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.