Nation awaits sweeping bureaucratic reform

Nation awaits sweeping bureaucratic reform
Jakarta Post, 23 mei 2008

Gone are the raucous demonstrations that a decade ago led to the unimaginable fall of a strongman who had ruled uncontested for more than 30 years. That epic moment on May 21, 1998, marked the start of a long journey in search of peace and prosperity for the nation. Not all have relished the journey, which has seen four different presidents during the nation's democratic experiment. The following are the views of a number of figures on the reform era and the obstacles still standing in the way of Indonesia becoming a full-fledged democracy.

State Secretary Hatta Radjasa

I disagree with the people who say the reform process is at a standstill. In fact, it is still going in many aspects. The most difficult thing is to change authoritarianism into democracy.

The success of the reform is mirrored by the amendments to our Constitution. It's a very fundamental phase in the process and we are on the right track. We have amended the Constitution four times and are still looking forward to the fifth.

Some of the reform agenda is yet to be completed. But we should never stop the process. We still have much to do, and the most important thing is to change people's attitude, which is a very hard and long process. The reform has seen us conduct a great transformation in many things, including establishing our identity and pride as a nation.

In line with the efforts to change the attitude of people to support the reform, the government is continuously conducting bureaucratic reform.

The fight against corruption is also something that should continue. Efforts to tackle corruption have been successful. It was impossible for us back then to see a governor sent to jail for corruption.

Youth and Sports Minister Adyaksa Dault

When our nation began the reform era, it was like we destroyed a building but we did not how to rebuild it because we did not have a long-term plan for that.

Indonesia is lucky that until today we are still standing as a strong nation. A foreign scholar said in 2000 that Indonesia was moving from a poor nation to a failed nation. But 10 years after reform we can say that the expert was wrong; we are still a great nation.

I hope our resilience will grow along with our nationalism. Nationalism is no longer a formal top-down process, but rather a popular bottom-up one.

Reform was not a mistake. It was a necessity because the New Order was authoritarian. All we have to do now is to decide where to go.

Although we have made several changes to the Constitution, we have yet to complete reforming the system. The job requires the wisdom of all leaders. Wisdom has been fading lately in Indonesia, but we have to be sure to define the direction of reform.

Constitutional Court chief Jimly Asshiddiqie

There has been much progress during 10 years of reform, apparently in freedom of expression. Opportunity and equality is there for everyone to express their ideas. But everyone should exercise that freedom properly. Those who articulate public interests require high moral and intellectual quality.

The changes are drastic and people enjoy their freedom. But the problem is the freedom has brought many excesses. This is something that we should overcome, but it takes times to reach a balance.

The fight against corruption is running well; it's on the right track. Law enforcers have shown commitment, but they should further enhance the system.

Besides corruption, we're still dealing with other crimes, such as terrorism, drug use, human trafficking, illegal logging and illegal fishing, which should be taken seriously. Unfinished items on the agenda include the reform of the legal system and the restructuring of state apparatus. Bureaucratic reform is still an issue.

State agencies need reorganizing, as many of them are malfunctioning. Many new bodies have been established at the expense of our budget and resources, but they are not yet effective.

Our legal system has been overhauled, but many laws and regulations contradict each other. The constitutional amendments require us to revise many laws and regulations, but the revision has not been effectively implemented.

Muslim scholar Anies Baswedan

The reform process can be seen from various aspects. The most important one is the process of democracy. Our democracy has accommodated people's aspirations. This was missing during the New Order regime. We currently have freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to assemble. We have succeeded in this process.

But the outputs of the democracy, or the results of people's aspirations, have not been reflected in the government's policies, which seem not to favor the people.

Why has this happened? It's apparently because the bureaucracy and the powers that be have yet to undergo reform. The bureaucracy was not designed to serve the people, but to retain the power of the bureaucrats. Some 4 million state officials have yet to start the much-awaited bureaucratic reform.

Should there be no reform in the bureaucracy, the liberalism of politics would end. People will feel that democracy does not bear fruit as they expected. And if that happens, our democracy will be at risk and people will lose trust in the government.

The eradication of corruption is progressing, and is far better than five or 10 years ago. But there are still many "untouchable people", like Soeharto's cronies or those who were in power during Soeharto's regime, and also high-ranking officials in the military.

The anti-corruption drive has instead created new players. Meanwhile, the old players escape justice. So, we can say that corruption eradication is widely discussed, but it still lacks substance.

The government should also take the problem of people's welfare more seriously. The country's economic growth is still unevenly distributed. Decentralization should not only involve politics or the bureaucracy, but also the economic field.

Women's Journal Foundation executive director Mariana Amiruddin

Ten years of reform has brought both positive and negative impacts. The positive side is I see more diversity; there's more political parties and non-governmental organizations that uphold democracy.

Organizations concerned about women's issues have grown fast in number and this is a good sign. People have become more aware of women's problems and respect them.

However, recently, some of the pro-democracy organizations seem to be no longer heard because several anti-democracy or hard-line groups have begunthe country. Members of such organizations tend to commit violence to oppress other people or groups that have different thoughts from them. Worse, their statements and actions sometimes influence the government's policies, as happened in the case of Ahmadiyah.

The government should put democracy back on track. I don't understand why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono cried over the local movie Ayat-ayat Cinta (Verses of Love) instead of the Indonesian migrant workers who have fallen victim to violence abroad.

Prosperous Justice Party member Mahfudz Siddiq

Indonesia has experienced two phases, in terms of politics, economy and the legal system, during the decade-long reform.

