Decentralization is distributing the functions and the decision making power of the central government to the local governments. Under the decentralized system, the local governments are given the authority to manage the functions and responsible for the consequences. Although all the major decision making coming down from the central government in the centralized system, the local leaders have to make these decisions after the decentralization. It is important to discuss the role of the central government if it is not responsible for the decision making in implementation of the programs and project.
Differences among Decentralized Systems The functions delegated to the local governments are different from one decentralized system to another. Although most of the functions which the local governments have to handle are the public services, the degree of the authority provided could be different. For example, Indonesia has decentralized most of the functions except the functions in six areas including security, religion and foreign affairs. On the other hand, Philippines has decentralized only eight major functions to the local governments. These eight major functions include health, forestry and social welfare. Then, education is a good example if we want to look at the differences in a specific function. According to the recent education law passed by Indonesia parliament, the local governments are responsible only up to high schools education. The tertiary level education across the country are under the central government. In Philippines, the local governments are have the authority to handle only the facilities and maintenance of the schools in their local areas. The authority on technical functions like changing the curriculum is in the hand of the central government. The role of the central government changed according to the differences in both the degree of delegation and type of decentralized functions. However, it is important to consider the role of the central government in the process of decentralization. The question is “How the central government should empower the local governments to make the decentralization successful?” The Role of Central Governments in Indonesia and Philippines According to my observation during GIST, the central governments in both Philippines and Indonesia still have string attached to the devolved functions and attempting to control these functions. The central government could interfere the responsibilities and implementation of the local projects. For example, the road maintenance and building new roads across the municipalities and cities are responsible by the provincial governments. When the poor provincial governments could not build new roads and even struggle to maintain the existing ones, the central government take over this responsibility and build new roads instead of helping the provincial governments financially or helping the local government to improve their local revenue. The central government also draws back the decentralized functions of the local governments. Although the local governments are given the authority for certain functions, the central government could take this authority by passing the new laws. For example, Indonesia decentralization provided the local governments the authority to run the public services like education and health care. The new law passed recently for the education draws back the operation of tertiary education under the central concern. The central government manipulate over the functions of the local governments. It could lead the local governments to where it intended to instead of giving the local governments to be innovative in providing the needs of the people. For example, Ministry of Village in Indonesia which is used to be known as Ministry of Transmigration provide the fix solution for the local development. It access the poverty level of the different villages within the territory of the local governments. It presents the findings to the leaders of the local government. Then, they show the way to improve the area. The local government have to decide whether to accept this option or not. The Ministry give only one option to the local governments. The local governments have to go on the way that the Ministry paved. The do not get the opportunity to brainstorm and find the most suitable way to improve their local areas. They have to take the chance to help the area developed or blow up the chance and let the area still underdeveloped. It is surprising most local governments follow what the Ministry told them to do. Actually, the role of central government is very important in a decentralization process. It is the institution that is making the whole decentralization process in harmony. It is a very difficult task for the central government to balance the whole decentralization process across the country while the capacity and skill of the local governments are differed from each other. In addition, while different local governments mind only the development of their own territory, the central government have to be mindful about the development of the whole country and responsible to synchronize their efforts for the better future the country. Options for the Central Government to Empower the Local Governments There are many possibilities for the central government to drawback the devolved functions and interfere the functions of the local governments. However, the central government need to consider carefully whether taking back the power or the functions is the solution instead of empowering the local governments to be gradually able to take care of their responsibilities. If the central government is keep interrupting in the implementation of the functions, the local governments will always rely on the central government. The development of the region will still be the problem as the local governments could not decide on its own way to implement the projects in solving the local issues. The innovation and decision making skills of the local government will not be improved. The central government could do better than drawbacks and interfering the functions. There are several options for the central governments to support or empower the local governments. Monitoring and Evaluation The first option is to monitor and evaluate the performance of the local governments. There are two ways that the central government could monitor and evaluate the performance of the local governments. One way is that it could develop the performance measurement system for the local governments. It is the way for the central government to make sure the service provided by the local governments are quality services. The status of the local governments and the data from this measurement system could be used to have the better look at what is happening on the ground and make it easier not only the central government but also the organization which want to help the local governments to see the problem and address effectively. The other way is to cooperate with the research institute to conduct the evaluations of the whole decentralization process. These evaluations will help to picture the status of the decentralization in different local government levels. In this evaluation, the data will be more objective as the data collector is not the local governments unlike the performance measurements system where the local governments have to provide their own data to measure themselves. Capacity Building The second option is to skill up the local governments by partnering with Academic institutions like Universities and Organizations. The training institutions under the central government will not be big enough or fast enough to improve the skills of the local government staffs across the country. Therefore, it is a better option to work together with the institutions which could help to accelerate in improving the capacity of local government staffs. The central government of Philippines work with over 70 Universities across the country and provide the public administration courses. It also partner with the foundations like ZFF foundation which help the health administration of the local governments and Galingpook foundation which is intended to improve the innovation, good governance, sustainability and citizen participation through providing rewards to the local governments. Participatory Governance The third option is to adopt the participatory governance. The central government could partner with the people organizations, civil society organizations, NGOs and private sector to improve the participatory governance. They are the beneficiaries of the public services provided by the local governments. Giving them the chance to ask the questions to the local governments is the best check and balance system for the local governments. In addition, the representation of them during the decision making process will also help the local governments to address the local issues effectively. The decentralization of Philippines is a good example of making the people participate in the decision making process. The Local Governance Code require the local governments to include the representatives from the private sector, CSOs and NGOs in the decision making board. Although there some weakness like the new organizations establish by the families and relatives of the local political leaders, it is a good model to adopt with some improvements. The role of the central governments is one of the important and main role in the decentralization of a country. The central government could choose between the role of helping the local governments and taking over the local governments functions. The success of the decentralized system is hugely depend on how the central government help the local governments improve its capacity and performance. If a country is decided to decentralized, the central government should prepare to support the local governments by cooperating with academic institutions to skill up the local governments, by enforcing the participator governance, and by monitoring and evaluating the performance of the local governments.
