Saving the titanic bureaucracy from sinking
By Christiani S. Tumelap
JAKARTA (JP): Our bureaucracy is such a mess. It's like a huge ship with many complex systems and networks which is about to sink during a cruise to an obscure destination.
Many parts of the bodywork have been rusted by overwhelming personal and clique interests. Meanwhile, its battalions of civil servant sailors cannot stop it from sinking because they simply do not have the expertise of operating the ship.
But just as with any human invention, the rotting bureaucracy can be repaired. It might take a very long time but at least it is not unachievable.
At the green IIP campus in South Jakarta recently, rising political observer and rector of the State Institute for Public Administration (IIP), Ryaas Rasyid, shared with The Jakarta Post his views on the current state of the bureaucracy, the quality of public services and possible solutions.
Question: Why do you think we need a bureaucracy?
Ryaas: First of all, bureaucracy in a political context is the instrument which only actuates the political policy. It lies in a unique position because it belongs to both the government and the people, so it is expected to stay neutral, not become a stooge for a certain economic or political power.
As the executor of the political policy, it must be very professional. It must have the excellent capability to comprehend how to specify the policy and actuate it for the benefit of the public.
In this case, the bureaucracy is not in a position to make policies, it provides services with fairness and executes the policy indiscriminately.
Q: Is that the concept to describe the function of government officials?
R: Yes. That's the guidelines. The public service, empowerment and development functions are attached to them.
Q: Is that the ideal model of bureaucracy?
R: Yes.
Q: But why do we need the bureaucracy, regulations or officials?
R: Because without them you can't uphold order. A regulations is made. Who would execute it? Who would control the way it is performed? Who would administer the policy? That needs bureaucracy.
Who would handle, for example, the collection of taxes? Should the police handle all that by themselves? Taxes collected from the public need to be administered, an activity which could only be handled by professional bureaucrats.
Q: But do the bureaucracy and officials exist for the benefit of the people or rather for the state?
R: For the benefit of the people, of course.
Q: Could you distinguish between the benefit of bureaucracy for the people and for the state?
R: In the context of governance, the state and the people are actually united because the first emerged as a response to the people's demand. The state can't claim its own existence, which is distinct to the people's need.
So if the bureaucracy serves the state, it means that it also serves the people.
Q: Some people still believe that the bureaucracy exists and serves more for the benefit of the state and the government...
R: That's a debaucher (committed by the bureaucracy) toward the true meaning of bureaucracy itself. It is a fact that our bureaucracy is savored more in serving itself than the people.
It pleases itself by organizing ceremonies, constructing grand office buildings and luxury official residences, and getting itself elegant official cars as well.
This defies the public service philosophy.
That's why I've always criticized the construction of luxury offices. I'm against all that because it does not represent the bureaucracy's function as a public servant but demonstrates the arrogance and eeriness of power.
Q: If we look deeper into the situation, what is the real shape of our bureaucracy and public services today?
R: First, they are dreadfully inefficient. Second, they are not professional. And third, they just don't have adequate commitment to serve.
But that's not really their fault. They are all legacies from the Dutch colonial rule, from the feudalistic culture. The status of the bureaucracy and officials has long been considered as higher than the class of the common people. That's a perverse perception. In the context of modern bureaucracy, they are simply public servants.
The bureaucracy itself did not really want to restore the mess because they like it that way. There is a tendency that many officials prefer to enjoy the status quo. On the other hand, so far, there is no adequate pressure from the people (against the malfeasance) due to a lack of education.
Q: The inefficiency within the officialdom, how bad is it really?
R: Oh, that's very easy to see. There is plenty of inefficiency. Like the shape of Habibie's cabinet of 36 ministers, that's too much. Had he really responded to the spirit of reformation, the number of ministers should have been cut down. Even in the Soeharto era it was too large but now, he (Habibie) enlarged the number instead. And you still want to talk about efficiency. That will only make you pay more.
Q: So, an institution's level of efficiency can be assessed not only from its real output but also from its size.
