Saving the titanic bureaucracy from sinking

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.