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.