, Presiden juga dituntut mempertimbangkan secara seksama kualitas para calon menteri yang akan dipilihnya. Mantan Menteri Koordinator (Menko) Perekonomian Rizal Ramli, dalam percakapan dengan wartawan Harian Umum Suara Karya Tri Handayani di Jakarta, Jumat (4/5) menyebut kepemimpinan bangsa ini sedang berada dalam kondisi defisit kredibilitas. Berikut petikan wawancara selengkapnya.

Mengapa persoalan kemiskinan atau korupsi yang melanda bangsa ini tak kunjung dapat diselesaikan?

Persoalan utama pembangunan ini adalah defisit dalam kepercayaan masyarakat dan kredibilitas. Misalnya, dalam kasus BBM, pemerintah sudah kehilangan kepercayaan dan kredibilitas publik. Dan, itu tidak bisa hanya menyalahkan menteri-menteri, karena kesalahan itu itu terletak pada pemimpinnya, yakni Presiden yang lebih banyak menciptakan masalah daripada mencari solusinya. Sehingga, jika berbicara reshuffle, sebenarnya yang paling baik jika Presiden me-reshuffle dirinya sendiri. Dengan kata lain, mengundurkan diri.

Apakah hal ini akibat ketidaktegasan Presiden dalam menetapkan setiap keputusan?

Jika berbicara dengan sikap tidak tegas yang selalu ditunjukkan Presiden SBY, iya. Cara-cara yang ditempuhnya dalam setiap akan memutuskan suatu kebijakan itu, penuh dengan kepura-puraan. Ini dapat kita lihat, misalnya, pada saat proses uji kelayakan (fit and proper test) para menteri, seakan-akan dilakukan dengan seleksi atau penilaian yang ketat. Tapi, dalam kenyataannya hanya ecek-ecek saja. Tentu itu dapat dilihat bagaimana hasilnya saat ini.

Dapat juga kita lihat, ternyata dalam proses uji kelayakan yang dilakukan Presiden dalam memilih para menteri hanya pura-pura saja. Karena, dalam praktiknya banyak orang yang tidak qualified atau tidak memiliki kualitas tapi masuk menjadi menteri. Bahkan, ada di antara mereka yang bermasalah dan diduga terlibat kasus.

Pemerintah ini sudah kehilangan kredibilitas karena prosesnya pun hanya sebatas pencitraan saja. Karena, yang terlihat itu tidak ada penilaian objektif terhadap kelayakan dari menteri-menteri yang akan dipilih. Tentunya dengan kondisi saat ini, apa pun yang akan dilakukan pemerintah, rakyat sudah tidak mempedulikannya. Masalahnya, selama ini pemerintah tidak pernah berpihak pada rakyat (kebanyakan) dan lebih memperhatikan pegawai pemerintah saja. Ini terbukti, selama Presiden SBY berkuasa, telah dilakukan kebijakan kenaikan gaji pegawai negeri sipil (PNS) sebanyak tiga kali. Jadi, walaupun dilakukan pergantian menteri berapa kali pun tidak akan memperbaiki keadaan.

Dengan demikian, seberapa penting evaluasi terhadap kinerja menteri?

Jika mengutip dari berbagai pendapat pihak luar negeri, banyak yang menyebut pemerintah kita ini diumpamakan seperti the lame duck atau bebek yang diam saja (lumpuh). Ia tidak memiliki kemampuan melakukan apa pun. Untuk pelaksanaan (kepemimpinannya) hanya sebatas kemampuan untuk berpidato. Jabatan presiden itu hanya sebatas simbolik saja. Negara ini no pilot. Pemerintah itu tidak ada, karena (para elite) cenderung hanya memperkaya dirinya sendiri.

Apakah kondisi ini nantinya akan memberikan peluang munculnya aksi anarkis dari rakyat yang jenuh dengan kepemimpinan saat ini?

Tentu, jika aspirasi rakyat tidak dapat diwujudkan oleh pemerintah. Oleh sebab itu, jangan salahkan rakyat jika mereka nantinya akan mencari jalan keluar dengan bertindak sendiri atau menerapkan solusinya sendiri. ●

For Indonesia’s democracy, time is running out

For Indonesia’s democracy, time is running out

Rizal Ramli, A Former Coordinating Economic Minister

SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 10 April 2012

When Indonesia’s students took to the streets in 1998 and won their battle for the overthrow of Soeharto, there was jubilation on campuses across the country.

