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)