Haste makes waste
Leaders should lead by example. And the thriftiness of a government plays an exemplary role in setting the pace of a nation's consumptive habits.
Ideally we wish to see an efficient, responsive, thrifty government that provides all the services needed -- not necessarily demanded -- by its citizens.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's instruction to the bureaucracy to begin conserving energy deserves recognition. At the same time it also warrants plenty of critique.
Essentially, any conservation efforts should be supported. Not only do such measures help economize on public spending and shun excessive consumption, but they are also environmentally friendly.
No one could argue that there are countless ways the government can be more efficient. It is even more pertinent now given the nation's economic challenges, especially the intermittent shortages of fuel.
Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Purnomo Yusgiantoro even boasted that the government was "upbeat" that fuel- conservation directives within the government could even reduce fuel consumption by 5 percent to 10 percent.
We are hopeful, but not as confident, and even doubtful, of the short to medium term impact of these directives.
The President's instruction seems to be yet another move seen as a reaction to a predicament that arises without a well thought out plan.
Cost-cutting and efficiency measures should be part of a larger policy paradigm. One cannot simply tell nearly four million bureaucrats to cut down on expenses overnight.
The government's latest initiative is predictably tired, mechanical, across-the-board cuts. It does not, for example, first examine how such cuts will impact the already notoriously poor services provided by the civil service. Nor does it carefully measure the consequence of the cuts in fulfilling overall targets set by the government at the beginning of its term.
Turning off the air-conditioner, or showing up to work without a suit is by itself not a sign of prudent government consumption.
Just because civil servants are now perspiring more (due to the frugal use of air-conditioners) does not mean they are working harder or more efficiently.
Instead of arbitrarily telling officials to embark on conservation measures and cut up to 10 percent of fuel consumption, it would have been more strategic for the President at the beginning of his term to instruct the government to work with just 90 percent of the allocated budget appropriated.
Such a dramatic approach to budgeting and planning would have been more effective than the knee-jerk response currently being touted.
It would methodically introduce conservation measures and at the same time allow the government to achieve its promised targets without compromising the mobility and vitality of the public service.
Other public measures -- not just to conserve fuel and electricity -- on a short and long term basis could also be applied fairly to the general population. This could include progressive taxation for automobiles, water conservation, the promotion of alternative fuels, improvement of public transportation, etc.
In addition to solving immediate budgetary problems it is reasonable to suggest that this result-based conservation process will help reinforce the belief that the government not only cares but is taking consistent steps to spend wisely.
Susilo should not simply look at abating critics under the pretext of having "a sense of crisis".
Legitimate conservation efforts are part of a cultural habit. Any success in imposing such measures in the short term will be fleeting. The government should look toward a comprehensive effort that can be embraced and accepted by a population -- measures which in four years time will reduce pollution levels, conserve energy consumption, cut down on public expenditure and stop waste.
The President should learn what other democratically elected leaders have known for a long time: The more thrifty a government becomes, the more generous voters are at the ballot box.