This article was first published in Kompas on 8 Juli 2025 and has been translated using AI.
The economy can be boosted, but without a strong bureaucratic machine, the vehicle named Indonesia will never reach its destination. Is our bureaucracy capable of advancing this nation?
In the midst of the hustle and bustle of development in pursuit of realizing the political promises of the Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka government, bureaucratic reform appears to be left behind in silence.
The cabinet, swollen with non-professional ministers, along with the direct appointment of several echelon 1a officials without open selection, seems to undermine the meritocratic system that has been painstakingly established. With a political-militaristic approach, the bureaucracy becomes increasingly rigid, sidelining institutional reasoning.
Indeed, bureaucracy is the machinery of government. Like a vehicle, owners often focus on enhancing its exterior appearance, neglecting the engine, except when it breaks down. Such is bureaucracy: as long as the system operates, attention to it is almost nonexistent. However, the signs of a breakdown are clearly visible before our eyes.
Construction machinery strike
First, political promises are at risk of failing due to weak execution. As of June 2025, only 3 million out of the target of 82.9 million students have received Free Nutritious Meals (MBG), and this has been accompanied by thousands of poisoning cases and many partners yet to be paid. The promise of 3 million free houses lacks a clear policy direction.
The target of 500—or 200—people’s schools for the 2025/2026 academic year remains unclear. The program for the expansion of social assistance and addressing extreme poverty has not been executed smoothly due to the incomplete matching of the National Socio-Economic Data Integration (DTSEN) with the NIK. Meanwhile, various macroeconomic indicators are weakening. The target of 8 percent growth by 2029 appears increasingly unattainable.
Second, the internal conditions of the bureaucracy. Data from the National Civil Service Agency (BKN) 2024 indicates that the number of civil servants (ASN) is approximately 4.1 million, but 38 percent of them are over the age of 45. Meanwhile, the number of younger individuals (under 35 years) remains low, and only about 40 percent are performing well.
In fact, the need for superior ASN increases along with the complexity of development demands. Coupled with a rigid working method, not adaptive to progress, the bureaucracy is at risk of losing competitiveness and institutional resilience if rejuvenation and modernization are not carried out immediately. Clearly, it requires improvements in bureaucratic performance in the current political climate (Kompas, 6/30/25).
This is not a technical issue. We have been trapped in the middle-income trap for more than three decades. High growth targets will not be enough if they are not followed by a leap in bureaucratic capacity. The economy can be boosted, but without a strong bureaucratic machine, the vehicle called Indonesia will never reach its destination. Is our bureaucracy capable of bringing this nation forward?
Modernization of bureaucracy
The response is unconvincing. Although bureaucratic reform has been implemented since the post-reform era—meritocracy, digitalization, simplification of organizational structures—the work patterns still resemble those of the 20th century: rigid, hierarchical, based on physical presence, and predominantly administrative. We need a bureaucracy that not only survives but also progresses so that the nation can advance.
Developed countries share commonalities: their bureaucracies are professional, integrity-driven, and results-oriented. This is not merely a matter of administrative discipline, but also the ability to think strategically, work across sectors, and respond swiftly to the dynamics of the citizenry.
South Korea transformed its postwar bureaucracy into a digital-driven innovation and public service engine; Singapore’s bureaucracy is lean but highly efficient and meritocratic; Estonia pioneered a digital bureaucracy that was digital-firstin serving its citizens. The lesson: if the state machinery is slow, development is hampered. If the machinery is obsolete, any amount of energy is wasted.
Therefore, bureaucratic modernization is not a technical issue. It is a demand for progress. It must be viewed as an effort to improve the competency-based recruitment system, simplify regulations, digitize public services, enhance leadership capacity, and shift the work culture from mere compliance to one based on performance and achievements.
The idea of flexible work (flexiwork) for ASN is not just a sectoral policy, but part of the modernization of bureaucracy that is adaptive to disruption, relevant to the younger generation, and globally competitive. This is a concrete way to answer the demands of the times without losing accountability while strengthening public trust through a more humane and results-oriented way of working.
“Flexiwork” for ASN
For bureaucratic modernization, flexiwork may be the most relevant idea. The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digitalization and proven that many administrative-managerial works can still run effectively without physical presence.
In the private sector, flexibility is now the norm. But in the public sector, it has sparked debate. On the one hand, flexiwork is seen as a way to make bureaucracy more adaptive, efficient and modern. On the other, there are concerns about the erosion of discipline, blurred accountability and weak coordination. This reflects the clash of two paradigms: the old bureaucracy based on control and physical presence, versus the new bureaucracy that emphasizes trust, performance and professional autonomy.
Flexiwork is not just about working from home (WFH) or elsewhere (WFA), but rather a paradigm shift: from a bureaucracy that counts working hours, to a bureaucracy that focuses on performance.
Many developed countries implement it strategically. In Canada, flexiwork is part of a national strategy to attract and retain superior ASN. In the UK, the civil service implements a smart working program that allows work from various locations as long as targets are achieved. Australia integrates it into the Australian Public Service reform with an emphasis on work-life balance and digital services.
Indonesia is also starting to take steps. Regulation of the Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform (Permenpan and RB) No. 4/2025 is the official legal basis for regulating flexiwork.
