Challenges for the new government leadership

Challenges for the new government leadership

Aziz, Kuala Kencana, Papua

The upcoming direct election for national leadership
(president and vice president) certainly invites a certain level
of passion on the part of the people, amid rising expectations of
a more legitimate and better government.

Chances for manipulation and dirty maneuvering by politicians
are limited, and now every politician must admit that power is
not fully subscribed under their fingertips any longer. The power
has gone back to the people.

But restoring power back to the people through a direct
election does not constitute a guarantee whatsoever that the new
leadership will bring about improvements. It takes a lot more
than direct election to make improvements happen. As much as a
direct election is obviously a great step forward for the
Indonesian political system, hope must still be carefully
reserved in people's minds.

At best, a direct election generally assures a more legitimate
and valid claim about the people's choice; though this may not
always be the case. Remember George W. Bush and Al Gore in the
2000 U.S. presidential election, when the margin was so close
that the decision on the winner had to be made by the Supreme
Court.

The real challenge is how the new leadership can run the
government to make improvements. This is where Indonesians must
put their faith in being able to choose the right leaders who are
truly capable of taking care of the people's well being.

What makes a good government? This is the central question and
the new leadership must a have a clear definition about the
elements that make a good government (aka civil service). It
might be too late to start from scratch in building an efficient
and non-corrupt civil service, but it is a prerequisite for
making the improvements work.

Forget for a moment the government's economic white paper,
civil society, legal supremacy, fair competition, an excellent
education system and many other hopes thrown out by economists,
lawyers, businesspeople, educators, etc.

None of this can be accomplished without a good running
government.

In the short term, the making of good government must stem
from the recruitment of Cabinet ministers.

One school of thought advises that Cabinet ministers should be
professional types and politically sterile appointments will
ensure objectivity and the ability to do the job, without
intervention from political parties, which by definition is
considered short-sighted and against wider national interests.

Another school of thought conversely argues that since the
political system, especially given the current composition,
requires a coalition of political parties, Cabinet ministers must
be recruited primarily based on their political support.
Otherwise, coalition partners may be disappointed and feel left
out, prompting them to try and hassle the government, with the
possibility that they may even try and topple the government down
the road.

This school of thought reinforces its argument by pointing out
that the larger portion of a minister's job is political, not
professional, hence a political appointment can meet the
requirements for the post.

The new leadership must be able to synthesize these two
approaches. One solution is to find qualified people to fill the
Cabinet from supporting political parties with a set of standards
known as "helicopter qualities". What are these? Powers of
analysis; a logical grasp of the facts; concentration on basic
points, extracting the principles. Not only do these people have
to be down-to-earth enough to do real work, but also able to soar
above the reality and say, "This is also possible" -- in other
words, must have a sense of imagination. That is the approach
that Lee Kuan Yew took in recruiting his Cabinet ministers.

And this leads to the next fundamental question.

How much is a good minister worth? The new leadership must
bravely ask this question and answer it to his or her supporting
and opposing political parties and to the nation, even before
they get elected. Such communication is needed to convince the
whole nation that appointing and choosing the right candidate is
as important to doing the job itself.

One dilemmatic problem to attracting the best people to fill
ministerial posts is that those who are capable are usually
reluctant to move away from lucrative positions in the private
sector, and those who eagerly pursue Cabinet positions do not
have sufficient skills other than their political connection.

On the other hand, when ministerial appointments based on
political adherence take place, it discourages the second and
third-liners below the minister level (directors general and
directors). They are usually careerist and climb the ladder from
the bottom with sweat and tears, and to tell them that they
cannot move upward and are blocked by political appointees is
counterproductive. They have a proven record in the government
and ignoring these people will derail the effort to establish a
performance-based system in government institutions.

The policy of ministerial recruitment must be explained; where
the appointees come from and how the appointees surpass the
standard set by the new leadership. With such an approach,
although the decision is a presidential privilege, this
transparency helps it to a good start.

What is the trouble with the civil service and the private
sector?

Along with the newly appointed Cabinet ministers, the new
leadership must take further steps by identifying and assessing
the troubles they encounter in the civil service and the private
sector, and then form plans to overcome these problems during
their tenure.

Perhaps the country's problems are already too complicated to
solve. But good leadership must be able to say that good or bad,
easy or difficult, what this nation has (people, government
bodies, private companies, infrastructure, foreign debts, etc.)
is what this leadership accepts and will utilize to the utmost.

Since the two most important players in the country are the
civil service and the private sector, the new leadership has to
address the role and relationship between these two institutions.
The leadership must elaborate on the meaning of "state" and
"private" in the context of globalization, and realize that only
by improving the civil service and private sector together will
the country get better.

What are our leaders thinking? People need to know what is in
the minds of their leaders. Like it or not, people actually need
guidance and they expect to be led by competent leaders. This is
even true in developed countries where people are well educated
and independent enough to take care of themselves. But how can
people know whether their leaders are competent if they cannot
communicate their thoughts openly and clearly?

Last note, it is good to recall that even the best-laid plans
do not always work out as expected. But the absence of a good
plan and good government can have only one result: failure for
the nation. The new leadership will be embracing one of the
toughest jobs in the world, and people must trust this job to the
best candidates who are able to take up the job professionally,
honestly and responsibly.

It is time for Indonesia to move forward, never mind the
artificial labels like civil-military, Muslim-nationalist,
Javanese and non-Javanese used by politicians. As already proven
by developed countries, the nations that win are those that can
adopt and place modernity, rationality and logical thinking above
primordial values. These are the same nations that take pride in
hard work and learning to do their jobs better.

The writer can be reached at Aziz9672@yahoo.com