0 Comments
Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 is the bench mark of Philippines’ decentralization. Although there were several attempts in distributing the central power to local levels before LGC, it is known as the most prominent attempt of delegating the highest decision making power to the local governments in the history of Philippines. Philippines’ decentralization has been 25 years since it has been implementing after the congress passed the Code. At present, Philippines is on the point of debating whether it should move on to the federalism. This essay will discuss on the local revenue and the financial capacity of the LGUs in Philippines. It is one of the reasons for Philippines to lead to the federalism.
The Impact of Local Government Code (1991) The Philippines 1989 Constitution granted the autonomy to the local governments and mandated the Congress to enact a code which enable more responsive and accountable local government structure through decentralized local governance system. Therefore, the Congress enacted Local Government Code in 1991 and implemented in 1992. The big impact of the Code on the local governments is expanding taxing authority and devolving expenditure responsibilities. Before the Code, LGUs are limited to conduct levying and collecting of local tax. After the Code, they can earn their own revenue called as Own Source Revenue (OSR) by taxing the businesses within their territory. LGUs could increase their revenue by developing their local economy. The LGC opened the way for the local governments to become entrepreneurs and gave them the corporate power to enter public private partnership. “LGUs can now create and/or join alliances or clustering mechanisms, build-operate and transfer schemes, joint ventures, bonds, loans and credit, securing grants and forming corporations.” (World Bank Report on Philippines’ decentralization, 2004) The expenditure responsibility of LGUs were limited to administration of garbage collection, public cemeteries, markets and slaughter houses before the Code. However, the Code devolved major expenditure responsibilities in the areas of Health Care Services, Social Welfare, Repair and Maintenance of infrastructure, Social Forestry, Agriculture and Environmental Management. Most of the basic services and the responsible to administer the expenditure of these services are devolved to LGUs. In addition to OSR, the fund for these devolved functions are provided to the local governments through the share from national tax revenue known as Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and the specific share of tax revenue from natural resources within their territory. The Current Challenges The significant thing about the decentralized system is to bring the government closer to the people. Instead of programs and policies focus on the whole nation, it provide the opportunities to local governments to address the specific issues within their territories. It also effectively addresses the basic needs of the public through devolved functions including health care and social services across the country. However, there is still gap between the funds required for the devolved functions and the fund of LGUs. The gap between actual need and funding is especially visible in low-income municipalities. (Brillantes, 2009) They are having the difficult time to implement the projects and programs to cover the responsibilities devolved to them. There are three reasons why the LGUs could not fulfil its duties. The Distribution of Internal Revenue Allotment First, the internal revenue sharing from the national government is distributed to different levels of LGUs without relating to their responsibilities. According to 1991 code, the LGUs received 40% of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). However these 40% is shared and distributed among all levels of LGUs from provinces to barangay[1] levels. Generally, provinces receive 23%, cities 23%, municipalities 34% and barangays 20% accordingly. In contrast, the responsibility and cost for the devolved functions among LGUs are not commensurate with the percentage they were provided in IRA. While barangays and component cities has no or few specific mandatory functions, provinces has to take 45.6% of devolved functions and municipalities 47.4%. (Francisco Magno, 2015) The Capacity of LGUs to raise its Own Revenue Second, many LGUs are rely on IRA from the central government and could not raise their own revenue. Although the rich cities like Quezon City in Metro Manila increased its income gradually under the decentralized system, there are many LGUs which income still constant and even decrease over time. “Ratio of locally owned-source revenues (OSR) to GDP decreased from 1.21 percent in 2009 to 1.19 percent in 2014. This indicates that the contribution of the LGU’s collection from tax and non-tax revenues relative to the country’s GDP has been declining through the years, thus showing weak revenue generating capacity.” (Fiscal Risk Statement of Philippines, 2015-2016). Although the central government and the NGOs like Galingpook Foundation are trying to increase the innovation and entrepreneurship of the LGUs by providing awards to the local governments and sharing the best practices among LGUs, the financial capacity of LGUs is still a problem in Philippines. Limitation of the Code in the Financial Capacity of LGUs Finally, the LGU’s ability to increase their local revenue is limited by the code. Under the Code, the LGUs enjoy taxation power from the local businesses. However, they could not go beyond the local businesses. If they want to have an agreement with an international corporation, they need to make the deal through the central government. The Code prohibited them to deal directly with international actors including Iinternational Oorganizations and Ccorporations. All the foreign investment and international assistant have to go through the arrangement of the central government. The taxation power of the LGUs is also limited by the Code. The margin of the local taxes are not in their hand. Although they have the authority to collect the taxes for their fund, they could not raise or decrease the taxes. For example, a LGUs want to make the local economy more dynamic by subsidizing the taxes to encourage the development of local businesses. This is not under the authority of LGUs according to the Code. Federalism: Better Option? Under the present decentralized system, the fund allotted to the LGUs is not compatible with the devolved functions and the Code limited their capacity to develop their local economy. Most the discussions I have made during my GIST in Philippines led to the issue of Federalism. Many people believe that Federalism would distribute the wealth of Philippines accumulated in Manila to the local regions. In other words, people do not want so-called “Imperial Manila” anymore. They want all the local regions developed. However, it is important to consider the capacity of local governments to be able to raise their own revenue. Not only the capacity but also the geographical location which is important in the development of the economy is varied among the LGUs of Philippines. According to Eddie Dorotan (Director of Galingpook Foundation), only Manila, Cebu and Central Luzon will be able to survive if Philippines decided to adopt Federal Model. Therefore, it is important to balance the consequences before it is leading to Federalism. [1] A barangay (village in Filipino Language) is the smallest geopolitical unit in the Philippines. Decentralization in Indonesia emerged in response to the conflicts occurred caused by the 1997 financial crisis. The conflicts arose as people demanded the military run government rid itself of corruption, collusion and nepotism caused by its control of economy in conjunction with its affiliated businesses. The decentralization of Indonesia took place in 2001 where 2.8 million government staff were transferred from the central government to the local government. It has been over a decade, and the country’s economy has strengthened and political situation stabilized. Despite this, government corruption, collusion and nepotism still remain among the lower tiers of government. Decentralization eliminated issues at head of the system but failed to address issues among civil servants. Among other things, these issues make it difficult for the public sector to keep up with the strengthening economy. To date, there have be several reform attempts but these have failed to reform the majority of government civil servants sitting at the local level thus bringing into question the effectiveness of the whole decentralization process.
