On the July 2008, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan will have a short summer course for limited persons, only few are selected and I was lucky enough to be selected and would participate in this event.
The participants were asked to submit a short essay about one of the two subjects that were offered, Security Sector Reform and Good Governance. Because I’m pretty oblivious with these two topics, I chose to the latter one.
Good governance is pretty much more easily grasped by my mind. I wrote my view about Good Governance in Indonesia, how I particularly disappointed with the current transformation.
Technical change is undergoing, but what about cultural change? Sorry if it sounds Ethnocentric, but this country has been too long governed by Javanese centric government (I’m one-third Javanese, mind you).
As we know, post-1998, Indonesia has experienced radical change in its political system. With the fall of Soeharto’s tyranny, the political system has altered from centralistic approach to decentralized one. Such rapid change unfortunately, has not been followed by cultural change in the bureaucratic system. Why is that? I think it’s pretty clear if we see the core of our problem.
Indonesia in its current situation, still reflected the same problem it posed during Soeharto’s era: ineffective government, and feudalistic bureaucracy. This is much contributed due to Soeharto’s past leadership of which characterized by feudalistic style. Soeharto was analyzed seeing himself as Javanese king and his subordinates bound to him in traditional servant-king style.
Correct me if I happen to be wrong, but Soeharto self-percepted himself as Javanese king. Defiance is intolerable. He was almost perfect Leviathan, if only he could control his princes and princesses not to corrupt in style of snobbish monarchs. He put dogmas such as “Local Culture” is part of “National Culture” which I could said a total absurdity now. Do all women in Indonesia must wear Javanese Batik? Must Chinese Indonesia change their name because it only consists of three syllables?
This culture, both conscious and unconsciously has pretty much contributed to worsen Indonesia’s government bureaucracy. There has been lack development toward the culture of human resources on government.
Technical change is not followed by the change of mindset, which potentially renders the process of transformation itself becomes either stagnant or useless.
Good Governance: Definition
What is good governance you ask?
If you study International Relations you probably familiar about it (though I must admit, my faculty didn’t teach us so much about it). Good governance is well, normative and ideal norms for government to govern its country.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) defines at least there 8 characteristics of good governance which are participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.
Meanwhile, Asian Development Bank defines four elements of good governance, which are: Accountability, where public officials must be answerable for government behavior, and responsive to the entity from which their authority is derived. The second is Participation which refers the involvement of citizens in the development process. Third is predictability of which a country’s legal environment must be conducive, and the fourth is. Transparency, which refers to the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government rules, regulations, and decisions.
Some definitions might use different words but most emphasized factor of public transparency, accountability, inclusive and efficient yet effective government.
Civil Servant or Elites?
The premise of Good Governance in Indonesia unfortunately, it still far from ideal if one to see Indonesia’s government. Indonesia’s government has demonstrated too much contradictories of the premises given.
In my view, minority is still treated unfairly. Government employee, instead referred as civil servant, they are much seen as political elites, which definition is distinguishably different from the ideal one. The workers in lower hierarchy might be still percepted as civil servants, but these with high ranks, probably forget already they they are paid by our tax, and behaving as elites.
This is reflected by series of scandals that occurred in government. The most well known is the case of Lapindo mudflow which caused the sinking of Sidoarjo and destroying the economic sector of the region. Despite the ongoing protest, one of the top elites, Aburizal Bakrie is still working as Minister of People’s Welfare (oh the Engrishness), and ironically is identified as Indonesia’s richest person according to Forbes.
Another example is demonstrated by the government’s official. Despite the rising price of commodities and declining of people’s purchasing parity, the salary of government’s officials is yet to decline, they are considerably high and blurring the definition of corruption.
The legislative members are the best example to portray the irony. Despite the position as representative from people, the legislative members are paid almost $761,3 million annually, this also applies to the inactive members. The problem lies not because the basic salary, but the intensives which are numerous. In very simple sense, people pay for incompetent representative, and they could do nothing about it.
Minority’s involvement in government is proportionally small, or perhaps, marginalized?
This is especially true if one sees the historical dominance of Indonesia from certain ethnic, which are Javanese. Java has been center of power in Indonesia since the era of Majapahit. This condition still occurs even to the course of modern times.
Indonesia has experienced six succession of presidency, of which only one was led by one non-Javanese. This dominance should matter, because Indonesia is highly indigenous country, where it’s shown much of plurality. A dominance of certain ethnic toward the entire country is not sign of good governance, and most likely affect the nationality of people from ethnicity.
Also, Chinese Indonesian people for example, is very rarely work in political sector. Historically they were marginalized and was forced to cut off their Chinese culture. This is proved by the existence of discriminating law issued during Soeharto’s precidency. The most famous law is 127/U/Kep/12/1966, which forced the Chinese-born Indonesia to change their name into Indonesia-sounding names.
