| Bureaucratic reform beyond realization? Eko Prasojo ; Deputy Minister of Administrative Reform |
JAKARTA POST, 04 Oktober 2012
The government of Indonesia has reaffirmed bureaucratic reform and governance as the first priority of national development in 2013. In his State of the Nation address on Aug. 16, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono highlighted several issues that need to be seriously addressed, including corruption eradication, bureaucratic reform and improvement to the investment climate.
These three topics are highly correlated each other, and their leverage would determine the success of bureaucracy reform.
Corruption eradication can be done through improvement of bureaucracy systems and culture. Investment climate improvement can be achieved basically through deregulation and de-bureaucratization. The myriad of graft cases investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) are associated with the current procurement system, and raise the question of whether bureaucratic reform can prevent corruption and boost government performance and quality.
An administrative reform expert Gerald Caiden has argued that “administrative reform in the third world is almost beyond realization”. His statement is based upon three facts that prevail in developing countries. First, most administrative reform agendas (known in Indonesia as bureaucracy reform) are not supported by sufficient political commitment.
Second, administrative reform does not stand by itself, but is very much bound and related to political, cultural and, definitely, law enforcement reform. Fundamental institutional, social and cultural transformations are necessary.
Third, administrative reform is not necessarily followed by change in perception of the elites. The desire to reform cannot keep up with the rapid demands of society and the change itself.
Caiden’s argument is not necessarily true. Some developing countries show success and positive impacts of bureaucratic reform for economic development acceleration, public service quality enhancement, and particularly cultural and mental change of the state apparatus. Korea, China and Malaysia are perhaps examples of bureaucratic reform that has triggered cultural and mental change to the state apparatus and the people alike.
The purpose and focus of administrative reform in China in the 1980 was to change the government’s function and create a more responsive administrative structure in economic development.
In short, it can be said that administrative reform in China is eyeing an efficient government through restructuring and depoliticizing of bureaucracy.
On the other hand, the purpose of administrative reform in Korea was to create clean, slim yet firm government, to be democratic, efficient and one that is close to the society through reform of administrative procedures. Malaysia focuses on government innovation through strengthening human resources as human capital.
Caiden’s satire on failed bureaucratic reform in developing countries was met by systematic change supported by firm political commitment.
In the Indonesian context, the set up of bureaucratic reform and good governance as the main priority in national development has actually indicated the President’s political support for the revitalization and transformation of the bureaucracy.
In practice, there are a number of problems. Fragmentation of the administration through local autonomy means that in a decentralized system, policy on reform needs the commitment of governors, regents and mayors.
Comprehensive and collective Cabinet support is needed to push innovations in every ministry/agency/institution. Appreciation shall be given to ministries and institutions that have managed to make changes under the national bureaucratic reform program. The success of reform in these areas will become beacons of innovation and best practice for other agencies.
Third, bureaucratic reform requires a grand coalition of stakeholders — the government, political parties and politicians, the legislature academics, business people, mass media, NGO activists and of course from the bureaucracy itself. This grand coalition is needed to reduce resistance that invariable occurs as the impact of change.
One of the pillars of bureaucratic reform is the agents of change, or reformers, at national and local levels. Reformers are a creative minority with consciousness, commitment, competence and vision. They must be created and shaped by the agency head, and mandated to prepare and implement the agenda of change.
At national level, reformers must come from the agency which spearheads the transformation such as the Administrative Reforms Ministry (Kempan), Finance Ministry, Home Ministry, National Development Planning Board (Bappenas), National Institute of Public Administration (LAN) and national Civil Service Agency (BKN). The success of reform in those agencies will set a good example for other ministries and agencies.
For local governments, the success of the Administrative Reforms Ministry and of Home Ministry, for example, will be the most important lever for reform at the regional level. The central government cannot force local governments to reform unless it reforms itself.
Simple but crucial things can initiate organizational culture changes. At the Kempan, LAN and BKN ministries for example, the organizational structure has been made more receptive to demand, and organizational performance.
Another challenge is to stand against the prevailing comfort zone which has been accepted as part of the bureaucratic culture. Such a comfort zone can be changed through new competitive systems and performance-based salaries. Until the year 2014, bureaucratic reform in this country will be nothing more than sowing the seed, but we hope to see the harvest soon.