Three Waves of Civil Service Reforms Public administration reforms by the central government have failed to trickle down to the local government level. Reforms to date can be divided into three waves:
Reliance on the Central Government Despite decentralization, the functions of the civil servants remained more or less the same. There was no clear division of the role and responsibility between the central government and the local governments. In many cases, local governments still relied on the central government for decision-making. Out of many reasons why decision-making was not properly divested to the local governments, one reason was the requirement of empowerment programs for the local governments to help them in decision making. The Central Training Agency (LAN) provided the nine month leadership programs for staff however the number of staff it is capable of training is very small compare to the local government staffs who need to take decision making role in all over the country. In addition, there were many criticism on the curriculum of LAN. Many of them pointed out that the leadership skill it provided is command-and-control leadership approach. This approach is derived from the military and no longer suitable for decentralized system. Under this command-and-control leadership, the innovations and decision making power of local government officials would not improve. This approach even favor to go back to the centralized system. There are some International organizations providing leadership programs but these are mostly only available to central government staff. The System Encourages the ‘Central-Center Approach’ The central government took its role in the center of every programs. The governors and mayors have to submit their five years plan to the local parliament and Ministry of Home Affairs within three months. Although it is not compulsory to submit to the plans to the Ministry of Home affairs, it is just “now-or-later”. To transfer the budget for all these plan, the approval from Ministry of Home Affairs is required. Without the approval from Ministry of Home Affaire, mayors and governors could not proceed their plans as they have no fund. There are also special fund for the local governments. To obtain this special fund, the local governments have to submit the proposals which are along with one of the following three categories.
Difficult to be Skillful with the Inconsistent Laws Inconsistent and changing laws make it difficult for local government officials to keep up with implementing laws at the local level. Indonesia changed the laws frequently to amend the weakness of the former law. For example, the local governance law has changed three times over a decade; Law No. 22 in 1999, Law No. 32 in 2004 for the limitation on the budget to prevent using 80% of central transfer for the staff salary, and then Law No. 23 in 2014 to take action on such cases. It is difficult to say what the laws will be in the future. With such inconsistence laws it is very difficult for civil servants in the local government to understand and consistently apply such laws. Tension between Political Positions and Career Positions Because of the decentralization, the major decision making power is in the hand of the political positions such as mayors and governors who are directly elected by the people. The career positions such as director secretary are the people who have to support the political positions. Although the career positions are the permanent government staff, the tenure of the political positions is only five years. The main threat for senior career positions at the local government level is that they will be replaced by political appointments. The career positions supporting the former political position are very likely to move away from their position if there is transition in the political positions. Decentralization allowed political leaders to exert absolute authority in moving people around positions. As such, it is likely that a senior career position with strong ties to a former mayor or will be de-positioned from the office when the leadership changes. To address this issue, a law was passed for open competition if there is going to be a change in a senior position. Before that law, the political positions could directly appoint and remove the career position. Under the law, they are only allowed to choose from the final three candidates of the career positions. If a person they want to appoint could not reach to the final three, no matter how the political position wants to point him or her, he cannot. In the Jokowi administration, the appointment of the state secretary (the highest in career position) requires the approval of the president. As such, political appointees can no longer easily replace career appointees. Although the law is clear its effective application is questionable. An advisor of the governor from a provincial government refused to take the secretary position although he was offered because he saw it as too risky because the political leaders still use their power to remove the career positions away from the position. According to him, the usual term for a secretary is only 2 years which even shorter than the political position. Conclusion It is evident from the above information that various issues have hindered change in the civil service sector despite the process of decentralization. Despite such challenges, Indonesia will need to public sector reform seriously. Moving forward as the development of the country is dependent on it. As the economy growth, the corruption which barred the foreign investment will only be eliminate with the proper and effective reformation of the civil service sector. Indonesia changed its status of centralized authoritative country to decentralized democratic country after Suharto fall in 1998. The new regime reformed the whole system of government by giving the authority to local governments. With the authority provided from the central government, the local governments attempt their best to develop their community. Indonesia’s decentralization was effected in making the country unite by enhancing local culture and identity, giving opportunities to the local governments to decide on the most appropriate option for their community, and making people to involve more in politics and voice their own opinions.