The first transition period came in 1998-2004. In this period, Indonesia saw three presidential successions. During this phase, Indonesia faced several social and political fluctuations. However, Indonesia fared well in politics as we amended the Constitution.

The second transition is called the democratic consolidation phase, which is now underway under Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla.

Democratic consolidation holds three main aspects: political, the economy and democratization.

Democracy in the country's politics has developed significantly. However, the government still needs to balance the political culture development with its current governance system; assert a clear stance on how to deal with elite groups and speed up the implementation of good governance, which is the main output of political democratization.

In the economy, Indonesia gained a positive result in terms of redistributing state assets. Since 1998, state assets have no longer fallen under the control of a few tycoons. In fact, so far we have seen the rise of new conglomerates. This situation shows that Indonesia's economy is leading to liberalism, which has resulted in increasing the number of poor. The point is that liberalism has not brought prosperity to Indonesia.

In legal affairs, Indonesia is good at producing regulations. Since 1999, Indonesia has produced around 200 laws, which is extraordinary. However, we still have problems in implementing those laws because, for example, of poor law enforcement and corruption. Law has not yet become a basic right for Indonesian people.

Should all these challenges not be overcome by the current government, Indonesia may face authoritarianism as a consequence. Currently, some former military officers have expressed their interest in politics by forming or joining political parties to contest next year's presidential election.

Democratic Party lawmaker Angelina Sondakh

The 1998 reform has triggered awareness of democracy among people. They are no longer afraid of expressing their minds. The reform movement has also raised the spirit of nationalism and solidarity across the country.

We are still in the process of reform. Many people expect the reform to bring prosperity immediately. Reform is not an instant process and the people are not ready to face uncertain situations like fuel price increases.

The government should assure the public that such conditions are part of the reform process.

In the wake of globalization, we need to keep nationalism and solidarity intact and stop thinking about the interests of self, parties or organizations.

Indonesian Institute of Sciences political analyst Indria Samego

Indonesia has experienced outstanding development in politics after the fall of Soeharto, especially when it comes to the competence of political parties. Previously, political parties had no power to push for change. However, since 1998, political parties have been among the elements in society serving as agents of change.

Currently, Indonesia is facing a phase called unprecedented change. We used to have a solid government to control the country, but now the government is too weak to rule the nation.

The current government lacks the power to make good changes. The changes come from parties outside the government, such as political parties, businesspeople and technology.

Indonesia, as stipulated in the preamble of the Constitution, is envisioned as a sovereign nation-state, but the current situation does not show that.

In terms of freedom, Indonesia has developed quickly, however in making regulations it has suffered a setback. For example, in the economy, Article 33 of the Constitution aims to bring prosperity to all. But in reality, Indonesia adopts capitalism that fully relies on huge capital and market mechanisms. If the government fails to resolve this issue, the country will eventually disintegrate.

Gadjah Mada University Anti-Corruption Study Center director Denny Indrayana

Reform has achieved some of its goals, but not all. It hasn't failed, but it's not been 100 percent successful.

In the field of law, we have made good progress in the rule of law, but we still have problems in the rule of ethics, where the law is still corrupted.

We are improving our written law, for example the Constitution, the anti-corruption law, the anti-money laundering law and the law on the Corruption Eradication Commission, but the implementation is chaotic.

Regional elections have been hijacked by money politics; the presidential election bill contains flaws on the issue of campaign funds.

Corruption is all that stalls our reform. There is no way reform will continue and bring prosperity to the people, as long as corruption stays rampant. The center of corruption is within the government, the Soeharto family, the military and the tycoons. As long as corruption remains unsolved, we will never emerge from the crisis.

Indobarometer executive director Muhammad Qodari

Reform can be seen as a transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic system. In a democratic system, three pillars of democracy are able to control each other politically.

Moreover, the public controls the execution of power. I think reform contributes to the implementation of the system of checks and balances. Now the executive is not as dominant as it used to be. The public, through direct elections, also have more control over executives.

Despite the problems, including money politics in our regional elections, I believe that this process in the long term will result in better executives at the regional level. I notice a reward and punishment mechanism in our regional elections. The public will no longer vote for incumbents if they fail to deliver public services.

I also see the detention or investigation of government officials for alleged corruption an achievement. In the past, corrupt executives were untouchable by law enforcers. We still need to work on some issues. Our presidential system is rather ineffective now because the legislative power is too strong. I think this issue will be solved through the fifth amendment of the 1945 Constitution.

We have yet to succeed in establishing a more simplified party system either. Ten years after reform we still have too many political parties. I think our political elites have failed to learn from the 1999 and 2004 elections, when only about five parties survived the elections.

They are still creating new parties instead of merging with other parties that share a similar ideology.

I perceive the Ahmadiyah case as a setback for our reform. The fact that not only people at the grassroots, but also the elites have criminalized Ahmadiyah runs counter to the principles of democracy.

Children's Literature Lovers director Murti Bunanta

It is good to see that people now have more freedom to express themselves since the 1998 reform movement. However, I don't see any significant improvement in children's welfare.

People only think about the interests of their own organizations. Politicians are just busy preparing themselves for the next election. They have ignored children's interests, which is sad because children are the nation's next generation.

Children's education is still far away from ideal because it's not the government's top priority. The government seems to pay less attention to children.

The government should build more libraries for schools to encourage students to read. It should also provide more facilities for children with diseases like cancer. Public and non-governmental organizations also need to take part in this process.