'Govt not a deck of cards that need to be shuffled'

'Govt not a deck of cards that need to be shuffled'

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is expected to reshuffle
his Cabinet soon after Idul Fitri. In a written interview with
The Jakarta Post, lawyer and social activist Nono Anwar Makarim,
shared his view about the Cabinet issue.

Question: What is your overall impression of the performance
of the Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu (United Indonesia Cabinet) after
one year?

Answer: There are some ministers who work themselves to
exhaustion, and others who (I'm afraid to say) don't know what to
do and, therefore, sit back and get nervous. But if you mean by
"Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu" the government as an aggregate unit,
I think they're doing well, and not getting the credit for it.
We Indonesians have a very short political memories. Or,
perhaps, all political memory is short. One just has to go back
in time and recall the Megawati years, the Abdurrahman Wahid
rule, Habibie's cabinet, and Soeharto after 1975 in order to
obtain a more or less proper perspective. It's like comparing
apples and oranges.

What have been its high points and low points

It's easy to pick out the high points. With most everybody
ganging up against the President and his government, the peace in
Aceh suddenly becomes feasible. Never in Indonesia's history has
there been an anti-corruption drive half as serious as the ones
we're witnessing now; never! Finally, the courage to raise
gasoline prices to such lofty heights is astounding for a man
mocked as the Javanese Hamlet. Pity the timing is dumb.

Couldn't anybody have said that on the eve of Idul Fitri, the
close of the fasting month -- which, as a festival, is comparable
to Christmas in the industrialized West -- all prices go up? And
what happens to the millions who return to their home villages to
be with family and friends? They are now slapped five to six
times the transportation charges they paid last year. But I am
ready to defend the long talk about it before the delayed action.
They called it stupid. I call it democracy, although some
physically tough guys prefer the term "stupid democracy".

A low point was, and will be for the foreseeable future, the
personal safety of citizens. Some of this has been caused by
government negligence in clearing up the confused perception
about human rights and preventive measures. The question needs
to be asked, and answered properly: Why is campaigning for a
dictatorship of the proletariat a no-no in the Pancasila State,
but political parties aiming to establish an Islamic State are
looked upon benevolently?

A close look needs to be taken at what continues to be
promoted as the existence of a different kind of Islam in
Indonesia; moderate, and tolerant. The promotion refers to a
tiny minority of extremists who close down churches, hunt down
restaurants that open during Ramadhan, and throw bombs. A
continuum may be found between fatwas (Islamic edicts) issued by
the ulema, a fiery sermon, neighborhood pressures to close down
churches and places of worship, demands to ban peaceful
activities, and the bombings. Why is everybody suddenly
embarrassed about Pancasila?

Do you think the President should reshuffle his Cabinet?

No reshuffle. The government is not a deck of cards that
needs to be shuffled and reshuffled to play a variety of games.
A few members should be replaced. Others should stay, perhaps
given new jobs left by the under-achievers. An organizational
consultant should be called upon to listen to Sri Mulyani (State
Minister of National Development Planning), and propose options
for structures in order to improve cooperation and synergy.

When your performance continues to be judged less than
sympathetically, you cannot afford to distribute too many plum
jobs to incompetent allies. And sometimes it's good to remember
that it's not the allies that elect the President. The support
from legislative allies has not been impressive, to say the
least.

What should be the guiding principles in making these changes?

Integrity, a past record of performance, proven team player,
and sufficient imagination to break down lofty goals into
achievable parts. Avoid prominent bureaucratic insiders who sell
themselves by claiming "I know how to operate the apparatchik. I
was there for a quarter of a century". Change-oriented thinking
does not come from insiders. Knowledge and skills, though
necessary, can be hired.

What is the ideal balance between politicians, businessmen and
technocrats in the Cabinet?

Categorizing it that way runs the risk of "distributism". It
is not what they did that makes them the right person for the
right job, but rather how they did it.

Should the President give Cabinet seats to the small political
parties outside his own Democratic Party (PD) and Jusuf Kalla's
Golkar?

Yes, especially if they present the right person for the job.
And this non-discriminatory principle applies not only to small
political parties, but to all parties and social organizations,
or even individuals. Let it be remembered very clearly:
opposition shouts loudly; supporters whisper softly. Under these
circumstances, I prefer to see a remarkably successful government
with an effective socialization component exposing lists of
achievements of the Susilo-Kalla style of government.

The ideal is, of course, a broad coalition between results-
oriented political parties. Sad to say, there's no tradition of
coalescing in Indonesia's political culture. The Indonesian
Communist Party was successful in forging a coalition with the
nationalists only because of Sukarno's strong ideological
support. Hope for sustained political stability and economic
growth in the country was entertained by many when thoughts arose
about the possibility of a Indonesian Democratic Party of
Struggle (PDIP)-Golkar coalition. That hope was smashed in an
orgy of personal pettiness and spite.

If the Cabinet should focus on five main issues or challenges,
what should they be?

The Cabinet should focus on corruption, poverty, and the
socialization of the point beyond which inaction by the State
apparatus against intolerance and violence would constitute a
violation of human rights. Other issues are preemption of
intolerance and violence, education and taxation.

I'd also like to add "empowerment of women" and "crime".