Though there are several success scenarios, there are also a number of weaknesses and failures. One of the most prominent and popular issue is corruption. Many critics pointed out that Indonesia decentralized not only the authority but also the corruptions. They said that the corruption is fueled because of the decentralization. Therefore, it is important to include the issue of corruption in discussing the decentralization. This essay intended to tackle some aspects of corruption due to decentralization, and spotlight the emergence of the new leadership to fight the deeply rooted corruption. The corruption is accelerated in Suharto Time. When corruption is discussed, it necessary to describe Suharto regime because the corruption was increase along with the economic development during his regime. The most important issue in Suharto time was political activities. The central government did not pay much attention on what was going on in the region except the region was active in political activities. The gap in the management of the central government, the low salary and being high is social status were the facts favorable for the public servants to commit the corruption. Most of the public servants became corrupted. Another reason for the officials being corrupted was the military was allowed to run businesses. The military is known as the product of the independent movement and survived by the support of the people during the revolution. When it is institutionalized as an army to protect the country, the government could not support enough for the salaries of the soldiers. Therefore, the leaders of each companies were responsible to take care of their soldiers. The easiest way for them was to sell the natural resources closed to their companies. Therefore, the leader of military companies worked together with the responsible government officials who used to be the military personals. At first, the profits from these businesses were utilized to provide the supports to the soldiers. Then, it became profits for individuals not only to senior military officials but also to those who are working in the administrative sector. Decentralization is stagnated by the corruption. There are two main reasons in Indonesia’s decentralization; to generate more support for the central government by reducing pressure in the regions for more political and economic autonomy, and to distribute the wealth saturated in Jakarta for the development of the local economy. Indonesia is successful in the former one as decentralization give the authority to the local people who valued the local culture. However, it has failed in distributing the wealth to make the local people out of poverty. Though decentralization has made the commercial activities of the regions developed, the benefit of this development is stagnated due to the corrupted relationship between the government officials and the big conglomerates. It does not goes to the majority of the population in grass root level. According to the data from the Ministry of Village (the new ministry of Joko Widodo Administration to focus on the development of the villages in the country), only 3,783 villages could be regarded as the developed village out of 74,754 total villages in Indonesia. It shows that only 5% of the villages are developed. At the same time, Indonesia is wasting the money for the development of such poor villages in the corruption. In 2014, the amount of corruption in Indonesia was USD 561.77 million and it is just the tip of iceberg. By any means, it is a huge amount of money which can be used for public services and infrastructure of the regions. http://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/corruption-cases-cost-indonesia-more-s561-million-last-year-report Decentralization enable not only civil servants but also politicians to be corrupted. During Suharto time, the chances for the corruption is only in the hand of civil servants as there were no political leaders in the regions and the civil servants are the ones who could manipulate the regulations. With the decentralization and the opportunity for the people to choose their own leaders, the politicians become the center of the corruption. As decentralization transfer the decision making power to the politicians, the political leaders such as governors, mayors and regents are responsible for all economic activities within their territory. Meanwhile, they also need the fund for the campaigns for the next election and need to have good relationship with the government officials they have to work together if they are elected. Their conflict of interest makes them vulnerable to be persuaded in receiving the bribe given directly from the business people or through the corrupted government officials. Transferring the decision making power to the politicians does not means that there is no chances of corruption for the civil servants. Decentralization created the space for the civil servants to be able to manipulate the regulations easier than before as it makes the regulations complicated with different levels of local governments including provincial level, regional level, city level, districts level and sub-districts level. Because of the decentralization, the authority to regulate the rules are in the hand of the local governments. Different local government create their own rules and regulations but these are usually contradictory and inconsistent. The experts from the government agencies see the gap and benefitted from it. One of such examples could be seen as a challenge in implementing President Jokowi’s One Map Policy. The One Map Policy aimed to develop a standardize map for all agencies to solve agrarian and land conflicts blocking the development of the country. However, this action is resisted by the government agencies especially the agencies having the authority to give permits and licenses, as it will reduce their illicit economic benefits. http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/getting-one-map-policy-right/ The corruption eradication action is weak now. The Indonesia government took the corruption seriously. It realized that the corruption is the main course which block the development of the country. In 2003, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) which is independent and only accountable to the public is established. It is the internationally renowned commission in fighting corruption. It targets mostly high profile government officials and political figures like governors, mayors and parliamentarians. Within its first 13 years, it has 100% conviction rate in all cases it prosecuted. Largely because of its performance, Indonesia has improved from 107th to 88th according to Corruption Perception Index last year. However, two types of barriers are blocking KPK to be able to performance effectively and to continue until it achieves its vision of eradication of the corruption in Indonesia. The first type of barrier is the light punishment on the cases and the limited scope of corruption investigation. The Indonesia Corruption Watch reported that the average years of imprisonment for the corruption is 2.8 years, and 372 cases are imprisoned less than 4 years out of 479 cases in 2014. In most cases, the punishment received for the people who commit the corruption is less than the impact they had made. Forest fire causing half a million respiratory infections is a good example showing a couple of years of imprisonment is not enough. With such light punishments, the politicians and the government officials will still take the risk of committing the corruption. