State Policy Guidelines<\/p>\n
The 1998\/2003 State Policy Guidelines which the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) will enact at the end of its current
\nGeneral Session are essentially more important than the question
\nof who will be the president and vice president. The State Policy
\nGuidelines (GBHN) set out the policy framework for the new
\npresident to carry out in the next five years. This document
\ndetermines the fate of the nation much more so than the president
\nwho is given the mandate to carry it out. While leadership is
\ncrucial in state affairs, its success is only as good as the
\npolicy he or she carries out.<\/p>\n
Given its importance, it is sad to see that the GBHN has
\nreceived scant attention from the 1,000 MPR members, who seem to
\nprefer to indulge in irrelevance, such as in speculating about
\nthe formation of the next cabinet. Part of the reason, we
\nbelieve, is that the question of the GBHN, like that of the
\npresident and vice president, was determined even before the
\nGeneral Session began. The GBHN draft has been debated by the
\nAssembly's preparatory working committee from November to
\nJanuary, and the current session will simply be used to fine tune
\nthe document.<\/p>\n
The GBHN draft originated from a concept drawn up by Golkar,
\nthe dominant political faction in the Assembly. Given its
\nmajority position, and with the backing of the Armed Forces and
\nthe regional representatives factions, the draft underwent minor
\nchanges at the working committee level. The United Development
\nParty and the Indonesian Democratic Party, for example, were
\nsteamrolled by the dominant factions when they demanded basic
\npolitical reforms, including changes to the electoral system.<\/p>\n
With all due respect to the working committee members who put
\na lot of hours and resources into debating the GBHN, we fear that
\nthe document has failed to take into account the deep economic
\ncrisis into which this nation has plunged. When the working
\ncommittee wound up its meeting in January, the crisis had only
\njust started to rear its ugly head. At the time, most people
\nexpected the crisis to be temporary. Few, including the MPR
\nmembers, anticipated that it would intensify.<\/p>\n
It is now widely accepted that the crisis has exposed deep
\nfundamental and structural problems in our country, which the
\nGBHN, at least in its present draft, is not likely to remedy.<\/p>\n
The five MPR factions for example have recognized that
\ncorruption, collusion, monopoly and nepotism are so deeply rooted
\nin our nation that they obstruct any move toward clean government
\nand good governance. These, many believe, are the chief reasons
\nwhy the nation has failed to lift itself out of the crisis. But
\nif we recall, these issues were already recognized in the 1993
\nMPR session, although the terms \"clean government\" and \"good
\ngovernance\" were not used. Recognizing the problems is one thing,
\nand recognizing their reasons is another. Taking remedial action
\nis altogether a whole different ball game.<\/p>\n
The outgoing government has failed in its battle against
\ncorruption, collusion, monopoly and nepotism, as demanded in the
\n1993 GBHN, not so much because of its inability, but because of
\nstructural imbalances in the state institutions. The legislative
\nand judicial branches have been virtually powerless against the
\noverriding power of the executive branch. They are dysfunctional
\ninstitutions when it comes to providing checks and balances
\nagainst the executive branch, where the practices of corruption,
\ncollusion, monopoly and nepotism are most prevalent.<\/p>\n
This structural imbalance, unfortunately, is not addressed in
\nthe new GBHN in its present format. On the contrary, the MPR is
\nabout to give even greater powers to the new president, a move
\nthat is likely to make the House of Representatives and the
\ncourts of law even more subservient to the executive branch.<\/p>\n
The future of this nation for the next five years hangs in the
\nGBHN. The 1,000 MPR members, not the new president, will be
\nresponsible for much of what will happen to this nation in the
\ncoming years. They can enact a GBHN that will essentially give
\nmore of the same policies of these past five years, but whose
\neffectiveness have become very doubtful given the current
\neconomic crisis. Or they can give a new GBHN that truly deals
\nwith the problems the nation is facing, one that requires a major
\noverhaul of the way state institutions have been run.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/state-policy-guidelines-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}