Public vs private good

The current debate over the government's plan to close down the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Social Services has neglected the philosophical argument of "public versus private good" originally put forward by President Abdurrahman Wahid. In announcing his Cabinet last week, which omitted these two ministries, Abdurrahman said the government's task was to guide and lead the nation, and not so much to execute policies. The President also emphasized the need to encourage more initiatives from within society.

The debate since then has focused on the fate of over 70,000 people who work in these two ministries, the relevance of these agencies, and the pros and cons of abolishing them. If we return to the philosophical argument however, there is no doubt that these ministries must go, as must one or two other ministries.

With regards to the Ministry of Information, the President said his government only needs a small office to help disseminate and explain its policies to the public. TVRI and RRI -- the state-run TV and radio stations currently under the Ministry of Information -- will remain at the government's disposal, but they will be fully incorporated as state companies once the ministry ceases to exist.

There is no need for the government to retain an entire department for the purpose of public information needs. The bulk of that task is already being carried out by newspapers, magazines, private TV and radio stations, and now, thousands if not millions of Internet websites. The public has plenty of choices for selecting the most appropriate and suitable medium and message; some are supplied by the government, but the majority originate from private organizations. The Ministry of Information may be performing vital functions, but these functions could be much more effectively and efficiently carried out by the private sector.

Most government agencies, including local administrations, already have their own public relations offices to disseminate policy information from their agencies. The Ministry of Information has become redundant.

The same argument could be used about the Ministry of Social Services, whose tasks include caring for socially and economically disadvantaged groups, and for victims of natural disasters. While there is a compelling argument to have a national agency for the management of natural disasters, other social services could be handled by regional administrations, without the need for an entire ministry at the national level.

Many of the ministry's functions in caring for socially deprived people have already been taken over by private charity organizations. Massive fund-raising campaigns and the distribution of staple foods by private groups to the needy during the economic crisis of the last two years attest to our society's ability to combat hardship, with little government prodding. Since these private charity organizations are freed from bureaucratic constraints, they are often much more effective and efficient than the Ministry of Social Services could ever expect to be. Too much government intervention may even be counterproductive because it can drain money away intended for private charity organizations.

President Abdurrahman's philosophical argument in abolishing the two ministries is not that they no longer serve any purpose, but that most of their functions could be performed much more effectively and efficiently by the people. In fact, in the current search to streamline the administration, we could stretch this argument to apply to a number of other government ministries.

If the President had been consistent, he should also have abolished the Ministry of Religious Affairs which has no real purpose in society. This ministry unnecessarily duplicates work carried out by mosques, churches and temples, and by the national councils representing the various religions in the country.

The existence of the Ministry of National Education, (the former Ministry of Education and Culture), should also be reviewed, abolished, or at least substantially pared down. For too long, bureaucrats have taken the task of educating our children out of our teachers' hands, with devastating consequences for the quality of their education. The time has come to leave teaching to the real professionals.

The President has shown courage by taking tough political decisions at the outset of his term in office. It is very easy to get distracted in the current polemic about whether or not to keep the two ministries. But we must not lose sight of the philosophical reason behind this decision. The quicker we accept his decision to close down the two ministries, the less painful it will be for those civil servants whose professional careers are affected to adapt to their new jobs. The sooner we resolve this problem, the sooner we can discuss the abolition of other dysfunctional ministries, but this time, giving those concerned more time to prepare themselves.