New approach needed for cabinet coordination

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.