Good governance<\/p>\n
State Minister of National Development Planning Ginandjar
\nKartasasmita's oration after receiving his honorary doctoral
\ndegree from the Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta last
\nSaturday reminded us of the basic requirements for good,
\neffective governance in today's world.<\/p>\n
Ginandjar noted that a good, efficient state bureaucracy
\nshould develop transparency and accountability and should guide,
\ninstead of controlling, and empower instead of providing to the
\npublic. He also stressed the importance of enhancing grassroots
\ninitiatives in development and the need for the government to
\nalways take sides with the economically, politically weak segment
\nof society.<\/p>\n
Every major policy that affects the interests of the general
\npublic should be debated openly first, before it is enforced, he
\nsaid in citing an example of how transparency and accountability
\nshould be translated into the daily conduct of governance.<\/p>\n
There is actually nothing completely new in Ginandjar's
\nobservations. But there are, we think, at least two factors that
\nmade his observations newsworthy.<\/p>\n
The first was the mere fact that those principles that are so
\nbasic to good, effective governance, were pointed so bluntly by a
\nmember of the core of policy makers within Indonesia's
\nbureaucracy.<\/p>\n
The second is the stark reality that those principles are
\nstill in the early process of being applied to the daily conduct
\nof governance in this country. And the process seems much slower
\nthan required by the changing environment.<\/p>\n
After more than 25 years of steadily high economic growth, 10
\nyears of accelerated economic and bureaucratic reforms and
\nprivatization, which have transformed the private sector into the
\nlocomotive of the economy, the state bureaucracy still tends to
\nthink and act as if it remains the most knowledgeable about
\neverything.<\/p>\n
That attitude often hinders meaningful dialogs with the
\npeople. Policy making and decision making are often done without
\na dialectic social process because most bureaucrats think they
\nknow best and, therefore, see policy debates as a waste of time.
\nThe consequences, though, as we have often noted over the past
\nfew years, are that the government sometimes makes unnecessary
\nmistakes that could be avoided through open, reasonable policy
\ncommunication.<\/p>\n
Such an attitude seemed to have been tolerable between the
\nmid-1960s and the mid-1980s, when the government was in such a
\nhurry to catch up in the development of the economy, which was at
\nthat time in such a devastated condition.<\/p>\n
But now because the economic base has broadened, economic
\nactivities are governed mostly by market forces and the private
\nsector has assumed the role of the engine of growth. Therefore,
\nthe state bureaucracy is required to transform itself
\nstructurally, functionally and orientation-wise.<\/p>\n
We understand such a transformation is not easy because it
\nmeans sharing more power with the people. But in today's world,
\nopenness and transparency are crucial for efficient market
\noperations. And, efficient markets depend on good information, as
\ndoes the exercise of freedom to participate in economic and
\npolitical decision making.<\/p>\n
Moreover, openness is essential for a soundly based public
\ndebate of the performance of a government and its agencies. And
\ninformed policy discussions are at the heart of a healthy
\npolitical process, which is required to enhance sustainable
\ndevelopment.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/good-governance-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}