Not long before then, most Indonesians had difficulty imagining a time when the patriarch of the New Order would not dominate their lives.

More than a decade later, we have learned that although the so-called Smiling General is no longer with us and memories of his egregious rule have started to fade in memory, the vestiges of his regime still haunt us.

Far worse, the outlook for Indonesia becoming a well-functioning democracy is fast deteriorating.

The incumbent President, who will have served 10 years by the time the 2014 election is upon us, has done little to serve the cause of improving Indonesia’s hard-earned democracy.

And, if we cast our eyes upon the current playing field of presidential hopefuls, it is also apparent that the chances for real political change under a new administration are slim.

Why Indonesia continues to suffer from a dysfunctional democracy is a valid question. We are allowed to go to the polls and vote for our national and local leaders, the judiciary (at least in theory) is an independent branch of the government and, hence, should be able to instill the rule of law, and the media is able to function without political pressure or control by politicians.

Still, everybody can quite easily see that our leaders have no sense of public duty or responsibility and view their powerful positions primarily as a means to enrich themselves.

Too often, judges in our courts are swayed into making rulings based on the checkbook, not justice. Minors go to jail for minor infractions, yet if one has the good fortune to be close to the levers of power, then the law can easily be twisted to escape punishment, even for the most heinous of felonies.

The elite talk incessantly about the successes of Indonesia’s economy — but who are the real beneficiaries?

Jakarta boasts of world-class shopping malls, international schools and its streets are full of imported luxury cars, but the harsh reality is that most Indonesians barely get by on their meager salaries and have few prospects for improving their lives.

The answer to why Indonesia suffers from an unjust and unfair democracy is, in fact, simple. Yes, Soeharto has long been buried, but many of his cronies and their offspring live on and thrive in the new Indonesia.

Their mindset, much like the one that prevailed under the New Order, is that the state is an instrument of power to be reserved solely for their clan and its vested interests.

In the past, Soeharto silenced his critics and aspiring reformists by throwing them into jail.

Today, the new leaders who wish to fight for a better Indonesia are not behind bars, but their efforts are being severely hampered by a powerful majority who use legislation as a means of maintaining the status quo.

The most compelling example of how Indonesia’s corrupt elites preserve their power is the nation’s electoral laws for the presidency. At the end of the day, the person who has the potential to set the tone and pace for change is the president.

The presidential office, above all others, has the advantage of giving the nation’s leader a “bully pulpit” to advocate an agenda.

Because of the prestige, stature and publicity accorded to a president, he or she has the potential to bring issues to the forefront for serious debate.

Sadly, this potential of the presidential office has either been grossly ignored or abused by Indonesia’s leaders for purposes that contradict what Indonesians dream of as a better future.

Now, as we look forward to the 2014 election, one can only wonder if we will continue to remain stuck in a vicious cycle of false hope espoused by jaded elites that are long on the talk of democracy, but fall remarkably short of action once they enter office.

If, indeed, the old elite is able to continue to monopolize the office of the presidency in 2014, the outlook for Indonesia’s democracy is a bleak one. Counting from the year when the reform era began, we face the prospect of a lost generation in our political development.

For meaningful change to occur after 2014, we must begin now to place intense pressure on the government to amend the electoral laws.

The oligopoly of political parties that are able to dictate who can run for the presidency needs to be broken. Voters must be given a greater choice of whom they would like to become Indonesia’s next president.

Of course, we cannot expect the national leadership to change the electoral laws on their own accord. They passed these laws for a reason — they know in their heart of hearts that if a wider playing field were allowed and some new faces appeared in the elections, they would run the risk of losing their coveted positions of power.

In public, they are saying that only candidates from the larger parties should be allowed to run because they are the most experienced.

In return, we should ask these same people, what type of experience are they really talking about? Experience in having learned to steal from the nation’s public coffers and making backroom deals without taking into account the public interest?

The consequence of no change in our electoral laws is no change in our politics. As the largest and most influential player in Southeast Asia and one of the world’s largest democracies, we need to install a new generation of leaders to prove to our people and our neighbors that democracy is truly the best form of governance to improve our livelihoods and welfare.

Without this, we will have no business calling ourselves a nation of the future. ●