Taking a closer look at the role of the State Secretariat

Taking a closer look at the role of the State Secretariat

The all powerful State Secretariat is now seeing more democratic
days, with all its shortcomings. The Jakarta Post interviewed
lecturer in public administration Warsito Utomo from
Yoygyakarta's Gadjah Mada University on the subject. An excerpt
of the interview follows:

Question: How do you see the changes in the once powerful State
Secretariat?

Answer: There's no real change yet as presidential decisions and
laws are still stuck in the State Secretariat. There should be a
clear period on the maximum time a draft regulation can be
(processed) at the secretariat, to avoid suspicions of bribery
such as in the past.

The State Secretariat used to be considered as a place to
"buy" and "sell" regulations (influence regulations through
bribes) -- whether a law could be processed quickly or slowly
depended on whether the concerned party could give some form of
compensation to the State Secretariat.

Currently the State Secretariat has yet to show
professionalism. If Ratih Hardjono stuck to her role as
presidential secretary, namely being in charge of the palace
household matters and protocol, I don't think the (recent)
blunder surrounding the presidential decree (on state run firms,
which was changed in five days) would have happened (others blame
the former state secretary - Ed.)

The other secretaries should also apply discipline ...
Drafting bills and presidential decrees should be the task of the
cabinet secretary. I get the impression that their tasks are
still overlapping because they don't have a coordinator.
Could you elaborate on the process of a presidential decree?

The drafting of a presidential decree should be under the
state secretary's cabinet division; however its consultation
should involve the ministry of justice, now the Ministry of Law
and Legislation.

In the past such ministers were not involved and (bills and
presidential decrees) were only drafted at the State
Secretariat/the Cabinet secretariat. The presidential decrees
issued by Soeharto, the bills and other legal products were
mainly drawn up by the State Secretariat -- such as (former state
secretaries) Sudharmono or Moerdiono.
What was the authority of former state secretaries like?

State secretaries had vast powers, which were inseparable from
the centralistic political system. If Soeharto was the center of
the source of power, the ones closest to him also enjoyed the
centralized power.

Soeharto was close to the military. So the state secretary was
always from the military, someone like Sudharmono and Moerdiono.

In the past the position of the state secretary was indeed
strategic because of its close access to Soeharto.

Now, because President Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus Dur, is very
democratic, he has delegated much authority to the secretaries
but there is a lack of coordination. This could lead to (the
officials) abusing power for their own interests. Democracy also
needs order, and could be realized in the form of appointing a
coordinator.
The presidential secretary has been alleged to have been
supervising Cabinet members. Your comment?

That of course would be improper. The state secretary, the
cabinet secretary, the presidential secretary and the secretary
for military affairs should provide staff and administration
support, not coordinating ministers. That's the task of the
president, the head of state.

When the state secretary was a minister, his task was still in
the framework of providing administration and staff support. He
was not in the position to summon ministers. The problem is how
Gus Dur can direct his secretaries so they work systematically.

Isn't Gus Dur close enough to the secretaries, as he knew many
of them before he was elected as president?

He has not appeared able to fully place the secretaries in one
strong system. His informal closeness to the secretaries could
damage formal matters. (Former state secretary) Ali Rahman, a
bureaucrat, often found he had less access to Gus Dur compared to
the other secretaries.

Informal relations should make tasks at the State Secretariat
more effective; a secretary should understand how the president
thinks, or at least he or she should be able to communicate
intensively and effectively with the president, more so given the
President's physical limitations.

But it appears that the informal relations enjoyed between
secretaries and the president have led to a neglect of
procedures, and maybe Gus Dur is also (guilty of that). All this
has led to the disorder at the state secretariat.

If Gus Dur does not appoint a coordinator a conflict of
interest will arise as each secretary will have their own agendas
which could overlap.
Would the coordinator be a state minister?
Given the coordinator's administrative job, it would be best if
he or she wasn't a minister, because such a position could lead
one to be a "super minister," coordinating and giving orders to
ministers.
Are you upbeat that the appointment of the new secretaries will
clean up corruption and collusion at the presidential office?

I don't think it's that easy. Moral reform cannot take place
so rapidly. Much of the staff consists of the same old people.
The new ones are only the ones at the top like Marsilam
Simandjuntak, Bondan Gunawan and Ratih. Their staffers may still
have difficulty changing their old habits, working methods and
interests. (Asip A. Hasani)