The proposed Cabinet reshuffle
The proposed Cabinet reshuffle
By Donna K. Woodward
MEDAN (JP): The economy has not recovered, therefore the
performance of the economic ministers must be to blame, therefore
replacing them with new ministers will bring about recovery.
This syllogism is a variation on the "Ready, Fire, Aim" style
of management. When faced with a problem, just do something!
React; there's always time afterwards to think.
This time it's the Cabinet that is in danger of being fired
upon. Last October when President Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati
Soekarnoputri, Akbar Tandjung, Amien Rais, and Gen. Wiranto
divvied up the Cabinet positions, there seemed to be less
emphasis on candidates' qualifications than on political parties'
demands.
This approach to awarding Cabinet posts boomeranged. Now the
blame for the failure of the national recovery is being
attributed not to the irresponsible partisanship that was evident
from day one of the new government, but to cabinet ministers'
poor performance. (Because the economy looms so large, the
economic minister in particular may become the scapegoat for the
government's failure to execute its reform mandate.)
Replacement of some Cabinet ministers may be in order. But the
upcoming Cabinet reshuffle looks too much like a case of "Ready,
Fire, Aim", by those feeling pressured to do something, anything,
regardless of whether or not they have first discerned the nature
of the problem.
If some ministers are accused of poor performance, how has
this been determined, and by whom? Performance can only be
judged in relation to pre-established achievement objectives. As
any first year management student can tell us, objectives should
be specific, concrete, measurable.
Were the new ministers given specific objectives in October
1999 that they've failed to meet? And will new ministers be
selected by the same horse-trading means used in the selection of
the first, so-called national unity Cabinet?
A Cabinet reshuffle may be needed, though the basis for that
conclusion seems not to have been satisfactorily examined. It
might make better sense for the ministers to do the reshuffling
within their ministries, replacing chronically corrupt and
incompetent directors general and regional office heads with
capable, conscientious managers.
What is most needed as follow-up to this Session of the
People's Consultative Assembly is that the President recommit his
government and his moral authority to reform. For recovery is
linked to reform plain and simple. Much of the reform talk we
hear seems to consist of vague, content-less references to macro-
level government operations.
It is more acceptable to advocate something with an
impressive-sounding name like "economic reform" than it is to
enforce a regulation that requires banks to reject every loan
application, without exception, that does not meet certain
standards. It is simpler to talk about good governance than to
insist that every government office post official fees and a
confidential hot-line number to phone to report solicitations of
unofficial fees.
It is easier to champion clean government than to ask a
director general or former director general how he paid for his
children's overseas education on the income he has reported to
the tax office.
The kind of reform that is needed is the concrete, grassroots
level reform whose effectiveness seems underestimated. Posting
fees in government offices and establishing complaint centers or
hotlines or local ombudsmen to report problems.
Taking accurate inventories of government property (buildings,
land parcels, vehicles, computers, handphones) and then tracing
how they are disposed of -- or just disappear from one year to
the next. Insisting that officials account on an annual basis for
what they acquire and what they spend -- and doing at least spot
checks of what is reported.
Requiring that ministers, directors general, and other
department heads be held accountable for departmental performance
goals. Why has the government not taken such ordinary steps, if
it is serious about reform? Simple, ground-level concrete steps
are disfavored because they generate a backlash from those who
are benefiting from the status quo.
They are certainly disfavored by high-cost consultants and
international aid experts whose job security depends on selling
obscure solutions that only they can understand, implement, and
assess. Certain reform measures may be complex and expensive to
implement. Some, like those mentioned above, are ridiculously
obvious.
It is little short of heartbreaking to see simple, effective
and inexpensive reform measures being ignored in favor of mumbo-
jumbo virtual solutions that month after month continue to yield
such disappointing results. We cannot continue to address reform
as if it were something twice removed from real-time activities.
And we should not mistake the proposed Cabinet reshuffle for
reform.
The writer, an attorney and former American diplomat at the
U.S. Consulate General in Medan, is president director of PT Far
Horizons, a management consultancy firm.