R: Right. From the size of its personnel.
Q: Is that the problem which impedes our government officials?
R: Oh certainly. It has an oversize personnel. Look at those stacks of people (officials) who have no activities.
Q: If you feel that it is too large, then how many do we really need?
R: Maybe half of the current number will do. But then a risk which has to be taken if we are to repair the bureaucracy will not be only the reduction of personnel.
Intensive training would be needed to make sure that the one official who now handles five jobs, will be able to handle 10 in his new capacity.
An obstacle which is attached to this "overpopulation" problem is the imbalance in the distribution of personnel within the regional administrations.
Another significant sign of the bureaucracy's inefficiency is its employees' lack of professionalism.
Q: How can the bureaucracy stop its unprofessional personnel? Does it have something to do with its recruiting process?
R: Well, they are connected to each other. There is no solid system today which puts professionalism as the foundation for recruitment. That has resulted in amburadul (messy) recruiting which absorbs unprofessional people who carry out their jobs unprofessionally, the next thing we get is an unprofessional system.
The Jakarta administration's current yearly recruitment is very bad. What kind of professionalism can you expect from that kind of recruiting system?
Q: You are suggesting the administration cuts its personnel by half. How do you think that will be feasible, especially during this time of crisis?
R: Reducing personnel can start with the reassessment of all officials. They must be retested. Those who cannot fulfill the new requirements must be given the best compensation before they are dismissed. It would be better for the bureaucracy to spend a large amount on compensation money at one time rather than pay for many inefficient officials forever.
It could be done much easier and better when the economic condition has been restored, so that there will be plenty of work opportunities in the private sectors to accommodate the dismissed officials.
People now tend to think that it is the government's sole responsibility to provide jobs. That's a result of an incorrect economic strategy performed by the government. Privileges were given to a few conglomerates who focused more on the accumulation of capital rather than opening more job opportunities. As a consequence, the government has no choice but to absorb incapable people who were rejected by the private sector.
Q: Some officials claimed that it was low wages which made them less enthusiastic in doing their jobs...
R: That's no excuse. They are paid less because there are too many of them.
I agree, though, that the best governance could be achieved only if we recruit the best people and pay them the best salary.
Our system now is rotten. If the system was good then the people who get in there would be forced to follow the good system to be the best personnel.
Q: Speaking of the spirit of reform, how can we reform the bureaucracy. Is it possible? How long would it take?
R: It is possible. It will need quite a long time because at the moment, it is connected to the economic condition. I think the big plan now is to revamp the economic sector first.
After the economic crisis is settled we can select the employees. Those who fail the reassessment must leave. Those who stay will follow a new system and procedures, including the system of promotion.
The apparatus' mentality must also be repaired. We have to make a code of ethics for government officials and a code of ethics for governance. The people must know what they are so that they can help control any possible malpractice.
At this time, there's no explicit code of ethics to relate to, for example, a promotion which is given through collusion or bribery.
Our bureaucracy lacks so many things.
How long would it take to correct the process? I don't know.
Q: Which obstacle must be fixed first?
R: The recruiting system. Then the bribery and corruption cultures. It will take time to eradicate them because the people's mentality has been damaged for decades. It can't be done within one or two years.
It needs a good mentality. Superiors should be good role models. I don't think there is any serious effort from the bureaucracy's executives to fix the problems. It's just lip service because many of them are taking advantage of this messy condition.
The biggest obstacle in reforming the bureaucracy is that our system is not solid. No ethics. Officials are hardly being taught about their real functions and how to function.
The bureaucracy's structures are too long, they must be cut. Someday the government administration office should be set at the district level only. Many officials at lower levels have corrupted their authority for their own profits.
Q: Do you have any words for the Jakarta administration?
R: The administration must launch major restructuring.
It must be given more autonomy to make the necessary systems and procedures to suit its condition.
Its biggest problem is that it has never really cared to serve the public. As a government, it should never expect to gain profit from the services it gives the public. A government is meant to lose in some sectors, such as transportation, clean water supply, electricity and so on.