Govt bureaucracy needs a new outlook

Govt bureaucracy needs a new outlook

By Hendrajit

JAKARTA (JP): If there is a lesson to be learned from the
recent riots in Tasikmalaya and Situbondo it is a new look at the
role of the government in protecting public interest.

In the past thirty years, decisions in Indonesian politics
have been made autonomously by political leaders on behalf of a
passive population.

In other words, what activates the New Order system is the
technocratic development principle, where decision making is
based on a set of criteria and techniques that leave no room for
real public participation. It is a widely held belief that only
state or government bureaucracy can collect and command the
resources and authority needed to transform the system.
Government bureaucracy is the only organization with effective
channels of communication and leadership capabilities.

As the expansion of state revenues permitted state
intervention of the social fabric, the vision of a state-
constructed political order was given a firm material basis.
Consequently, within this paradigm the Indonesian ideological
tradition is one essentially manufactured by the political
leadership in government bureaucracy. The civil administration,
the House of Representatives, business enterprises, and even
sport clubs show the importance of "uniformed" men behind many
activities at all levels.

In such a situation, bureaucracy becomes the main instrument
of development. The developmental role assigned to bureaucracy
led to a concentration of power, thereby eroding the strength of
political parties and the press. It is impossible to have
effective countervailing forces which could maintain some degree
of social control on bureaucracy. However, empirical evidence has
shown the weaknesses and ultimate instability of government
bureaucracy. Lessons from the past showed that obstacles to
development stemmed directly from the state apparatus.

Unlike western industrial states, Indonesian bureaucracy is
not seen as neutral. As an instrument of the state, government
bureaucracy usually reflects values and norms far from rational,
being neither objective nor apolitical.

It is possible that such a machine of state is supported by
political and economic domination of one ethnic group or is a
part of the party in power. The problem is the modernization of
bureaucracy today needs to be seen in a more dynamic fashion by
identifying where the limits of government bureaucracy lies.
Whether bureaucracy will evolve into a more democratic system
which is capable of overcoming structural imbalances, between the
center and the fringes and between conglomerate and small scale
businessman is a pertinent question.

In other words, the issue is the struggle between the state
authority and the people's autonomy in development. In some cases
there was a delicate balance in policy reform, the seemingly
"zero sum game" between the authority and the people's autonomy,
in a struggle to promote democracy in a true sense. In Indonesia,
for example, the role of the state is very important in promoting
changes and improving social welfare. But at the same time, the
dominant roles, in the form of centralization of resources and
decision making of development efforts, which have been developed
in the past on behalf of development have created more problems
than solutions.

Realizing the problems, the issue that should be promoted is
no longer "people participation in bureaucratically-imposed
national development", but rather "government participation" in
people-centered development. The focus here is how to promote
equitable access to productive assets as the basis of a true
democracy. The lesson from past experiences is that when
productive assets are in the hands of a few, whether in the
government or in the private sector, it would lead to ever-
increasing concentration of assets control.

The Tasikmalaya and Situbondo riots dictate the need for a new
outlook on the role of government bureaucracy before the social
gap becomes unbridgeable. Otherwise, the situation will breed
violence as the only perceived means for the poor and the
oppressed to defend their rights.

It is therefore reasonable to expect the state apparatus to be
efficient in working towards social welfare improvement.
Consequently, the bureaucracy is expected to be apolitical in
serving the public interest as laid out in the Constitution.

The main duty of a civil servant is to respect and enforce law
and order devoid of personal interest for any political group. In
such a context, bureaucracy as an instrument of the state must
always be conscious of and sensitive to changes in the definition
of public interest.

Government bureaucracy must not be intimidated by political
pressure from special interest groups. In short, the government
should give more protection to the weak as the Malaysian
government has done under the New Economic Policy (NEP). Such a
situation, requires a deep sense of social responsibility on the
part of political leaders within government bureaucracy.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Jakarta.