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/indonesias-fires-crime-against-humanity-hundreds-of-thousands-suffer And, it focus mostly on the high level ranks in the system. These include governors, bureaucrats, lawmakers and businessmen. It fails to tackle the majority of the corruption cases happening nationwide. Another type of barrier for KPK is the attempts to make it weak and dependent. The prominent attempts are from the police, traditionally most corrupted institution, and from the parliament, the most corrupted institution according to Transparent International. The dispute between KPK and the police is well known as “Gecko vs Crocodile dispute”. The fight is sparked with the accusation of the chief detective Susno Duadj’s involvement in several corruption cases. As the consequences of this dispute, three deputy chairmen; Chandra Hamzah, Bibit Samad Rianto and Bambang Widjojanto, and a chairman Antasari Azhar were arrested. At the same time, Indonesia parliament is also trying to weaken the function of KPK by appointing unexperienced new commissioners. Out of five commissioners appointed by the parliament, only one is qualified enough to be a commissioner of KPK. Emerson Yuntho from Indonesian Corruption Watch said “I am worried that KPK is no longer a commission to eradicate corruption, but a commission to support corruption.” With all the above challenges, it is very difficult for KPK at present to carry on fighting the corruption in the scales the Indonesia is needed. Three type of political leaders in response to the corruption If an institution like KPK could not effort to fight the corruption, the chances might be upon the political leaders of Indonesia. At present, we could differentiate the political leaders in Indonesia into three different types in response to the corruption. The first type is the corrupted political leaders who have the connections with conglomerates and corrupted government agencies. They are the ones who use their political position for their own interested. One of such leaders is Ratu Atut Chosiyah. She was the first female governor of Indonesia and charged by Indonesia Corruption Eradication Commission for the bribery of the former chief of Constitutional Court, and was sentenced 7 years in prison. They may be the ones who directly works with the businessmen like the above governor who is a member of a crony family in Tangerang. They could also be the ones manipulated by the civil servants. Although they do not want to receive bribe, the corrupted government agency forced them to take it. As they do not have capacity to control the government officials and afraid of the setting up a trap to throw them out of the office, they accept the bribe and keep silent on what is happening underground. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/03/08/ratu-atut-indicted-for-allegedly-causing-rp-80b-in-state-losses.html The second of leader is reluctant to take risks in implementing the new programs for the development of the region as they are afraid of the Audits and investigation from Corruption Eradication Commission. They could be regarded as status-quos. The government tighten the procedures of expenditure to reduce the corruption. The local government are required to show the several documents for their expenses. It is more complicated in the special programs initiated by the local governments. They need to be careful even for the small purchases. A senior local government official from Surabaya said that the audit look everything with the suspect eyes, and the staffs are tired of the burden of paper works. Because of this overload and tight procedures, the second type of leaders avoid any special development programs for their community except the regular programs from the central government. It could be seen in the Indonesia unique cases of extra money from the government expense at the end of the budget year. One of the reasons is because they are frighten to implement the programs they have proposed. The final type of leaders are active in fighting against corruption while they could still performance well for the development of their own regions. They are neither the corrupted ones like the first leaders nor the status-quos who are afraid of audits like the second leaders. The incumbent president Joko Widodo, the current Jakarta mayor Ahok, the current mayor of Bandung Ridwan Kamil and the mayor of Surabaya known as Tri Rismaharini are such leaders. The diplomat describe three of them as clean and anti-graft leaders. http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/indonesias-anti-corruption-fight/ As an example, Ahok tried to reform his the administrative staffs by rotating their positions to reduce holding the power in one position and manipulate the regulations which lead to the chance of getting bribes. The most prominent example of his performance during his time is making the street of Jakarta clean and without flood which used to be the usual problem. Meanwhile, Jakarta dwellers are talking stories of Ahok. They talked about on how he avoided the traps from the corrupted civil servants by not signing the contracts with the history of corrupted cases and how he overcome with the attempts to spread the rumors about his low performances by blocking the drains with wires and make the flood on the street. The third type leaders are the emergence leaders for Indonesia’s corruption Actually, they are not just clean leaders. They are born from the people who could not stand the corruption anymore. People have noticed that the corruption long has been a serious problem for their country. They know that the money is wasted and the development was in grid-lock due to it. They have supported the KPK even they are aggressive in fighting the corruption. People think that it is needed to be aggressive to fight the long rooted corrupted behaviors in the system. An Indonesian famous music band sang in front of KPK office to support it. Demonstrations in front of KPK whenever people feel that KPK is under attacked from the police and the parliament also show that the support of the public to KPK. The hashtag movement of #SaveKPK on twitter when Bambang Widjojanto was arrested also show the attitude of the public on the corruption. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/01/23/savekpk-worldwide-trending-topic-twitter.html Indonesia needs to nurture such leaders for its better future This third type of leader is still a very few number compared to the total number of political leaders from across the different regions and institutions in Indonesia. This type needs to become a trend in Indonesian politics as the future direction of Indonesia lies in their hands. The people and the politicians together are responsible for making this happen.The people are responsible to vote and support the right leaders and eradicate behavior supporting corruption among themselves. Sectarian focuses -- for example, Javanese voting only for Javanese politicians -- could lead to the neglecting of smart and clean leaders from other regions. Eradication any acts of corruption among the people means that avoiding some forms of corrupted behaviors in the society which people do not see as corruption. Such behaviors grows gradually and encourage the bigger corruption cases. One of such behaviors is giving money to the people making the way for cars to be able to make a turn at the junctions. The drivers on the car do not want to wait and give money to get a way. And, the people who clear the way are neither volunteers nor traffic police. They are just random people trying to get easy money on the street. Sometimes, there are two or three in a junction. Giving money to such people encourage the attitude of going for the easy money and it lead to the bigger corruption cases. The politicians will need two crucial things in making better Indonesia without corruption. These are bravery and good leadership. The leaders who want to be clean and anti-graft, sometimes, might need to be brave enough to resist pressures from their own supporters and their parties. The political parties in Indonesia are still ruled by the former political oligarchy most of whom have connection to corruption cases. And, the main supporters of the politicians are the businesses people who benefit from government projects. The incumbent president Jokowi is caught in the middle in enabling KPK function and supporting it because his party is headed by former president Megawati Sukarnoputri who opposes the aggressive activities carried out by KPK, and some of his strongest supporters are businessmen who also do not support KPK. Good leadership skills are needed to lead both people and the staff. It is important to highlight the leading of staff. Good leadership is known as inspiring people to share the vision you have. It will be quite difficult for political leaders to lead corrupted government officials. Persuading the officials benefitting from corruption to fight against it or at least to stop could be exhausting and depressing. On the other hand, these officials could not be neglected as they are crucial in implementing the policy of the political leader. Antagonizing these officials makes it easier for them to resist changes policy they have may have made. The political leader will need to play smart to balance his own destination of fighting corruption and building good relationship with his own people. At present, some Indonesian political leaders do not have enough knowledge about good leadership, and some know the concepts but neglect these and do not apply this knowledge. Professor Ryaas Rasyid comments that the leadership capabilities of politicians is still the problem in Indonesia. He said although he tried to make a test on the qualification of the political leaders, he was resisted by the influential politicians. Corruption, the main weakness in decentralization and the historical barrier for Indonesia’s development, will seriously decline only with good leadership. Just one or two good leaders will not be enough to fight it. The clean and smart leaders like Jokowi, Ahok, Ridwan Kamil and Tri Rismaharini will need to become the majority in leading the 340 provinces, 416 districts and 98 cities of Indonesia. All of the above leaders emerged at the local level and through building their reputations as clean and effective leaders locally have captured attention at the national level. This is a big change for Indonesia where national leaders have largely built their power and reputations in Jakarta. As an effect of decentralization, the inspired new civilian leaders becomes next generation. It is time for the people in Indonesia to back them in changing their country. Evolving of Job Security and Improving Performances under the Decentralized System in Indonesia2/23/2017 After Suharto regime has fallen because of the financial crisis in 1997, Indonesia changed its system from centralized authoritative system to decentralized system. As the decentralization of Indonesia is rapid, it is well known as Big-Bang decentralization. With its rapid changes, Indonesia took the style of learning-through-acting. It acts first, and learn the lessons to change accordingly. One of the changes it has made is enhancing the performance of the government officials by providing better job security to them. In big-bang decentralization of Indonesia, the government officials worked under the local government were lack of job security for 14 years. To make a change, the Indonesian national parliament passed the law No. 5 in 2014 to ensure more job security for the government officials especially who works under the local governments. This essay looks at the historical background on how the job security of the government officials has evolved over time in Indonesia. It is started with the Suharto regime and ended with the present time situation. Then, it suggested on how to solve the current stagnation of the performance improvement in the government officials. Serving the regime in the Suharto time In the Suharto time, the job security of the government officials was directly connected to the decision of the central government as they served the regime rather than the public. The regime under Suharto is known as New Order. Referring the former president’s, Sukarno’s, regime as Old Order, Suharto attempted to make a change by naming his regime as the new one. He was partially successful in making the economy of the country developed. The GDP of Indonesia had grown rapidly. However, his ideology behind making the economy developed was that “A country could have economic development only if it has political stability.” Therefore, he tried to eliminate all the possibility of political movements by controlling every sectors of the country. In his controlling mechanism, the government officials were used as a tool to monitor the public and to represent the authoritative figure of the regime. In addition, the relationship between the public and the government was well known as the patron-client relationship. As even the lowest rank of the government staff represented the power of the regime, they became the power holder. The public had to give all the privileges to them so that it was easy for them to abuse the power they held. However, the decision to take action on these abuse of power was on the central government which could not effectively cover its management to all the regions of Indonesia. In most cases, the government officials enjoyed the power without any disturbances. At the same time, the relationship between the central and the regions also goes with this “patron-client relationship”. The central served as the protector for the regions, and the regions were the ones to implement all the policies given by the central without a question. The officials working in the regions were only the implementers or puppets of the central government. For this reason, the job security of them were ensure as long as they play their role of being puppets on the political stage of Indonesia. Therefore, the public servants are not really the public servants but they are the regime servants. Serving the political positions under the early decentralized system Indonesia adopted the decentralized system after the Suharto regime falls in 1998. Under the early decentralized system of Indonesia, the government officials served the political leaders rather than the public. The job security of them was highly depended on the decision made by the political leaders as they hold the authority to change the positions at any time. The remarkable change of Indonesia to decentralized system started after the parliament passed the Law No. 22 of the local governments. According to this law, the administration of Indonesia was divided into 34 provinces and 514 entities; 416 regencies (Kabupaten) and 98 municipalities (Kota). All of these administrative layers were given the authority to make decisions except six limited sectors of religion, monetary and fiscal, justice, security, defense and foreign affair. Therefore, the regular administrative decisions like appointing and replacing the government officials were in the hand of the head of local governments. If the government officials had a good relationship with the political positions such as governors, regents and mayors, it was easy for them to be promoted. However, this changed when the new political figure took the office. If a public servant was too close to the previous political figure, there was high possibility for this individual to be decreased to lower rank positions. Although an experienced public servant would like to point out the mistake in the decision making of the political figure, this individual would not be able to do so as they are afraid of losing the current position. In addition, the government officials were used in the political activities. They were used in the campaigning of the political figure who held the office. Even they might not want to take the political side, they had to do it to please the boss. If the boss had lost in the election, supporting during his campaign period became the big problem for them. Although they were in the career position which is permanent even the political positions changed, they suffered the political pressure during the early decentralization of Indonesia. The job security of them was quite low and their positions were at risk. The stagnation of performances at present In 2004, law No.5 was passed to improve the above situation. According to the law, the political figures of the local government were no longer allowed to enjoy the absolute authority on the changing the position of the government officials. It stated to hold the open competition for the official positions and the political figures are allowed to choose one out of three top rank officials. This system was known as “best of three”. Applying this law, the political figures could no longer manipulate on the career positions. The government officials could serve the public without pleasing the political figures and their job were more secure under the law. It seemed that the performance of the government officials will be improved as they are protected by the law. However, there still is a challenge blocking the government officials in serving the public. It is the attitude of themselves. It is seemed that the government officials under the current decentralized system of Indonesia enjoy the job security more than it is necessary. Knowing that this job position will be for them for sure, they do not take the responsibility to serve the public seriously. The personal development of themselves and chasing for the professional development become the low priority in their working environment. They enjoy the status-quo position. Whoever trying to change their status-quo became their enemy. For example, the governor of Jakarta, Ahok tried to reform the administrative structure of his office. He got rid of the underperforming officials and rotate the positions in every two months. His intension is to make the government officials to become more professional like those in private sector. However, he was opposed by many government officials who are resistance to change. They want to enjoy the status quo and don’t want to lose it even they are not performing well. Another encouraging factor of driving the government officials to become less motivated is having contract staffs to take their responsibility. In Indonesia, there are nearly 10,000 government staffs under the national government alone. Out of these staffs, one official says nearly 50% of the staffs could be working under the contracts. He said the number of the contract staff could varied according to the requirement to hire the contract workers in different ministries. For him, seven out of nine staffs under him are the contract workers. Having the contract workers around, the permanent staff rely heavily on them. The gap between the productivity of a permanent staff and a contract staff is getting bigger. For example, the work that could be done within one hour for the contract staff could take half of the day for a permanent staff. In theory, the permanent staffs are supposed to monitor the contract staff. The result become quite different from what the theory has expected. Making a small change for the future This under performance raised the question of what to do next. How should the problem be solved? There could be two possible ways. One way is treating it as a technical problem and solving it technically. Developing the mechanism to evaluate the performance of the government staffs would be one of such technical solutions. Ministry of Home Affair have initiated the trial of its own mechanism. It has developed an App called SIKERJA to evaluate the daily performance of the government staffs. The government staffs have to report the jobs they have done within a day including the time these job consumed to their supervisor through the app. The supervisor evaluate the work the staffs have done within a day. If they are taking too much time on a job which should finish within short time, the supervisors summons the staff and ask for the reasons. By this way, the job-done and performance of the staff could be tracked by the supervisor. However, this is treating the adaptive challenge as the technical challenge. Through this system, how could a supervisor be able to monitor the quality of the job the staff have done? That’s why the second way would be treating the problem as an adaptive challenge. Changing the attitude of the people is not an easy job. In addressing the adaptive challenge, the solution lies within the community. The leader who is going to lead the change will need to access the community and work with it closely even to be able to make a small progress. The solution might be changing from the self-center attitude include focusing on the benefits of the job to the public-center attitude of providing service or treating the public as customers. In other way, it could be worded as that the government officials should adopted the servant leadership in serving the public. One profound example from a high rank government official is his main reason of being a government official. He became a government official because he wanted to make the people smile. He is happy to give the service to the public. His preference is providing the assistance to the minority groups. He could be a role model who apply the servant leadership to other government staffs. The service providing even influence in his personal priority. He has the habit of taking the photos of pedestrians. The reason is that he wants to look at how the government treat the public. His hypothesis is if the government treated the public as its subordinate, the pedestrian of such country or region will not be clean and convenient for the public, and if the government care about the public and serve as a servant, the pedestrian will be well developed, clean, easy for the people to walk, have the places to take a rest and to enjoy the street entertainments. His example could be an extreme one, however, the government staffs in Indonesia need someone to motivate them for the change. His example could be used as one of the motivator for them. Indonesia is one of the lead countries in Asia for decentralization. It has been decentralized over a decade and it keeps learning its lessons over time to make a progress. The decentralization improved the job security of public servants. Although they have to serve the authoritarian regime in Suharto time, they have to serve the political figure elected by the people in the early decentralization. Then, they have better opportunity to serve the public as the law no.5 prevent them from being abuse by the political figures. At present, the remaining challenge is changing the attitude of them. This change will be difficult as it is deeply rooted in the community. In making progress in this problem, addressing through technical way might be the short term solution. It would be better to address the adaptive challenge as the way it is and find a way to make the progress over time would be the long-term solution for Indonesia. References Civil Servants Discouraged Ahok’s Iron Fist http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/02/civil-servants-discouraged-ahok-s-iron-fist.html Local Public Administrative Reform https://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/.../Hadna_Diss.pdf Note: The above article is only my point of views and it will still need to improve. If there is any comments or corrections, I am warmly welcome. Myanmar’s democratization process is still ongoing after NLD won majority votes in 2015 election. Although Myanmar was led by the civilian government, there is still power struggle between the government and the military. In the name of a government organization called National Reconciliation and Peace Center, reconciliation part could be regarded as the reconciliation the relation between the NLD government and Tatmadaw, Myanmar military. Balancing the power between these two entities is famous in peace process and the amendment of constitution. Both international and national experts and intellectuals are commenting that the civilian government could not influence the military to stop the fighting in the ethnic states and are demanding for the amendment of the constitution. The power balance is back and forth as NLD government is backed by the people and the military is backed by the constitution. However, there is an area where the military almost win in the power struggle. It is the area of public administration. It is one of the most important areas in the transition process and only some experts noticed and discussed about it. This article is going to describe briefly about Myanmar’s administration and point out why the military is almost win in the public administration.
Political Changes and New Administrative Structure Under the authoritarian regime, Myanmar is a tightly centralized country. The mandates given by the authorities are not the subjects to question but to blindly implement even if these makes no sense at all. Then, Myanmar started its first step to democracy with 2008 constitution. According to 2008 constitution, the political system and the government structure have changed from highly centralized to gradually decentralized one. The people are allowed to vote (although the votes was manipulated in 2010) and formed an elected body for legislature known as Hluttaw which is divided into Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities) and Pyithu Hluttaw (House of Representatives). These two Hluttaws elected the president who formed a cabinet and runs the country. 14 states and divisions are given some authority and got the right to elect their own local parliaments. However, the executive power is still in the hand of the president as the Chief Ministers of all the regions and states are appointed by the president. The Chief Minister formed a cabinet and runs the state/region. Beginning of Decentralization (or) Public Administration Reform The reform of public administration has started since 2011 when the military backed U Thein Sein administration took in charge. He initiated the reform process included four waves; political, socio-economic, administrative and private sectors. The third waves known as Public Administration Reform (PAR) is conducted through decentralization and empowerment of sub-national authorities. In 2013, the Nay Pyi Taw Accord (NPTA) is agreed to prioritize PAR in Myanmar’s development agenda. The government formed Administrative Reform Coordination Committee (ARCC) and manage the PAR process. Four themes are developed through conducting researches and consultation with the government officials, national stakeholders, think tanks and development partners. These include (a) Civil Service Capacity Development, (b) Public Service Delivery, (c) Decentralization, (d) Transparency & Accountability. Although all of these above things sound good, this reform process has been superficial no matter how the structure provides the chief ministers, cabinets and local parliaments. There are many reasons in the failure of PAR. These includes:
