Democratic public service: Key to Indonesian recovery<\/p>\n
Edi Suhardi
\nProgram Advisor
\nPartnership for Governance
\nReform in Indonesia
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The public service in Indonesia has been called many things,
\nincluding lethargic, unproductive and mired in red tape. An
\nundemocratic and inward-looking public service ends up
\nconcentrating power in the public service system as an inevitable
\nconsequence, which then leads to endemic corruption. This is
\nprecisely the bleak situation that was the precursor to the
\ndevastating economic crisis that hit the country in the late 90s.<\/p>\n
For more than 30 years, the civil servants were not serving
\nthe people but serving the needs of the ruling group. This scheme
\nwas institutionalized for 32 years in the form of the Indonesian
\nCivil Servants Corps (KORPRI), with compulsory membership for all
\npublic servants. KORPRI, a central government-controlled
\norganization, was effective in maintaining the allegiance of
\ngovernment officials to the ruling party, and ensuring the
\nloyalty of local governments to the central government.<\/p>\n
Public service reform is inevitable in the new democratic era
\nunder a decentralized system of governance. However, it has faced
\nformidable challenges in revamping both internal systems and
\nadjusting to changed circumstances.<\/p>\n
President Megawati before KORPRI members on Dec. 18, 2003 in
\nLembang remarked that civil servants must be neutral in the 2004
\nelections. Further, the State Minister for Administrative Reforms
\nalso reiterated that the public service will be required to
\nmaintain its neutrality in the elections.<\/p>\n
The ministry is undertaking reforms to achieve three targets:
\nimproved professionalism with a view to greater efficiency and
\nbetter performance, the enshrined neutrality of the civil service
\nand better welfare for civil servants. However, the achievement
\nof these targets has been facing a number of hurdles, including
\nsynchronization in the context of decentralization and regional
\nautonomy, and bickering within central government agencies. The
\nchallenges to reform within the public service have mainly
\noriginated from the absence of concerted efforts on the part of
\nall the relevant central government agencies to adhere to the
\nreform agenda.<\/p>\n
Most reform efforts are politically motivated and exogenously
\nprogrammed by partisan interests rather than managerially induced
\nand endogenously evolved from within the bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
There are at least two contributing factors to the minimal
\nsuccess of reform to date, i.e., no clear direction and lack of
\nproper instruments (laws) to make reform a reality, and the
\nabsence of democratic mechanisms. Efforts have been merely
\nfocused on internal systems and structural and functional
\nfeatures, and have overlooked the need for democratization. The
\nterm \"democratization of the public service\" is not often heard
\neven though it actually represents the essence of reform.<\/p>\n
There is the reason why KORPRI remains intact during the
\ncurrent reform era. KORPRI has been preserved as a political tool
\nby the central government to control local governments. An
\noverhaul of KORPRI is seen as a pragmatic initiative to
\ndemocratize and stimulate holistic public service reform.<\/p>\n
It is long past time for the total reform of the public
\nservice in Indonesia. This effort must center on remedying the
\nmany ills that have arisen as a result of the autocratic and
\ncentralistic regime that ruled for over three decades. What is
\nneeded includes the democratization of the public service and the
\npromulgation of a new public service law.<\/p>\n
A setting of a new direction in the democratization of the
\npublic service will no doubt encounter challenges from both the
\npolitical and bureaucratic establishments in the process of
\nadapting to changed circumstances.<\/p>\n
Democratization is aimed at creating new modi operandi, i.e.,
\nfacilitating public scrutiny, partnerships with other
\nstakeholders, service-oriented mechanisms and accountable
\nsystems. Public servants should be given the freedom to organize
\nthemselves on the basis of their needs at local, provincial and
\nnational levels.<\/p>\n
In the context of decentralization and democratization, the
\nexistence of KORPRI as a political tool is obviously no longer
\nrelevant. KORPRI needs to undergo total reform to renew its
\nmandate in the new system of governance and redefine its
\norganizational status. Otherwise, KORPRI should be dissolved if
\nits members do not feel the need for its continued existence.<\/p>\n
KORPRI at the national level should be redesigned as a
\nfederation of locally-based public service organizations. A new
\ndecentralized public service association, if deemed necessary,
\nshould be established by the officials themselves, and evolved
\nthrough participatory bottom-up mechanisms to the national level.<\/p>\n
A democratic public service, fully people-governed, will
\nprevent institutional influence and pressures from political
\nparties and interest groups at the local and national levels. It
\nwill both accommodate the diversity of regional interests, and
\nenhance national stability and unity.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, there are also risks facing the public service
\nand its locally-established associations that should not be
\nunderestimated: they could be taken over and exploited by local
\nelites. Further, a new consensus over standard norms and values
\nto ensure the maintenance of nationwide bonds should be
\ncampaigned for.<\/p>\n
Decentralization does not mean only restructuring the public
\nadministration: it also refers to its functions. The capacity of
\nthe civil service to manage decentralization and its ability to
\nmake good, strategic public policies is the key to the
\nimplementation of the reforms. In essence, the public
\nadministration is the most important aspect of the
\ndecentralization framework (Christine Fletcher, 2003).<\/p>\n
A decentralized public service can raise the quality of and
\naccess to services that benefit the poor. It allows closer
\ninvolvement of the representatives of the poor in public policy-
\nmaking, thereby enhancing its pro-poor nature, its accountability
\nand the sustainability of its outcomes. But decentralization also
\ninvolves some risks that should not be underestimated: a local
\ngovernment could be subjected to the control of the local elite,
\nregional disparities could deepen, and the central government
\ncould disclaim responsibility for the poor. The public sector
\nsymbolizes a mixture of central and regional interests.<\/p>\n
Local government reforms are now gradually shaping new
\nattitudes in public service management and adapting it more to
\nlocal interests -- thus affecting the nature of public service in
\nspecific regions. This development should be taken into account
\nin reforming the public service in Indonesia. Public service
\nreform should include government downsizing, deregulation,
\ndeconcentration, an anticorruption drive and democratization.<\/p>\n
Democratization and reform of the public sector should be
\ninstitutionalized in the policy and regulatory frameworks. All
\npublic service-related laws should be reviewed and further
\namended, reflecting newly reformed and democratic public
\nadministration, with a view to producing a consolidated public
\nservice law.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democratic-public-service-key-to-indonesian-recovery-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}