This anti-Chinese law has also successfully discouraged succession of Chinese culture from one generation toward another. It’s common to see Chinese Indonesian does not speak their ancestor language anymore, many identify themselves as Indonesia, but technically they are being discriminated.
We are lucky enough to have Indonesia language though, I couldn’t imagine if Javanese had been our national Language. All men here probably have the medok accent, and I think that’s rather… err… nightmarish! I sometime unconsciously speak English in Engrish structure, speaking Jawlish would be my worst linguistic nightmare.
Conclusion
From these few facts mentioned and how they contradict the definition of Good governance, we could conclude that Indonesia’s government is still far from good governance. One of the most important is because the lack of enthusiasm to change the government’s culture both conscious and unconsciously.
The government is still dominated by Javanese and still being discriminating toward other minorities, for notable, Chinese Indonesian. Indonesia could prove itself as good government if it someday have president from Chinese , which chance is nearly impossible. Being reprssed for decades and politically marginalized made Chinese Indonesian take apolitical stance. They are careless for politic matters in Indonesia and it’s common if they consider themselves having apriori toward the government.
Indonesia is still long way to transform into good government. Technical change is important, but change of mindset, change of culture is much more important.
Of course, this view is much too ethnocentric. It’s oversimplifying to say “Give this country to non-javanese or Chinese-minded people, and it will transform better, faster.”, nope, I just want to point there are certain degree of unfairness in the bureaucracy, and I really hope it will change.
The main reason I don’t want to apply Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any government body is that I’m afraid I will stuck on my career. I dunno, there has been lot of floating urban legend about government’s institutions, like you must kiss the ass of your boss to get merits, promotion, etc. I’m afraid If I enter such atmosphere, my view, my mind will eventually be dulled and I will probably justify their unethical practice.
What’s really wrong with the government of our beloved country? Perhaps we must see the culture of the government, perhaps it could explain all irrationalities happened. Well, Andika said if my opinion is clearly a fallacy. I don’t mind though, I admit I’m too subjective on this matter, but again, I just want to point out the unfairness that still occurring here.
Popularity: 30% [?]
Tags: Indonesia, UNPAR
Using
Oh my God…
No Indonesian version?
Kayaknya lebih pas kalau diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Indonesia.
Wew.
I like that “richest man in Indonesia” part. It’s just… a paradox.
Using
blom, ntar ya van, soalnya lagi males mikir dobel, mungkin 1-2 hari lagi
Using
bwhahahahahaha.. great story!
“but this country has been too long governed by Javanese centric government.”
it’s a fact, but putting “the-ethnic-factor” into consideration will make everything sillier than ever. hehehe.. i wonder what is the best way to deal with that.
“Must Chinese Indonesia change their name because it only consists of three syllables?”
hahahaha.. yes, WHY??? is there something wrong with three-syllabled name?? singapore and malaysia are fine with that. what’s wrong with this country.. hehe..
anyway, do those characteristics of a good governance reflect all kind of ideology? what about communism and socialism? or maybe monarchy? what if they succeed without having any of the characteristics? do they still considered as good governors?
masih kuliah apa dah lulus, vin?
Using
@jubel
gw masih sem 8, lagi bikin skripsi.
Anyway, I do realize this post is too much oversimplifying everything. To be honest, I’m sceptical whether there is a country that could be modeled as ideal government at all.
Three that crossed my mind when I wrote this article are: Finnish, German, and American (the fact they are being inclusive government is pretty undeniable fact, just look at Obama)
I dont’t know any good example whether communism and socialism actually succeed practicing these characteristics. If you happen to know one I’m of course, would be glad to be informed. This is not my speciality after all.
About three syllables… well, I dunno, this is just a subjective opinion after all, there are some who don’t really care losing their ancestors’ culture through Javanization.
I myself, has been oblvious my identity as Chinese, I consider myself as Indonesian. But how could I not to complain when I acknowledge and read that Indonesian-Chinese people are subject to racism? You will begin to be critical about who you are and what your ethnicity of course.
Under Soeharto’s repressive government, we know the slogan of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, “Unity in Differences” or “Unite, and don’t be different”? If we are not different than other, why treating us different? Why SKBRI? Why changing name? Why forbid and discourage the usage of our ancestor’s language?
For these who do not experience it, they would probably think it as no problem, it’s ok.
I know my complain sounds something simple, something insignificant, nevertheless, I still would like to point out that there might be other people who like me, confused about who they are, what their ethnicity are.
Identity as Indonesian is enough to create your identity in international community, but not in the domestic context I’m afraid.
Using
Wakakak! You finally posted it? Should I post mine too?
