Govt bureaucracy needs a new outlook<\/p>\n
By Hendrajit<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): If there is a lesson to be learned from the
\nrecent riots in Tasikmalaya and Situbondo it is a new look at the
\nrole of the government in protecting public interest.<\/p>\n
In the past thirty years, decisions in Indonesian politics
\nhave been made autonomously by political leaders on behalf of a
\npassive population.<\/p>\n
In other words, what activates the New Order system is the
\ntechnocratic development principle, where decision making is
\nbased on a set of criteria and techniques that leave no room for
\nreal public participation. It is a widely held belief that only
\nstate or government bureaucracy can collect and command the
\nresources and authority needed to transform the system.
\nGovernment bureaucracy is the only organization with effective
\nchannels of communication and leadership capabilities.<\/p>\n
As the expansion of state revenues permitted state
\nintervention of the social fabric, the vision of a state-
\nconstructed political order was given a firm material basis.
\nConsequently, within this paradigm the Indonesian ideological
\ntradition is one essentially manufactured by the political
\nleadership in government bureaucracy. The civil administration,
\nthe House of Representatives, business enterprises, and even
\nsport clubs show the importance of \"uniformed\" men behind many
\nactivities at all levels.<\/p>\n
In such a situation, bureaucracy becomes the main instrument
\nof development. The developmental role assigned to bureaucracy
\nled to a concentration of power, thereby eroding the strength of
\npolitical parties and the press. It is impossible to have
\neffective countervailing forces which could maintain some degree
\nof social control on bureaucracy. However, empirical evidence has
\nshown the weaknesses and ultimate instability of government
\nbureaucracy. Lessons from the past showed that obstacles to
\ndevelopment stemmed directly from the state apparatus.<\/p>\n
Unlike western industrial states, Indonesian bureaucracy is
\nnot seen as neutral. As an instrument of the state, government
\nbureaucracy usually reflects values and norms far from rational,
\nbeing neither objective nor apolitical.<\/p>\n
It is possible that such a machine of state is supported by
\npolitical and economic domination of one ethnic group or is a
\npart of the party in power. The problem is the modernization of
\nbureaucracy today needs to be seen in a more dynamic fashion by
\nidentifying where the limits of government bureaucracy lies.
\nWhether bureaucracy will evolve into a more democratic system
\nwhich is capable of overcoming structural imbalances, between the
\ncenter and the fringes and between conglomerate and small scale
\nbusinessman is a pertinent question.<\/p>\n
In other words, the issue is the struggle between the state
\nauthority and the people's autonomy in development. In some cases
\nthere was a delicate balance in policy reform, the seemingly
\n\"zero sum game\" between the authority and the people's autonomy,
\nin a struggle to promote democracy in a true sense. In Indonesia,
\nfor example, the role of the state is very important in promoting
\nchanges and improving social welfare. But at the same time, the
\ndominant roles, in the form of centralization of resources and
\ndecision making of development efforts, which have been developed
\nin the past on behalf of development have created more problems
\nthan solutions.<\/p>\n
Realizing the problems, the issue that should be promoted is
\nno longer \"people participation in bureaucratically-imposed
\nnational development\", but rather \"government participation\" in
\npeople-centered development. The focus here is how to promote
\nequitable access to productive assets as the basis of a true
\ndemocracy. The lesson from past experiences is that when
\nproductive assets are in the hands of a few, whether in the
\ngovernment or in the private sector, it would lead to ever-
\nincreasing concentration of assets control.<\/p>\n
The Tasikmalaya and Situbondo riots dictate the need for a new
\noutlook on the role of government bureaucracy before the social
\ngap becomes unbridgeable. Otherwise, the situation will breed
\nviolence as the only perceived means for the poor and the
\noppressed to defend their rights.<\/p>\n
It is therefore reasonable to expect the state apparatus to be
\nefficient in working towards social welfare improvement.
\nConsequently, the bureaucracy is expected to be apolitical in
\nserving the public interest as laid out in the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The main duty of a civil servant is to respect and enforce law
\nand order devoid of personal interest for any political group. In
\nsuch a context, bureaucracy as an instrument of the state must
\nalways be conscious of and sensitive to changes in the definition
\nof public interest.<\/p>\n
Government bureaucracy must not be intimidated by political
\npressure from special interest groups. In short, the government
\nshould give more protection to the weak as the Malaysian
\ngovernment has done under the New Economic Policy (NEP). Such a
\nsituation, requires a deep sense of social responsibility on the
\npart of political leaders within government bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/govt-bureaucracy-needs-a-new-outlook-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }