The following article was translated using both Microsoft Azure Open AI and Google Translation AI.
Ahead of the national leadership transition, there are concerns. The contest for presidential and vice presidential candidates is still focused on name, image, and charisma to attract votes. Not the substance of how to ensure sustainable development.
Illustration: HERYUNANTO
On 15 June 2023, President Joko Widodo handed over the forerunners of his most important legacy: the draft National Long Term Development Plan 2025-2045.
Prepared by Bappenas, this National Long Term Development Plan (RPJPN) will serve as a reference for realizing the vision of “Golden Indonesia 2045”: a developed country with the world’s fourth or fifth economy. Later in September 2023, the RPJPN 2025-2045 was ratified as law and became a reference for presidential and vice presidential candidates in developing their vision and mission.
This is fundamental because without long-term reference, intergovernmental development plans run the risk of being unsustainable. As a result, road construction is in place even though it feels advanced and a lot is being done. Looking back several decades, this concern is very justified. One thing is clear: we will never get out of the middle-income trap (middle-income trap).
Get out of the trap
In 1993, Indonesia was officially no longer poor. It is a middle-income country. However, the 1997-1998 economic crisis brought it down before it rose again in 2002. In 2019 we are proud because we “class up” to become an upper middle-income country (upper middle-income). Unfortunately not for long. Covid-19 threw him back to lower middle-income status in 2020 and is only now recovering. However, this means that for 30 years we have been trapped in the middle-income trap.
To escape this trap, the RPJPN 2025-2045 asserts that the economy must grow 6-7 percent. Why? Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea – like us – were trapped for quite some time in the early 1970s: 20, 19, and 18 years. However, during that time, they grew an average of 8.3, 8.2, and 8.9 percent. In the early 1990s, they all became developed countries. Meanwhile, our post-reform economy only grew by around 5 percent, except for 2007 (6.3 percent) and 2010 (6.2 percent). We even fell by minus 2.07 percent during the pandemic.
How can we achieve a growth of 6-7%? Our economy must be based on knowledge and innovation and realized as a “green” and “blue” economy. This means that, in addition to being oriented towards downstream research and innovation, the economy must grow to improve social welfare while protecting the environment and utilizing marine and coastal resources sustainably.
This type of economy must be fair, efficient, and intelligent: developing productive sectors – whether it be modern goods or services – that are competitive with an “economic pie” that can be enjoyed sustainably by all citizens. Consequently, competitiveness will grow and strengthen, both regionally and globally.
Certainly, this is not an easy task. To realize a “green and blue economy, based on knowledge and innovation,” there are many fundamental issues that must be addressed. Starting from improving the quality of human resources, improving and expanding quality public services for all, law enforcement and certainty, eradicating corruption and advancing democracy, to addressing the climate crisis and developing research and technology. And many more.
For that, we work hard. In the last two decades, Indonesia has been quite advanced in developing various fields, even though the world is in turmoil. Per capita income growth reached 488.73 percent in 2019. Even though the economy grew only around 5 percent, inflation remained stable in the range of 3-4 percent. Poverty fell by 9.57 percent, open unemployment was 5.86 percent, the Human Development Index (HDI) rose 0.77 percent, and Indonesian people lived longer by up to 73.5 years. BPJS Kesehatan membership coverage reached 89.5 percent of the population, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 5.65 GtCO2eq (27.1 percent).
However, there are still many challenges in future development. These include suboptimal governance of laws and regulations, low capacity of the state and public institutions, massive demographic changes and dynamics of socio-cultural preferences, low human resource capacity, and unsustainable utilization of natural, maritime, and environmental resources.
On the other hand, despite growth, the economic structure and trade governance are ineffective with low fiscal capacity. Regional infrastructure and connectivity are uneven, research, science, and innovation usage are low, and digital transformation is not optimally managed (Bappenas, 2023).
Meaning, indeed we have worked hard, but we have not been able to bring this country forward—especially to become a world leader. So, reform alone is not enough. There must be transformation. In what way? In the way we build our nation.
About how to build
Einstein once said something like this: “The person who -sorry- is crazy is the person who does the same thing over and over again but expects different results.” Let’s take a look at how to build a nation – let’s say from 25 years ago since the reform until now.
Is there a fundamental difference in the way we build? For example: in planning and implementing development, improving bureaucracy and public institutions, managing natural resources, developing research and innovation, even in the way we educate in schools, in democracy and eradicating corruption, upholding the law?
Yes, there have been changes and there have been improvements. The HDI, PISA score, corruption perception index, even the technical security services have all improved. But is it enough? Are we satisfied? If “yes”, it means that we really don’t want to get out of this middle-income trap.
Indeed, there have been changes and improvements. The HDI, PISA score, corruption perception index, and even healthcare have all improved. However, is it enough?
There are three things that need to be fixed. First, how to plan development. Development has so far been planned in a technocratic bottom-up manner through development planning meetings that rely on projections, predictions and forecasts to realize the national vision. The vision is reduced to become a national priority, further reduced in priority programs, priority activities, to major projects to produce detailed output. Very technical, strict and structured, even tends to be bureaucratic.
The strength of such planning is its technocratic control. However, it is also its weakness: it is not flexible in facing non-technocratic factors such as political upheavals in development. The complexity of planning bureaucracy also makes it vulnerable to accusations of being a place to hide and wash hands in the event of development failures. It is wasteful, because resources are exhausted for processes and functions, not programs and results.
