Campus autonomy: What does it mean?

By Nirwan Idrus

This is the first of two articles exploring the meaning of campus autonomy.

JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Education and Culture Juwono Sudarsono recently announced the granting of autonomy to four leading state universities in Indonesia: the University of Indonesia (UI), the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) and Gadjah Mada University (UGM).

This is a refreshing change for higher education in Indonesia. Some would say that it is about time. With the arrival of globalization, the free-trade zone very early in the new century/millennium, ever-increasing competition within Indonesia for higher education provision and the real need to significantly improve Indonesian human resources, such a decision is obviously welcomed. It is understood that various meetings are now taking place in those institutions about the matter of autonomy. It is a good sign.

However, accepting the popular definition of autonomy, that is in broad terms the granting of "self-rule", the process is a formidable one in Indonesia and hence must be planned and executed as carefully as possible. One small error will render the idea unworkable and vested interests may use this as an excuse to return to the old rules of centralization. Those who are involved with higher education institutions may be frustrated and dismayed with the hit-and-miss plan of delivering autonomy to or empowering the institutions. They may declare that, for example, the old style, i.e. centralization, is better. These negative thoughts and utterances must be avoided at all costs, if the empowerment process is to succeed. But how?

A potent method is by providing strong assurance of one's seriousness to those involved as well as others, by way of appropriate and supportive examples. In the first instance, this will eliminate lip service. People will see that action is louder than words. They will also see that there is a sense of seriousness about the matter. People do become encouraged when they see that others are also doing whatever they are supposed to be doing. Their hopes start to build up, and as we all know, you only need a flicker of hope to conquer the world. But who should give the examples and who should see and learn from these examples?

Examples should come from the top. That is, the highest management, the highest governance and the top people, particularly in a country like Indonesia, where the Indonesian/Asian culture is very much revered. In the case in hand then, the examples should be set by the Minister of Education and Culture, by the Ministry of Education and Culture, by the Directorate General for Higher Education (DGHE) and the highest echelon within DGHE, led by the director general (Director General DGHE).

Within institutions, university presidents must give examples to everyone within the institutions, the deans of faculties must provide examples to everyone within their faculties, the heads of departments must provide examples to everyone within their departments, the teaching staff must provide examples to their students. Only when a cascading provision of good and supportive examples occur can the empowerment process be said to have begun.

Please note that it has not finished, but has only started. There are many other elements in the devolution process that must be acted on in order to approach the end of the process. So why don't we trace the provision of those examples above from the minister to the students.

It is expected that as the political leader of his portfolio he will give examples of empowerment, devolution and autonomy within his sphere of influence. He will have to be sincerely doing what he preaches, but he also has to be seen to be doing so. He has to find a way of showing the whole country that he is serious about change. Australians have a phrase for this: "fair dinkum". The question is: Is the minister fair dinkum about what he says? A real change that everyone will see and appreciate (perhaps not straight away) may be the surrendering of the "culture" portfolio in "education and culture" to another ministry and minister.

In doing so, the new ministry will concentrate 100 percent on education -- a major and extremely important portfolio if we want to really build strong, formidable and appropriate national human resources.

In doing so, the minister would completely cut off his and his ministry's association with a portfolio that has been anachronistic for 54 years, namely education and culture. It is a portfolio that, as we have seen, has not met the expectations of the nation and the people. With such an action, it is hoped that many of the systems within the Ministry would be turned upside down. It is hoped that there will be new procedures, a new modus operandus, a new organizational structure and so on. While these are only hopes, these hopes will not even flicker if that first step is not taken. The promise for change can only happen with change.

The ministry, as the administrative arm of the minister, must also play its part. It must take this opportunity to apply the many proven management and administrative practices not hitherto used within the ministry to support the minister's decision. It must take this opportunity to continually improve its efficiency and effectiveness, in the name of the development of national human resources.

It must therefore practice staff empowerment within the ministry. It must take this opportunity to systematically reduce unnecessary costs and wastage, a job easily undertaken by critically examining and then changing its procedures, rules and regulations. It must take this opportunity to practice what it is administering -- education -- and continually educate its own staff members to turn itself into a learning organization. It must lead other ministries toward this goal of becoming learning organizations. In so doing it would have taken the first step toward reform of the national public service. But only the first step!

The Director General for Higher Education (DGHE) must follow suit. In all its dealings with both state and private higher education institutions, the directorate must manifest empowerment.

DGHE must no longer determine, decide, cajole and force institutions into anything. Empowered or autonomous institutions determine their own destinies, develop their own plans and make their own decisions. DGHE's roles must change and must be seen to change. Like the ministry, DGHE must review its procedures, rules and regulations with the objective of realigning them with new directions of autonomy given by the minister.

DGHE must make itself more efficient and less bureaucratic if it wants the institutions under it to be more efficient, effective and less bureaucratic themselves. DGHE must also be seen to be more efficient and less bureaucratic. Even simple and seemingly inconsequential things must be addressed. Think of the many bundles of reports written by people who spend hours and hours preparing and producing them, only to be stored under the stairs and in other DGHE areas, visible to anyone visiting the DGHE.

If the reports are not going to be read, why ask for them? If only three copies of a report are required why ask for seven? Not only is it wasteful, but the writers of those reports are extremely disappointed to see their unread reports lying around.

The writer is an international higher education consultant living in Jakarta. The article is the author's personal opinion.