Conscientious Cabinet<\/p>\n
If recent history provides any guidelines, President
\nAbdurrahman Wahid or Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri should
\nopt for neither professionals nor politicians in selecting their
\nnew Cabinet. Both groups of people have let the nation down, and
\nare responsible for much of the country's current problems.<\/p>\n
Those who are debating whether President Abdurrahman Wahid
\nshould select more politicians or more professionals in his new
\nCabinet have grossly missed the whole point about what was really
\nwrong with almost all past cabinets: That virtually all the
\nministers, whatever their backgrounds, lacked the
\nconscientiousness that is essential for serving in public office.<\/p>\n
Presidents Soeharto and B.J. Habibie both relied mostly on
\nprofessionals in their cabinets. These people, or \"technocrats\"
\nas they were once popularly referred to, had their merits as they
\nwere apolitical. They did not have any political ambitions,
\ncertainly not to the same extent as true politicians would have.<\/p>\n
Professionals are strongly dedicated to their professions and
\nvery loyal to the masters they serve. As true professionals, they
\ncan therefore be relied upon in getting the job done.<\/p>\n
Their strength, however, is also their chief weakness. For
\nsuch important posts, they lack public accountability. Since they
\nare not elected by the people, they do not feel that they owe
\ntheir positions to the people. Their loyalty first and foremost
\nis to their profession, and second to the person who hired them,
\nin this case the President. The people come third, if at all.<\/p>\n
Most of Soeharto's teams of economists, for example, were
\ntruly able and dedicated people, so much so that they stuck
\nrigidly to their textbook theories often with little or no regard
\nto political realities. When things went wrong -- and they often
\ndid -- these ministers blamed the nonconducive conditions,
\nincluding political instability, rather than their policies.<\/p>\n
Since they were professionals rather than politicians, they
\nalso acted as if they were beyond public reproach. When things
\ngot really bad, they would take shelter behind the president.
\nEven today, we still hear some of these former ministers, who are
\nno longer running the show, blaming their erstwhile boss instead
\nof admitting their role in these mistakes.<\/p>\n
If these ministers were conscientious in the first place, many
\nwould have resigned rather than be forced to defend and implement
\npolicies that they knew were wrong. Since not a single economic
\nminister ever resigned during Soeharto's 32 years in power, it is
\nsafe to assume that they had all put dedication to their
\nprofession and loyalty to their boss ahead of their conscience,
\nassuming that they had one to begin with.<\/p>\n
A Cabinet made up of politicians may not fare any better as
\nthe experience of the last 10 months under President Abdurrahman
\nWahid has shown. The main argument for appointing politicians as
\nministers is that they are supposed to have a greater sense of
\npublic accountability than professionals because they owe their
\nposition first and foremost to the voters.<\/p>\n
Because deep down they are politicians, these ministers are
\nalso more likely to stand up to the President when they feel his
\npolicies are detrimental to public interest.<\/p>\n
Another major reason for having a largely political Cabinet is
\nto ensure strong legislative support, especially since President
\nAbdurrahman's National Awakening Party (PKB) only controls 11
\npercent of the seats in the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n
The chief weakness of having politicians as ministers is
\nprecisely because they are first and foremost politicians, with
\npersonal ambitions and strong partisanship.<\/p>\n
Abdurrahman's rainbow coalition Cabinet represents the worst
\npossible combination that could be envisaged, which is why the
\nidea of politicians being appointed as ministers seems so
\nrepugnant to many people. None of the politicians serving in the
\nCabinet have been able to shed their political jackets. They
\nserve two bosses -- the President and their party leaders -- and
\nat times are guilty of pursuing their own party's political
\nagenda through the Cabinet. Few of these ministers have observed
\nthe adage which is applied to politicians serving in public
\noffice: that their loyalty to their party ends where their
\nloyalty to the country begins.<\/p>\n
Like the professional-ministers, many politician-ministers in
\nthe outgoing Cabinet have not demonstrated the conscientiousness
\nto be expected from the holders of high public office precisely
\nbecause they have acted like politicians pursuing narrow
\npolitical interests.<\/p>\n
It is clear now that the chief criteria in selecting the
\nmembers of the Cabinet should be not whether they are
\nprofessionals or politicians, but whether the candidates have any
\nconscience at all. Second, as trusted aides of the President or
\nVice President, they must share their respective visions of where
\nthey want to take Indonesia. That means, at the very least,
\nhaving the same political vision and ideology.<\/p>\n
Professional competence, while crucial, comes after these two
\ncriteria are fulfilled. It is no good picking professionals if
\nthey are heartless, corrupt, have little sense of public
\naccountability, and are pursuing a completely different agenda.<\/p>\n
Surely it is not that difficult for President Abdurrahman and
\nVice President Megawati to find persons with conscience and
\ncompatible vision as well as the professional competence required
\nto become members of the Cabinet, is it?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/conscientious-cabinet-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}