This way of planning is not wrong, but it is not progressive enough to move forward. Technocratic planning like this should be complemented by foresight because the desired future must be formed, not projected, estimated or forecasted. The national vision must be validated by identifying a number of development challenges through mapping important events and trends (horizon scanning).
From there, you will find disruptions (discontinuities), markers of change (weak signals), and the need to be aware of events that are unlikely but very impactful (wild cards).
From this map, a number of main drivers (main drivers) can be identified as the basis for the development of several future scenarios (plausible scenarios)—not just projections. On the basis of this scenario, strategic planning and a road map (strategic roadmapping) were formulated. So the focus is on programs and results. Processes and functions just follow.
Development planning using the foresight approach is still limited in Indonesia even though it has been widely used by various countries (Nugroho and Saritas, 2009), including Singapore and Malaysia. Foresight ensures strong development planning technocratically, as well as anticipatory, progressive, and solid vision for the future.
Foresight in a limited way has actually colored the drafting of the 2025-2045 RPJPN to produce the formulation of a vision, 5 targets, 8 agendas, 17 objectives and 45 key indicators to ensure economic, social and governance transformations along with foundation and implementation framework (Bappenas, 2023). This is a progressive step in formulating a long-term plan for a nation. Next, it is ensured that its derivatives, the five-year National Medium-Term Development Plan and the annual Government Work Plan, are prepared similarly.
Secondly, the way to manage development. Building properly means ensuring that governance is in place so that development resources are used effectively, efficiently, and free from conflicts of interest. The root of all development stagnation so far has been poor governance. Fixing it is not easy or simple. However, there are at least three main focuses: bureaucratic reform; integration of planning and budgeting; development control.
One, bureaucratic reform is the key to building a future Indonesia. Indonesia 2045 needs world-class bureaucrats. The foundation is formation and recruitment based on competence and character, proper remuneration, fair based on performance, and single, with a clear career path to attract superior talent. This must materialize in the next decade so that there is a critical mass of quality bureaucracy to realize Golden Indonesia.
Technocratic planning like this should be accompanied by foresight (foresight) because the desired future must be formed, not projected, estimated or forecasted.
Two, the integration of planning and budgeting has been discussed for too long. The next cabinet must realize it. The Directorate General of Budget must merge with Bappenas to ensure that planned projects are funded and budget allocations meet the needs of development. No advanced country has separate planning and budgeting processes or uncoordinated central and regional development.
Three, development needs to be controlled because the challenges are becoming more complex and involve multiple sectors, while ministries and institutions work separately in their respective sectors. There must be an institution that bridges and coordinates the cabinet – which cannot be handled by the coordinating minister. This could be similar to the Sesdalopbang (Secretary of Operational Control of Development) during the era of Soeharto, UKP4 (Presidential Working Unit for Development Monitoring and Control) during the era of SBY, KSP (Presidential Staff Office) during the era of Jokowi, or simply handled by Bappenas – as the National Development Planning and Control Agency – which is attached to the President.
Ensure continuity
This is a problem that always whacks when changing power holders, starting from heads of state, ministers, regents, even village heads. Planners and development actors are always wary that the new ruler will bring a new agenda which is embodied in new policies and programs that are not always in line—even contradictory—to the policies and programs of their predecessors. Even if they are in line, they are often disbanded before a new one is made with the same substance, simply because “I didn’t start it”. This has become a culture: cancel culture the name is. As a result, development is similar to the poco-poco dance: two steps forward, one step back. Slow, if not even walking in place.
We are facing this concern. Until now, the contest for presidential and vice presidential candidates is still focused on name, image, and charisma as vote generators, not substance. Moreover, how to ensure the sustainability of development when in power later. This is not just a matter of big ideas such as moving the nation’s capital, building a high-speed rail network, or closing coal mines to pursue net zero.
However, what determines the life and death of citizens are policies such as health regulations, educational curriculums, social protection programs, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises (UMKM). There are also issues that disturb and constrain the government, such as bureaucratic reform, law enforcement, the resolution of severe human rights violations, and the eradication of corruption.
Although it can be understood if the focus is still on electability, it is wrong if there is no – or very little – room left to talk about development plans and their continuity. Therefore, all presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be encouraged, pushed, and even tied if necessary to ensure that the development vision they are promoting is in line and in line with the RPJPN 2025-2045. In addition to making it a law, there must be new breakthroughs: forced by the KPU and voters. For this reason, the KPU must ensure that campaigns and debates are more substantive. I propose two things.
One thematic campaign invites affected citizens. For example, campaigns about the environment invite farmers, fishermen, activists, and businessmen; youth campaigns invite various youth organizations and communities; campaigns for bureaucracy reform invite civil servants – and many more.
Two, substance reformulation of the debate. Its focus is not on what is promised, as it is easily forgotten or diverted. Nor is it on why, as we have Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. This prevents concerns about division. The substance of the debate must focus on how to carry out development: from choosing ministers, controlling development, to economic transformation. From there, it will be seen whether it is just rhetoric or can be realized. More importantly, can they ensure the continuity of the development that their predecessors have started.
The continuity of development must be maintained despite the temptation of egoistic attitudes such as “me, my party, my group”. This is an absolute requirement to escape the middle-income trap and to test whether the country truly deserves to be a role model in the future.