Well..culture-related behavior might worth an analysis in Indonesia’s case. But having relatively unsuccessful government lead by Javanese does not mean that good governance in Indonesia is failing because of it. This is what I referred to as a fallacy of composition, Vin..
Although, I agree with you on one point. I guess it is quite fair to say that good governance in Indonesia is halted by this ethnic-based sentiment…
Using
of course! would love to put some permalink on the article if it’s related
Using
waaah..
abang calvin coba masukin artikelnya sebelum tgl 10! masalahnya ada disoal ujianku kmrn! aduh2…ngelantur kmn2 jawabnya! bukannya ngambil negara sendiri as example, eh malah make malaysia!
according to my reading, i just know a lot about good governance as Tun Mahatir’s point of view. and also the recent one, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi a.k.a Pak Lah. hahahahahha. kaco deh! anyway.. mereka ngambil bbrpa caharateristic dari UN. such as accountability and transparancy. Tun Mahatir himself divided it into INTERNAL and GLOBAL. the internal conducted with some sort of domestic governing procees, sbnrnya ada 7 elements on it, shit, forgot it! in the global they are having like UN reform or something like that.
in addition, all of -well owkay most of them-Malaysian Chinese here they have another name like english name. Eg:Charlene, Caroline, etc. and its just for another race. haha funny isnt it?
on my studycase about Anti-Chinese violence in Indonesia, i explain how the government did the recism. like what youve wrote, they started to let the minority Chinese changed their name into general Indonesian name. and how the Indonesian Chinese could no even speak Chinese at all. beacuse the rule didnt courage them to practice their ow culture. it was really interesting, when i read the cultural policy made by Soekarno i personally think that it such a ridiculous.
However, im taking NAtionality and ethnic conflict, and came up with with my own idea. Nation can not be built if its multiracial people didnt gave up their own culture. if that so, ethnic conflict will always occured.
Using
@denting
whoops sori denting, soalnya gw sendiri baru nyelesain ini jumat kemarin, plus harus diedit lagi biar lebih casual.
Anyway, interesting point in your comment there, it’s pretty interesting to compare the policy done by Malaysia and Indonesia. Malaysia, in contrarty to Indonesia, does not discourage their chinese people to speak Chinese eh? Malaysia’s policy was good though it also putting Chinese into subject of racism, if I’m not mistaken, they are politically marginalized aren’t they?
Despite the javanization, Soeharto has successfully making Chinese people here being indifferent, and I appreciate what he has done, though it would have been so much better if we still could speak Chinese.
I don’t know what Soeharto thought since he only spoke two languages (Indonesia, Javanese, and pidgin english), he probably didn’t like people who speak two or three more languages, he didn’t see languages are assets, that’s why he erased Dutch, Japanese, and Mandarin from curriculum.
And look what happened now from that moronic policy, while Indonesia had been potential place for people with multingualism, it would never happen because Soeharto has cut off the chain and the language succession.
I swear my late grandmother could speak at least three languages naturally: Chinese, Dutch, and Japanese, and most of us probably could speak these languages as well if only Soeharto hadn’t changed the curriculum. The irony is just too great isn’t it?
I think language loss is the most severe loss from his policy, because it took us longer to study it gramatically.
Using
gua juga gak tau contohnya sih vin.. cuman bingung aja knp kesannya ideologi “demokrasi” seakan-akan merupakan ideologi yang paling ideal.. hehe.. gatau juga sih.. itu lebih-lebih bukan bidang gua. elu pasti lebih ngerti ttg itu.
anyway, ini tuh soal ujian?? apa tugas kuliah??
hahahahahahahaha..
well, i’m impressed. tiba-tiba gua ngerasa pgn nyoba sekali aja ngerjain ujian anak HI.. gak butuh kalkulator, gak butuh textbook, gak butuh rumus, gak butuh diagram fasa, gak butuh data kesetimbangan uap cair, gak butuh data fisik dan kimia.. but still, untuk menjawabnya membutuhkan pandangan dan pengetahuan yang amattt luas.. salute!
Using
yup beneran. itu ada dalam soal ujian gw kmrn klo gak salah kaya gini:
explain the definition of good governance in your opinion and give one state as example.
sebenernya jurusan ini sebagai pelarian aja berhubung ga bisa ngitung. awalnya pilihan pertama gw multimedia, eh ditolak.. ya terpaksa harus belajar banyak cara basa basi ala anak HI. hihihihihii..
Using
tuh michael, jawaban denting udah mewakili jawaban gw. Kadang2 kita disuruh melihat suatu kasus dari teori tertentu dan kita harus tahu sedikit banyak kondisi negara2 lain.
kalau istilahnya andika, we have to know a little bit in everything