Neither fools, nor crooks

Not so long ago, around the time of the year when governments are formed, many among our political elite would be inflicted with a temporary case of AIDS. No, not that dreadful disease ravaging the world's population, but a sudden case of vanity while awaiting the telephone call to confirm their exalted appointment as Cabinet minister.

An Indonesian acronym for Aku Ingin Ditelpon Soeharto (I want to be telephoned by Soeharto), AIDS poignantly described the conceited regard for high appointment -- a get rich scheme which bestowed power and all the indulgences of political patrimony. There was little semblance of the awareness that Cabinet posts are positions of high service, not high privilege.

In theory, at least, president-elect Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has begun to put a stop to it. That is not to say that "undesirables" are not camping out at Cikeas -- Susilo's residence -- trying to grab his attention. But at the very least the president-elect has introduced a new screening process by personally interviewing a short list of ministerial candidates for a particular post.

For the moment the process has created a media frenzy. Even SMS (short Message Service) polling is encouraged by television stations on the respective ministerial candidates as if it were some hollow reality show. Watching the circus unfold the public is treated to a "who dunit?" mystery, only this time the premise being "who'll get it?"

The way in which a government is selected, organized and managed will have implications on the procedural legitimacy that stake holders like the House of Representatives and the general public, will grant in policy making.

Thus in principle, Susilo's selection process deserves support. We hope that he will remain faithful to his idea that "job interviews" will serve as a means to examine not only the candidates personal competence, but his or her loyalty to the new president's vision.

We understand that the interviews may also serve as a sieve to remove politically sensitive candidates from the final selection. Susilo at the very least can now make his choice under the guise of appraising the interview, and not merely his personal inclination.

We welcome this move and wholly endorse the selection of competence over political favor. However, we would also like to remind our president-elect that in an age of direct democracy and parliamentary rambunctiousness, technical competence and scholarly flair are not the sole proprieties in making a good Cabinet.

Wit and political congeniality are no less important for an administration likely to be the most scrutinized in four decades.

We urge Susilo to define in his own mind the positions needed to govern and the people he needs to fill them. He is not bound by stifling bureaucratic traditions in this case because simply, there are none preceding. Susilo should proceed with whatever experiments he may feel necessary for this process without wasting time.

His goal should be toward forming a team. Each appointment demarcated by distinctly separate assignments, yet able to work collegially with one another. Lone rangers are not welcome.

The selection should include people who cede to a democratically elected president, but always those who are also ever ready to sharpen issues and raise concerns over dubious policy ambitions. "Yes men" are not wanted.

Finally, and most importantly, it is most desirable for the Cabinet to include only individuals whose personal traits protect them from the clamor of the mob, the allure of power and the charm of riches. We seek not a Cabinet of fools at the price of gaining a Cabinet of crooks.