Bureaucratic web hampers reform

Bureaucratic web hampers reform

By Marco Kusumawijaya

JAKARTA (JP): The World Bank has canceled the disbursement of
the US$300 million social safety net loan to Indonesia due to the
government's failure to meet the loan conditions. The bank states
that the slow pace of meaningful change in institutions and
bureaucratic culture is often the source of the failure.

The bank's president, James Wolfensohn, had said, in his
previous visit to Jakarta last year, that 10 to 40 percent of
loans had been corrupted.

This news is of utmost concern to most Indonesians, that
despite the dragging political reform movement, very little
change has been made in the bureaucracy.

This may not be the concern of the "elite" but it certainly is
the main reason why most Indonesians desire reform. They want
better public services, and they know that, without change in
bureaucratic practices, the reform movement will mean nothing
more than a transfer of the power that controls the country's
wealth, without directly improving the delivery of public goods
and services.

Unless embracing reform in the bureaucracy, political reform
is close to meaningless to them. Hence the rapidly emerging
cynicism among Indonesians about the political elite and the
reform movement in general.

Why is reform in the bureaucracy not taking place despite the
more significant political reform?

Answers to this question are neither easy nor singular; but
more than two years after the change of government, surely this
is an appropriate time to reflect on this. Bureaucratic reform is
strategic not only as the single most important indicator of the
success or failure of the reform movement in the eyes of common
people, but also a determinant factor for long term
competitiveness in the 21st century.

The bureaucracy in Indonesia has developed into a web,
possessing a life of its own. You try to change it, and either
end up entangled by it or stung to death. In this bureaucracy
there is no such thing as a "professional civil servant" who will
readily follow the commands of legitimate political leaders.

The fact that the bureaucracy had been the servant of a
single, monolithic and closed New Order has made it almost
totally impenetrable to outsiders.

There are valuable lessons merely in compiling experiences of
current cabinet members, on how they get along with a bureaucracy
inherited from the New Order. The word is that the ministers'
will does not always prevail, and in some cases they are very
much steered by the bureaucrats instead of the reverse.

In the case of the National Urban Development Corporation
(PERUMNAS), for example, it is only logical that, in the
decentralization era, this body should return the plots it
controls to local authorities or community-based organizations,
instead of opting to remain one of the country's instruments of
centralized control of assets.

We must also rethink the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency
from this point of view.

There is no doubt that very strong political leadership is
needed to change the bureaucracy. Such leadership is possible
with the direct support of the people. Therefore, the argument
for a direct election is valid at least from this angle.

However, in this economic crisis, it may not be a wise idea to
push for a reduction in personnel in the much criticized
bureaucracy.

Jakarta, for example, has to cope with absorbing an additional
50,000 employees -- former officers of national bodies -- into
its local bureaucracy. The crisis may seem like a very good
opportunity to realize the urgency of bureaucratic reform, but it
certainly is bad timing, unless the government has a very
credible and solid plan to revive the economy as well.

Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had strong
political support and a sound economic plan when she launched
"The Next Steps" to reform the bureaucracy of the United Kingdom,
an initiative continued by Tony Blair's government.

And this had not been without trial-and-error until she found
the strategic points, among others: "uncoupling steering and
rowing and exposing public services to market competition," as
David Osborne and Peter Plastrik wrote in their 1996 book,
Banishing Bureaucracy.

"Strategy" may well be the needed key word within the context
of Indonesia's scarce and crippled resources. A strategy should
use key leverage points to make fundamental changes that will in
turn bring further changes creating a domino effect.

We need to think hard about strategy before using available
resources, instead of asking for more money in each instance. The
notions of "think first, act later" and "being thrifty" should be
part of Indonesia's new culture above and before anything else.

But that is not all.

The World Bank document uses the specific terms "bureaucratic
culture". Perhaps to understand this we only need to follow the
court proceedings of the land-swap case of the Indonesian
Logistics Agency (BULOG).

When asked why he did not remind then president Soeharto of
the ministerial regulation that he was about to violate regarding
the land swap deal, former finance minister Mar'ie Muhammad,
replied " "How could I possibly remind the president!"

Moerdiono, the former state secretary, was quoted as saying
that "If reminded by a minister, the president would usually not
violate any existing law or regulation".

The first quote indicates a paternalistic bureaucratic
mentality, while the second points to the formal approach by a
professional, loyal bureaucrat. Both lack courage,
entrepreneurship and creativity required in a highly competitive
global economy.

No matter how bad the situation is, pessimism is definitely
not an option. Urgent steps are needed before the country plunges
into the 21st century ill equipped and without proper direction.

The question of how far we can change is the second priority,
and must of course relate to all local conditions, and will
depend on the political will of political leaders with popular
backing or pressure.

Actually there are now dozens of initiatives being taken using
aid from foreign donors. They work at both the local and national
levels. Most importantly, they work not only on the "supply" side
of local and national government bodies, but also on the "demand"
side -- the community level.

Those involved in such initiatives try to make the people
articulate their demand for concrete changes in public services
and goods. Interventions on the demand side might be more
strategic than others.

But they need two strategic components: freedom of information
and transparency on the supply side. If both of these components
are effective, there is hope that the bureaucratic web may be
penetrable and dismantled for reform.

The writer is a Jakarta-based architect and expert on urban
issues.