New approach needed for cabinet coordination

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Political analysts have argued that one of the weaknesses of the former cabinet was an obvious lack of coordination among ministries. Conflicting statements made by ministers often led to confusion in society. At the same time, the absence of clear objectives regarding the solution of the economic crisis had prevented individual ministers from taking initiatives, with the effect that the national economy had only moved from bad to worse.

The biggest challenge of the new cabinet is how to end the economic crisis and reestablish international confidence on the prospect of Indonesian economy. In order to accomplish such a heavy task, the new cabinet really needs an alternative approach to interministerial coordination. There is no doubt about the expertise and experience of the new cabinet members.

However, interministerial coordination cannot be taken for granted. Even the most intelligent and experienced minister could end up with feelings of frustration if his or her ability was not employed properly. In a bureaucratic culture where vertical loyalty matters more than meritocracy, capable and creative ministers can be hampered by some kind of self-imposed censorship.

Interministerial coordination becomes even more difficult in a situation where repartition of competence among ministers is unclear and job overlapping prevail. Political analysts question, for instance, the division of tasks between the state ministry for the empowerment of state enterprises and the former directorate general of the supervision of state enterprises within the ministry of finance. Another case in point is a possible overlap of authority between the ministry of health and the new post of state minister of food, drugs and horticulture.

The new cabinet might have a well-intentioned policy to solve the economic crisis, however, the implementation of such a policy cannot be taken as merely translation of goals into routine procedures. Policy-action relationships need to be regarded as a process of interaction and negotiation taking place overtime, between those seeking to put the policy into effect and those upon whom action depends (Barret and Fudge, 1981).

In working out an economic reform as proposed by the IMF, the new cabinet cannot deny the fact that such reform could go against the vested interests of the political elite. Willy-nilly, we have to take into account fundamental questions about conflict, decision-making, and the distribution of costs and benefits among major and powerful policy stakeholders. A tug-of- war between the urgency of a comprehensive economic reform and the preservation of those interests will determine how quick the nation can liberate itself from the current crisis.

There are two approaches which can be used to improve coordination at the cabinet level. The first approach relies on centralization of power and control. This approach has been extensively used by the New Order government. Thus, the President has established several coordinating ministries responsible for different groupings of affairs.

As chief executive, the President coordinates the different functions of ministries. He requires each minister to report to him the progress of his or her job.

In addition, regular cabinet meetings are conducted to ensure a convergence of goals and strategies among ministries. The President has also established several coordinating ministries responsible for different groupings of affairs so that they might help him in his coordinating function.

This approach has several weaknesses. First, too much centralization of power can make individual ministers too dependent on the President. Consequently, they cannot develop their own creativity. Second, competing and conflicting interests among different ministries could impede the accomplishment of common objectives. Third, this approach is not flexible enough to incorporate the participation of the private sector in achieving national goals. For instance, the agenda of promoting non-oil exports and foreign investment necessitates active role of private companies.

An alternative approach to the centralization of power is a policy network approach. It can be understood as "mechanisms of political resource mobilization in situations where the capacity for decision-making, program formulation and implementation are widely distributed and dispersed among public and private actors" (Marin and Mayntz, 1991). This approach requires a recognized interdependence not only among different ministries but also between public and private agencies. The main function of the coordinator in this case is to improve conditions for cooperation and mutual adjustments.

The application of such an alternative approach can improve the capacity of the new cabinet to work out an economic recovery in the midst of a volatile external environment. Modern governance is said to rely more and more on policy networks. This might be the only way for the new cabinet to deal effectively with its global challenges.

The writer is head of the school of international relations at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung.

Window: In working out an economic reform as proposed by the IMF, the new cabinet cannot deny the fact that such reform could go against the vested interests of the political elite.