Bureaucratic reform is not a dead end, but it requires the political commitment and support of all stakeholders. Our currently incompetent, corrupt, overlapping and inefficient bureaucracy will actually lead the next generation into further uncertainty, difficulty and mistrust of the government. ●
These three topics are highly correlated each other, and their leverage would determine the success of bureaucracy reform.
Corruption eradication can be done through improvement of bureaucracy systems and culture. Investment climate improvement can be achieved basically through deregulation and de-bureaucratization. The myriad of graft cases investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) are associated with the current procurement system, and raise the question of whether bureaucratic reform can prevent corruption and boost government performance and quality.
An administrative reform expert Gerald Caiden has argued that “administrative reform in the third world is almost beyond realization”. His statement is based upon three facts that prevail in developing countries. First, most administrative reform agendas (known in Indonesia as bureaucracy reform) are not supported by sufficient political commitment.
Second, administrative reform does not stand by itself, but is very much bound and related to political, cultural and, definitely, law enforcement reform. Fundamental institutional, social and cultural transformations are necessary.
Third, administrative reform is not necessarily followed by change in perception of the elites. The desire to reform cannot keep up with the rapid demands of society and the change itself.
Caiden’s argument is not necessarily true. Some developing countries show success and positive impacts of bureaucratic reform for economic development acceleration, public service quality enhancement, and particularly cultural and mental change of the state apparatus. Korea, China and Malaysia are perhaps examples of bureaucratic reform that has triggered cultural and mental change to the state apparatus and the people alike.
The purpose and focus of administrative reform in China in the 1980 was to change the government’s function and create a more responsive administrative structure in economic development.
In short, it can be said that administrative reform in China is eyeing an efficient government through restructuring and depoliticizing of bureaucracy.
On the other hand, the purpose of administrative reform in Korea was to create clean, slim yet firm government, to be democratic, efficient and one that is close to the society through reform of administrative procedures. Malaysia focuses on government innovation through strengthening human resources as human capital.
Caiden’s satire on failed bureaucratic reform in developing countries was met by systematic change supported by firm political commitment.
In the Indonesian context, the set up of bureaucratic reform and good governance as the main priority in national development has actually indicated the President’s political support for the revitalization and transformation of the bureaucracy.
In practice, there are a number of problems. Fragmentation of the administration through local autonomy means that in a decentralized system, policy on reform needs the commitment of governors, regents and mayors.
Comprehensive and collective Cabinet support is needed to push innovations in every ministry/agency/institution. Appreciation shall be given to ministries and institutions that have managed to make changes under the national bureaucratic reform program. The success of reform in these areas will become beacons of innovation and best practice for other agencies.
Third, bureaucratic reform requires a grand coalition of stakeholders — the government, political parties and politicians, the legislature academics, business people, mass media, NGO activists and of course from the bureaucracy itself. This grand coalition is needed to reduce resistance that invariable occurs as the impact of change.
One of the pillars of bureaucratic reform is the agents of change, or reformers, at national and local levels. Reformers are a creative minority with consciousness, commitment, competence and vision. They must be created and shaped by the agency head, and mandated to prepare and implement the agenda of change.
At national level, reformers must come from the agency which spearheads the transformation such as the Administrative Reforms Ministry (Kempan), Finance Ministry, Home Ministry, National Development Planning Board (Bappenas), National Institute of Public Administration (LAN) and national Civil Service Agency (BKN). The success of reform in those agencies will set a good example for other ministries and agencies.
For local governments, the success of the Administrative Reforms Ministry and of Home Ministry, for example, will be the most important lever for reform at the regional level. The central government cannot force local governments to reform unless it reforms itself.
Simple but crucial things can initiate organizational culture changes. At the Kempan, LAN and BKN ministries for example, the organizational structure has been made more receptive to demand, and organizational performance.
Another challenge is to stand against the prevailing comfort zone which has been accepted as part of the bureaucratic culture. Such a comfort zone can be changed through new competitive systems and performance-based salaries. Until the year 2014, bureaucratic reform in this country will be nothing more than sowing the seed, but we hope to see the harvest soon.
Bureaucratic reform is not a dead end, but it requires the political commitment and support of all stakeholders. Our currently incompetent, corrupt, overlapping and inefficient bureaucracy will actually lead the next generation into further uncertainty, difficulty and mistrust of the government. ●