In modern political dynamics, ideological narratives often become the\nmost potent instrument for those in power to mobilise public support.\nThe administration of President Prabowo Subianto, for instance, has\naggressively articulated a narrative of populist political economy and\nnational self-reliance. Various monumental programmes have been launched\nwith claims of siding with the common people, such as the Free\nNutritious Meals (MBG) programme and the establishment of the Merah\nPutih Village Cooperatives (KDMP).<\/p>\n
Rhetorically, this populist narrative is highly captivating. However,\nwhen a fervent narrative is not matched by mature governance capacity or\nstate management, public policy risks becoming trapped as merely an\nexpensive political stage. The reality on the ground shows that the\nabsorption of massive budgets, driven by ideological zeal, is instead\nvulnerable to mismanagement, inefficiency, and even triggering\nwidespread corruption.<\/p>\n
Governance Deficit<\/p>\n
The MBG and KDMP programmes were designed with a truly fantastic\nbudget scale. The main characteristic of ideologically driven programmes\nis the urge to execute policies quickly in order to demonstrate\npolitical commitment. Unfortunately, this speed of execution often\nneglects a crucial stage in the policy cycle, namely the design of\noversight mechanisms, allocation transparency, and the readiness of\nbureaucratic infrastructure at the grassroots level.<\/p>\n
When jumbo budgets are channelled into a system that is not yet fully\nprepared, what occurs is known in political economy theory as the\nprincipal-agent problem and an institutional deficit. Budgetary\ndiscretion without strict checks and balances opens wide gaps for moral\nhazard. As a result, programmes intended for the people\u2019s welfare miss\ntheir targets, are prone to hijacking by political elites, and transform\ninto a feeding ground for corruption.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon confirms that good intentions wrapped in populist\nideology are never sufficient to guarantee policy success. Without a\ntechnocratic framework and transparent governance, ideological\nnarratives will only become a tool of legitimation to channel public\nfunds without clear accountability.<\/p>\n
Fukuyama\u2019s State Building<\/p>\n
To understand the root of this problem, Francis Fukuyama\u2019s thoughts\non state-building remain highly relevant. In his work, State-Building:\nGovernance and World Order in the 21st Century (2004), Fukuyama sharply\ndistinguishes between two dimensions of state power: the scope of state\nfunction and the strength of state capacity.<\/p>\n
Scope refers to how many responsibilities and agendas the government\nwishes to take on\u2014in this case, encompassing ambitious populist-oriented\nprogrammes. Meanwhile, strength refers to the ability of state\ninstitutions to plan, execute, and oversee policies professionally,\ntransparently, and free from corruption.<\/p>\n
The main problem currently facing the government is the deep\nimbalance between scope and strength. The government is hastily\nexpanding its scope through various ideologically driven, mega-budget\nprogrammes, while neglecting the strengthening of strength in the form\nof bureaucratic institutional capacity. If this expansion of state\nfunctions is not supported by strong institutional capacity, it is a\nprimary recipe for policy failure and a decline in governance, which, if\nnot addressed promptly, could slide towards the formation of a failed\nstate.<\/p>\n
In today\u2019s hyper-connected era of global interaction, a nation\u2019s\ncredibility is no longer measured by how loud its populist narratives\nare echoed domestically. Global standards demand good governance\u2014such as\nlegal certainty, digital transparency, and public accountability\u2014as the\nmain indicators of government effectiveness. When internal governance is\nweak and corruption is rampant in strategic programmes, both\ninternational and domestic public trust in state institutions will\nplummet sharply.<\/p>\n
Ideology as a Compass<\/p>\n
Strengthening government governance must now be made the commander in\nevery national policy formulation. Ideological narratives should\nfunction as a moral compass and strategic direction for the nation, not\nas a substitute for the basic principles of public accountability.<\/p>\n
To escape the trap of \u2018ideological narrative, minus governance\u2019,\nseveral urgent corrective steps must be taken: First, the government\nneeds to conduct an evaluative pause and an independent audit of the\ngovernance of the MBG and KDMP programmes. Budget expansion must not\nproceed until the oversight system and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)\nare truly solid.<\/p>\n
Second, strengthen state capacity as advocated by Fukuyama. This\nincludes professionalising the bureaucracy managing the programmes,\ndigitising the budget distribution system to close leakage loopholes,\nand involving independent oversight bodies and civil society at every\nstage of supervision.<\/p>\n
Third, transform the policy-making approach from ideology-driven to\nevidence-based policy making. Every programme worth trillions of rupiah\nmust be based on tested feasibility studies, risk simulations, and\nmeasurable governance, not merely political imagination.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the success of a government will not be measured by how\nmany populist terms are uttered in political speeches, but by how clean,\neffective, and accountable the programmes are in delivering benefits to\nthe people. Without strengthening governance, the populist narrative\nwill only end up as costly rhetoric for the nation\u2019s future.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/when-ideological-narrative-lacks-governance-the-risk-of-corruption-behind-populist-programmes-1786694001", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }