No autonomy without reform!<\/p>\n
By Donna K. Woodward<\/p>\n
MEDAN (JP): There is a lust in some quarters for the
\nconsummation of regional autonomy. Before lawmakers have even had
\ntime to shape the new political creature, would-be opportunists
\nare focusing myopically on this economically promising
\ninitiative, sometimes leaving more critical community needs
\nunattended.<\/p>\n
The central government, too, seems impatient to implement
\nautonomy, hoping that a fairer distribution of national wealth
\nwill reduce separatist sentiments and regional violence. But
\nautonomy is not a panacea that will cure the nation's social
\nills.<\/p>\n
Autonomy alone can't effectuate economic justice and community
\npeace. The need for some degree of regional self-determination is
\na given; but if all that autonomy does is benefit regents instead
\nof directors general, mass discontent will continue.<\/p>\n
Autonomy per se will do little to increase people's
\nsatisfaction with their government, unless it is part of a larger
\nreform package that leads to greater community justice and
\nprosperity.<\/p>\n
A reform package must include, among other things, new
\noperating rules for government institutions. Public and private
\ninstitutions have long operated with unwritten rules that allow
\ncorruption, inefficiency and violence to flourish.<\/p>\n
Officials are not in their offices at 10 a.m. and are gone for
\nthe day by 3 p.m. When the office head is out of the office, all
\ndecision-making and document signing seems to halt.<\/p>\n
Positions are still given to salaried no-show relatives and
\nfriends of the powerful. Civil servants and even key officials
\nsometimes hold several positions at once, doing justice to none.<\/p>\n
Employees work without clearly described roles and
\nresponsibilities, wandering around offices, sitting and smoking
\nand waiting for the boss to assign them a task.<\/p>\n
Police do not show up at crime scenes unless they are paid by
\nthe victims. The military does not prevent riots because they are
\non private duty guarding private homes and business for extra
\nincome.<\/p>\n
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. How can a modern
\ngovernment operate like this? How can officials hope to be
\nrespected as serious professionals? How can such a system inspire
\nconfidence in investors?<\/p>\n
Bureaucracies, their employees, and the public would benefit
\nfrom new operating rules: competence standards, performance
\nstandards, and a code of conduct.<\/p>\n
Standards need not be rigid and unforgiving; if well crafted
\nthey will nourish an esprit de corps, pride, and dignity in
\nworkers. They are a means of transforming an organizational
\nculture from one that is corrupt and inefficient into one that is
\ntransparent, accountable, and productive.<\/p>\n
Already analysts have begun to call for these innovations.
\nLet government authorities now ensure that they are begun
\nthroughout the bureaucracy, so that when local governments become
\nmore autonomous they may be ready to serve their communities
\nfairly, efficiently, and without corruption, collusion and
\nnepotism.<\/p>\n
Some bureaucratic reforms may be complex to implement, but
\nothers are straightforward, requiring little more than political
\nwill from leaders. Others could be initiated quickly and would
\nmake a visible difference to the public.<\/p>\n
In each office, inform employees what the work hours are and
\nset an attendance policy. Give them substantive job descriptions
\nso they know what their responsibilities are and what authority
\nthey may exercise.<\/p>\n
Prohibit civil servants who are on the public payroll from
\nholding more than one position at a time. Prohibit officials from
\nconducting private business during their assigned work hours.
\nControl the use of government property, office space and
\nvehicles, for private purposes.<\/p>\n
Post notices in each government office informing the public of
\nwhat the cost of each transaction is -- what procedures or
\ndocuments are needed at each step and what the fee for each is.
\nProhibit the collection of unofficial fees.<\/p>\n
Set monetary limits to what gifts can be given, received, or
\nretained for personal use by officials. Draft conflict-of-
\ninterest guidelines: receiving kickbacks or commissions from
\ncontractors poses a conflict of interest; so does channeling
\nbusiness to family members or friends; making a policy decision
\nin favor of a friend is a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n
People who work for the government or, for that matter, any
\norganization, should be clear about what \"conflict of interest\"
\nmeans, and understand that they may not use their position to
\nfurther their own interests to the detriment of the interests of
\nthe employing organization.<\/p>\n
Finally, ensure adherence to standards through a fair
\ndiscipline system. Standards mean nothing if there are no
\nconsequences for compliance and non-compliance. Managers who are
\nreluctant to administer positive and negative consequences
\nfairly, or who are unable to meet the standards themselves,
\nshould not be retained as managers.<\/p>\n
Reform has a painful side. Inadequately paid civil servants
\ncount on supplementing their incomes by making the best of the
\nextra opportunities that their jobs offer. Some have large debts
\nto repay to those who gave them their positions; maybe the first
\nreform should be an announcement from the President that any
\npersonal debt of a civil servant for the purchase of his\/her job
\nis immediately canceled.<\/p>\n
The government would like to ease into reform, forcing no
\nchange until it is painless for affected persons. This is
\nimpossible, and the sooner the President's advisors accept this
\nfact of life, the sooner the government will regain its reform
\nmomentum and credibility.<\/p>\n
The government apparently believes it cannot undertake
\nbureaucratic reform before economic recovery makes salary
\nincreases possible. This is the chicken-and-the-egg question. Is
\nit money that makes reform possible; or will bureaucratic reform
\nexpedite economic recovery?<\/p>\n
It is a delicate balancing act. It might be time for the
\nPresident to reconsider his present point of balance. It is
\nsurely time for renewed faith that it is safe to move farther
\nalong the tightrope toward reform.<\/p>\n
The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the
\nU.S. Consulate General in Medan, is president director of PT Far
\nHorizons management consultancy firm.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-autonomy-without-reform-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}