What is GAD? Out of all these above reasons, the role clarity between Ministries and GAD is directly link to the above statement I have made “The military is almost win in the power struggle of public administration.” (Note: There is no local government directly elected by the local community in Myanmar. A chief minister is appointed by the president to all states and regions, and he is the one to whom the local branches of ministries are accountable to.) GAD is the department under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) which plays as the administrative body in township and districts of Myanmar. It staffed the regional and state level governments and served as civil service body. As MoHA is one out of three ministries which union ministers are directly appointed by the commander-in-chief, GAD is entirely under the control of the military. As GAD is the most powerful department in public administration, it could assumed that the military took the control in this area. Three reasons why GAD is in controlled of the Public Administration There are three reasons why GAD is said as the most powerful entity in the public administration. First, both legislative and executive body of states and regions have to depend on GAD for the daily basic administrative works as these do not have separate office. In 2008 constitution, it is stated as bellowed. The Head of the General Administration Department of the Region or State is the ex-officio Secretary of the Region or State Government concerned. Moreover, the General Administration Department of the Region or State is the Office of the region or State Government concerned. The head of the General Administration Department is the secretary of the State and Region Government. In addition, 2010 State and Region Governments Law also provided as: Hluttaw Office is the State and Region General Administration Department which is formed to implement administrative office functions of the Hluttaw. As described above, the power of GAD is backed by the disputed constitution. Therefore, reducing the power of GAD will be as difficult as amending the constitution of Myanmar. Second, GAD could be said working as the local government. The mandate of GAD includes to ensure the rule of law and the peace and prosperity of states and regions. It worked closely with its sister organizations of Police, Fire Service, the Bureau of Special Investigation and the Prison. Under the situation that could stumble the rule of law and the peace within the region, GAD could act immediately with the cooperation of its sister organization. In addition, the role of GAD includes land and property management, boundaries disputes, land and exercise taxes, land expropriation and financial management. These are the responsibility that a local government have to carry out. Having no local government in Myanmar, GAD is taking this responsibility. Finally, GAD deeply rooted into the administration structure. GAD took the responsibility of managing the most basic administrative entity of the country. It controls over not only the townships and districts levels but also over 16,700 village tracts and wards. Although administers are elected by the people, the clerks working under him or her are appointed by GAD. The most crucial part of taking control of these entities is controlling the international assistance. Beginning with the “People-Centered-Approach”, the mantra of U Thein Sein’s administration to make a change, the international assistance to the local community are invited. This makes a new role for GAD to become the link between the international agencies and the ministries. One of the examples is its interlocutor role between UNICEF and Ministry of Defense to end using children as soldiers. In the middle of January 2017, Myanmar government approved a new plan which described that the local government will have the office of their own without controlled by GAD. The plan is expected to implement in April and the effectiveness of this new plan is yet to be seen. Myanmar’s way to be a democratic country is a long way. The people and the governments will need to have perseverance to make a change and keep going on. In such a long walk, the role should be clear such as the role of the government ministries and the military controlled GAD. Without clear roles and responsibility, there will not be a harmonized team work. In addition, Myanmar could be regarded as a country still applying the centralized system as long as GAD served the administrative responsibilities of a local government, staffed both cabinet and the local parliament and systematically rooted deeply in the administration structure, References Administering the states in Myanmar https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/GADEnglish.pdf In Myanmar, An Evolving Discourse on Decentralization http://asiafoundation.org/2013/10/02/in-myanmar-an-evolving-discourse-on-decentralization/ Note: The above article is only my opinion and I writing for the positive changes of my country. I hope this article would contribute to the people who is leading the change in Myanmar. As I am still studying about the decentralization process of my country, the corrections are needed. Please feel free to give comments and make correction to my article. After decades of authoritarian regime, Myanmar started its new path to democracy under the civilian government since November 2015. The party of Daw Aung San Su Kyi, National League for Democracy (NLD), won the majority of votes in the election and could successfully manage to make a civilian, U Htin Kyaw, to become a president. The most exciting message from NLD during campaigns is “Time for Change” People are hoping for the change and longing for the development of their country. However, one of the biggest challenges for NLD government in paving the path to Myanmar’s development is the renewal of conflicts in Kachin and Shan states.
Experts recognize decentralization as an instrument to give political representation to diverse groups and as a way to stabilize the country. It allows individuals, communities and groups to participate in decision making processes for their future and brings the government closer to the public. Indeed, decentralization is inevitable for Myanmar to be able to bring all diverse indigenous groups together and work for the development of the country as a whole. However, the decentralization process will not be successful without strong administrative capacity from the local government. The local government officials are imperative actors in the process. The responsibility of making the public feels that the government is their government lays on them as they are the ones to whom an average citizen would interact as the government. On the other hand, it is very challenging for the government officials to carry out the decentralization process. They will be forced to change under the policies made by the central government to redistribute authority and responsibility in providing public services. Through administrative decentralization process, the location of power and jobs is changed and new responsibilities are created. This change brings new threats to the government officials. However, “change” nudges the people out of their comfort zone and makes them to face new challenges. Overcoming these challenges and adapting in new condition is an invaluable life experience for these individuals. Change makes people reveal their skills and recognize their preferred leadership styles. During GIST, my study will be exploring the decentralization process of Indonesia and the Philippines to inform how Myanmar should decentralize in order to achieve unity. In particular, I will conduct case studies in Aceh and Mindanao as these are comparable to the conflicts states of Myanmar like Kachin and Shan states. My project will briefly look at the institutional frameworks needed for decentralization but will mainly focus on the leadership required to implement successful decentralization. Indonesia and Philippines will be the best countries to learn such frameworks and leadership lessons. These share the same characteristics to Myanmar and are leading ASEAN countries in the application of a decentralized system. Both countries are similar to Myanmar in being diverse, applying decentralization for the integrity of the country, having major religion and being under the authoritarian regimes. Besides, these countries are in the devolution stage in decentralization process. Out of three stages; de-concentration, delegation and devolution, it is regarded as the highest stage in decentralized system. However, these countries are still in the process to reach their goal of decentralization. My project will take the advantage to learn strengths and weaknesses from these two countries. Please feel free to give comments on my study. I would love to hear your opinions. |
SU LYNNMingalarpar! Thanks for checking my blog. I am from Myanmar and have experienced managing the projects for the disabled and those with HIV. I was also a research associate conducting the researches on Myanmar's political and social issues. At present, I am interested in decentralization. I believe that it is an inevitable step for Myanmar to get to federalism. Archives
May 2017
Categories |