New approach to bureaucratic reform

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo clearly states in his Nawacita priority agenda that he will build clean, effective, democratic and reliable governance.

In fact, bureaucratic reform has been a priority since the two terms of the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono presidency that ended in 2014.

In the 2010-2014 Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN), bureaucratic reform was listed as a national priority with several indicators such as the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), an audit opinion on the financial reports of state institutions by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and the Government Performance Accoutability Report (LAKIP).

Indonesia’s CPI rose from 32 in 2012 to 36 in 2015. Meanwhile, the BPK notes that the number of state institutions that received an unqualified opinion accounted for 71 percent in 2014, rising from 63 percent in 2010.

The Corruption Eradication Commission in its latest survey gives 7.22 points for state institutions’ public service integrity — rising from 6.16 points in 2010. The Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry stated in a 2015 report that 79 percent of government institutions received a “good” grade on performance accountability, increasing significantly from just 12 percent in 2010.

Thus, bureaucratic reform has improved bureaucratic accountability and enhanced public services. Now, interacting with the bureaucracy is no longer a costly waste of time. In some regions, a significant change has taken place, providing the optimism that bureaucracies can be reformed.

The Global Competitiveness Report notes that one key pillar that determines competitiveness in many countries is the legal and administrative framework within which all development takes place.

The latest report shows that Indonesia still faces major challenges in the basic areas of competitiveness, including in infrastructure and institutions. But we must also focus on how bureaucratic reform can answer development problems. This will push bureaucracies to be more sensitive to the objectives of development.

One national priority, for instance, is to build 10 tourist destinations within five years. Is the bureaucracy ready to meet this goal? There are at least four aspects related to the readiness of the bureaucracy — organization, human resources, business process, and regulation.

Procedural matters in business should be clear.
First, we have to determine which organization will manage these tourist destinations, whether it will be the Tourism Ministry or a special agency. If the latter is chosen, we have to ensure that there will not be any overlapping authority between these two institutions.

Second, we must provide sufficient human resources. How many experts in tourism do we have in government? Will we recruit more civil servants with a background in tourism?

Third, to manage tourist destinations, several ministries, regional governments and state-owned enterprises with separate authorities must coordinate with one another.

How will this be done? Procedural matters in business should be clear.

Fourth, what is the legal basis for establishing these 10 tourist destinations? A bureaucracy always needs a legal basis to guide it in executing policies despite the spirit of deregulation that is buzzing at the moment.

These questions are basic institutional issues that we must consider if we want to ensure the readiness of the bureaucracy as a implementer of policy. We are now conducting an organizational audit in a bid to streamline the bureaucracy. We are in a moratorium period for recruiting civil servants to assess the number, need effectiveness of existing civil servants. In this period, government institutions should formulate human capital development plans to determine such needs.

However, bureaucratic reform is not merely about how we change bureaucracy. Rather, it is a process directed toward the attainment of national development goals.

by Husni Rohman

source The Jakarta Post, Tuesday, June 21, 2016