However, this is not a license to be lazy. The regulation establishes clear parameters: who can work flexibly, under what conditions, and how performance must remain measurable. Thus, flexibility is not a release, but rather a repositioning of responsibility—from physical presence to achievement of results.
If designed and implemented correctly, flexiwork will strengthen the bureaucracy: it will become a strategy to attract young talent who have been reluctant to join because the bureaucracy is considered slow, unfriendly to innovation, and too administrative.
It must be acknowledged that the best graduates rarely choose to become civil servants. This means that our bureaucracy has not been managed by those who are the best. Of course, there are exceptions, but that is not what is expected. Therefore, building a flexible, humane, and results-oriented work environment is not just about workplace comfort. It is about the sustainability of state institutions.
Bureaucracy that does not allow for new ways of working will become outdated, lack regeneration, and fail to address contemporary challenges. However, bureaucracy that provides room for flexibility—with strict oversight and clear accountability—reflects a mature, adaptive system that is ready to lead the nation into the future.
Condition
There are four requirements. First, a credible and standardized performance measurement system. When physical presence is no longer the primary measure, what is essential is the achievement of performance.
The e-performance system already exists, but its implementation is not yet consistent across agencies and has not been optimally integrated with e-planning and e-budgeting. This performance measurement must be based on specific indicators: the quantity and quality of output, completion deadlines, and impact on the public. Without it, flexibility becomes a source of abuse of discretion.
Second, adequate and equitable digital infrastructure. The digital divide among institutions and regions remains significant. The digital readiness of civil servants also varies.
According to BKN (2023), more than 30 percent of regional ASN do not have adequate work equipment and internet access. Secure and integrated collaborative platforms are also minimal. Without infrastructure and digital literacy, flexiwork will only deepen inequality and reduce productivity.
Third, a work culture based on trust and responsibility. Currently, bureaucracy works hierarchically with micromanagement and procedural compliance. This is no longer sufficient. A new culture is needed: professional autonomy, output-based assessment, and collaborative leadership-staff relations.
The success of bureaucratic reform depends on leadership that encourages innovation, provides space for dialogue, and supports learning from mistakes (OECD, 2021; UNDP, 2020).
In Indonesia, the National Administrative Agency (LAN) is developing a work culture for State Civil Apparatus (ASN) based on integrity, nationalism, work ethic, mutual cooperation, and service orientation. The challenge lies in the internalization of these values amidst a bureaucratic culture that tends to be formalistic and resistant to change.
Fourth, adaptive leadership that understands the direction of change. Flexiwork requires leaders who understand the context, can facilitate transitions, and build trust amid uncertainty. In Finland, flexibility policies are led by trust-based leadership. In New Zealand, heads of institutions are required to develop a publicly reported flexiwork strategy.
In Singapore, the Civil Service College integrates digital leadership training for all public officials.
Indonesia needs to take a similar path. Leadership in the new bureaucratic era must possess digital literacy, social empathy, managerial capacity, and a vision for transformation. The OECD (2025) emphasizes that leadership is the “differentiator between policies that become reality and those that remain on paper.”
Without all that, flexiwork is just jargon, not a solution. Therefore, institutional readiness, not just regulation, is the key to implementation and the basis for managing its risks.
Risk
The main risk of flexiwork is a decline in performance without adaptive, results-based supervision. In an immature bureaucracy, flexibility is easily misinterpreted as a relaxation of discipline. Without clear performance measures and strict evaluation, ASN can escape accountability. In fact, a healthy bureaucracy demands institutional capacity, strong internal norms, and balanced external supervision (Fukuyama, 2013).
Another challenge is public perception. Flexiwork is often associated with laziness or running away from responsibility, especially for citizens who are used to seeing ASN physically present. This perception is not entirely wrong, especially if the policy is not communicated well or the results are not visible. The face of the bureaucracy still relies heavily on direct presence in the public space—and if that “face” suddenly disappears, trust is eroded (Lipsky, 1980).
Therefore, public communication becomes crucial: it must be transparent, proactive, and results-oriented. The government must not only explain policies but also demonstrate performance.
Facing this risk, flexiwork must be based on the principle of trust, but verify. ASN is given space to regulate how it works, but remains within the corridor of responsibility and objective measurement. This is in line with performance-based accountability (Behn, 2001): the focus of supervision shifts from procedures to results, from attendance to performance. Therefore, strengthening the evaluation system, open reporting, and a culture of mutual trust is mandatory so that flexibility does not turn into dysfunctionality.
Stepping forward
The essence of flexiwork is not where ASN works, but how and for what they work. A bureaucracy that is physically present from 08.00 to 17.00 does not necessarily produce sharp policies or quality services.
In contrast, bureaucracies with new ways of working—based on reason, innovation, and responsibility—are more likely to produce breakthroughs.
Bureaucracy is the machinery of government. If the machinery is not functioning well, the vehicle will not travel far, no matter how skilled the steering or how smooth the body. Now, because the symptoms of a breakdown are evident, the machinery must become our primary focus. It needs to be renewed to withstand new terrains: an era of technological disruption, demands for efficiency, and increasingly high public expectations.
Bureaucratic modernization through flexibility is not a technical matter, but rather a question of maturity in governance. Allowing space for new working methods—and holding them accountable for results in a fair and transparent manner—is a test of how much this nation trusts its own bureaucracy.
Because, without bureaucracy as a healthy machine, this vehicle called Indonesia will not be able to truly move forward.
