Conscientious Cabinet

Conscientious Cabinet

If recent history provides any guidelines, President
Abdurrahman Wahid or Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri should
opt for neither professionals nor politicians in selecting their
new Cabinet. Both groups of people have let the nation down, and
are responsible for much of the country's current problems.

Those who are debating whether President Abdurrahman Wahid
should select more politicians or more professionals in his new
Cabinet have grossly missed the whole point about what was really
wrong with almost all past cabinets: That virtually all the
ministers, whatever their backgrounds, lacked the
conscientiousness that is essential for serving in public office.

Presidents Soeharto and B.J. Habibie both relied mostly on
professionals in their cabinets. These people, or "technocrats"
as they were once popularly referred to, had their merits as they
were apolitical. They did not have any political ambitions,
certainly not to the same extent as true politicians would have.

Professionals are strongly dedicated to their professions and
very loyal to the masters they serve. As true professionals, they
can therefore be relied upon in getting the job done.

Their strength, however, is also their chief weakness. For
such important posts, they lack public accountability. Since they
are not elected by the people, they do not feel that they owe
their positions to the people. Their loyalty first and foremost
is to their profession, and second to the person who hired them,
in this case the President. The people come third, if at all.

Most of Soeharto's teams of economists, for example, were
truly able and dedicated people, so much so that they stuck
rigidly to their textbook theories often with little or no regard
to political realities. When things went wrong -- and they often
did -- these ministers blamed the nonconducive conditions,
including political instability, rather than their policies.

Since they were professionals rather than politicians, they
also acted as if they were beyond public reproach. When things
got really bad, they would take shelter behind the president.
Even today, we still hear some of these former ministers, who are
no longer running the show, blaming their erstwhile boss instead
of admitting their role in these mistakes.

If these ministers were conscientious in the first place, many
would have resigned rather than be forced to defend and implement
policies that they knew were wrong. Since not a single economic
minister ever resigned during Soeharto's 32 years in power, it is
safe to assume that they had all put dedication to their
profession and loyalty to their boss ahead of their conscience,
assuming that they had one to begin with.

A Cabinet made up of politicians may not fare any better as
the experience of the last 10 months under President Abdurrahman
Wahid has shown. The main argument for appointing politicians as
ministers is that they are supposed to have a greater sense of
public accountability than professionals because they owe their
position first and foremost to the voters.

Because deep down they are politicians, these ministers are
also more likely to stand up to the President when they feel his
policies are detrimental to public interest.

Another major reason for having a largely political Cabinet is
to ensure strong legislative support, especially since President
Abdurrahman's National Awakening Party (PKB) only controls 11
percent of the seats in the House of Representatives.

The chief weakness of having politicians as ministers is
precisely because they are first and foremost politicians, with
personal ambitions and strong partisanship.

Abdurrahman's rainbow coalition Cabinet represents the worst
possible combination that could be envisaged, which is why the
idea of politicians being appointed as ministers seems so
repugnant to many people. None of the politicians serving in the
Cabinet have been able to shed their political jackets. They
serve two bosses -- the President and their party leaders -- and
at times are guilty of pursuing their own party's political
agenda through the Cabinet. Few of these ministers have observed
the adage which is applied to politicians serving in public
office: that their loyalty to their party ends where their
loyalty to the country begins.

Like the professional-ministers, many politician-ministers in
the outgoing Cabinet have not demonstrated the conscientiousness
to be expected from the holders of high public office precisely
because they have acted like politicians pursuing narrow
political interests.

It is clear now that the chief criteria in selecting the
members of the Cabinet should be not whether they are
professionals or politicians, but whether the candidates have any
conscience at all. Second, as trusted aides of the President or
Vice President, they must share their respective visions of where
they want to take Indonesia. That means, at the very least,
having the same political vision and ideology.

Professional competence, while crucial, comes after these two
criteria are fulfilled. It is no good picking professionals if
they are heartless, corrupt, have little sense of public
accountability, and are pursuing a completely different agenda.

Surely it is not that difficult for President Abdurrahman and
Vice President Megawati to find persons with conscience and
compatible vision as well as the professional competence required
to become members of the Cabinet, is it?