This article was first published in Kompas on 23 October 2024. This article has been translated using AI.
To realize Astacita, the issue of governance and state capacity will be the biggest challenge going forward.
On October 20, 2024, Prabowo Subianto was officially inaugurated as the eighth President of Indonesia. With eight visions, Astacita, he promises a future for the country that is better than yesterday and today.
Some doubt Prabowo’s ability to fulfill that promise due to his past and are concerned about the impact of his maneuvers in the election. Others believe he will fulfill his promise to create a new era, free from the shadow of his predecessor, Jokowi.
However, the future of the nation is not a matter of doubt or belief, let alone merely predicting or estimating it. Instead, it is necessary to clearly map out the challenges, design and anticipate various future possibilities, and carefully prepare a roadmap. This must be done by Prabowo and his aides as an initial step when governing.
Fundamental challenges
Our lives, including life as a nation, are formed from a series of events (events) and tendencies (trends).
Ten years under Jokowi, several development indicators show a trend of progress, particularly in infrastructure, public services, poverty alleviation, and human quality development. This must be appreciated.
However, some areas are still lacking or tend to regress, such as economic inequality, dependence on natural resources and the environment, stalled bureaucratic reforms and anti-corruption efforts, law enforcement, and problematic human rights protection.
Therefore, to form, let alone improve the future of the country, we must dare to honestly examine the key to Jokowi’s success and what is hindering him. Prabowo and his team have certainly done so. In my opinion, there are two fundamental and interrelated issues that have been the driving factors as well as the obstacles to development so far: governance and state capacity.
Of course, it is reckless to say that all of our government governance is bad. This is as reckless as claiming that our governance is all good. The expansion of social protection coverage, or the improvement of the quality of public services so far, for example, has been achieved because of relatively good governance in that sector. However, inequality, environmental damage, corruption, and weak human rights protection occur because of governance that tends to be weak and bad.
Similarly, state capacity, namely the ability of government institutions to carry out development. A number of ministries/institutions (K/L) and regional institutions that handle upstream sectors, such as education, health, social protection, show relatively improved performance, although of course there are still improvements here and there.
Meanwhile, the handling of downstream sectors (e.g. industry, higher education, research-innovation) and enablers of development (planning, budgeting, bureaucracy, law-democracy) has not been truly optimal. This causes inefficiency, waste of resources, and the stagnation of meaningful public participation in policy-making.
Astacita Prabowo focuses on a commitment to national sovereignty, economic independence, and social justice. For her, a strong country is not only capable of defending itself but also self-sufficient in key sectors such as agriculture, energy, and infrastructure.
This vision views economic strength as an integral part of national security. This aspiration is translated into 17 priorities that include self-sufficiency in food, energy, and water; bureaucratic and legal reforms, with an emphasis on eradicating corruption; expanding the scope of healthcare services and access to education; addressing poverty and economic inequality; and supporting SMEs and encouraging investment.
Government services must reach the people who need them.
Clearly, to realize Astacita, the issue of governance and state capacity will be the biggest challenge going forward. Prabowo’s seriousness can be seen from the extent to which he prioritizes governance and state capacity in his government. Where to start?
Improving governance
First and foremost: improving government governance. With the amendment of the State Ministry Law, Prabowo restructured and renamed the cabinet by forming new ministries and agencies. Like it or not, this is his prerogative. Although some are concerned that the cabinet expansion is merely to accommodate his political interests, this could actually be a golden opportunity for Prabowo to reorganize his administration.
He must be able to demonstrate that his cabinet is professional, even though he has to embrace his political allies. If his cabinet turns out to be politically accommodating and transactional, the law of nature cannot be defied: Astacita is at risk of failing to be realized.
In addition to the cabinet restructuring, there are three main governance agendas. First, integration of planning and budgeting.
Since the fall of the New Order, the unity of planning and budgeting has also collapsed into separate regimes: planning is handled by the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas and budgeting by the Directorate General of Budget of the Ministry of Finance.
As a result, planning is not in line with budgeting. The victim is the government itself. Indeed, the integration of the Krisna and Sakti applications has been tried as mandated by Government Regulation No. 17/2017 concerning Synchronization of Planning and Budgeting, but it is not enough.
Prabowo must dare to integrate planning and budgeting: unite the Directorate General of Budget with Bappenas. Like America formed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or England and South Africa have Treasury directly under the president or prime minister. All developed countries integrate their planning and budgeting. We must do the same if we want to progress.
Second, institutional governance improvements and bureaucratic reform. Prabowo wants the Directorate General of Customs and Excise and the Directorate General of Taxes to be separated from the Ministry of Finance and united in the State Revenue Agency. This separation, along with the unification of the Directorate General of Budget into Bappenas, is right. Hopefully it will be truly implemented.
However, one must be careful to do the same thing with other ministries/agencies and to establish new ones. Why? One, restructuring, let alone establishing new ministries/agencies, takes time before it can operate fully.
Remember, the formation of the Peat Restoration Agency, the National Research and Innovation Agency, the IKN Authority, and others? Matters of organizational structure and governance, salaries, and work rules, all of which cannot be done instantly.
Two, a “fat” cabinet is not easy to coordinate and has low efficiency. As a result, it is risky to not be able to run fast. In this condition, bureaucratic reform is a must. The focus of bureaucratic reform is to create a world-class bureaucracy, not a second-class one. It is no secret that the nation’s best talents do not work for the state. They choose business or become entrepreneurs. The reason: income and awards.
Prabowo needs to involve the Corruption Eradication Committee (KPK) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) together with the presidential institution in planning, supervising implementation, and evaluating development achievements.
Therefore, the key is the willingness to value bureaucratic human resources fairly and adequately. Prabowo did promise an increase in ASN salaries. However, that is not fundamental. There should be reform of ASN governance. The point is, recruitment and career development based on competence, decent salary—should not be lower than private employees for equivalent qualifications—and single (single and decent salary system), fair, based on performance.
Third, governance of development supervision and control. Astacita is ambitious. Whether it can be realized or not depends not only on planning and implementation, but also on how the President’s priorities are supervised and controlled. This is because the challenges of cross-K/L coordination are increasingly large. While they work in compartments in their respective sectors, especially in a large cabinet.
There must be an institution that bridges and coordinates the cabinet that cannot be handled by the coordinating minister. This could be like the Secretary for Development Operational Control (Sesdalopbang) during the Soeharto era, the Presidential Working Unit for Development Supervision and Control (UKP4) during the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono era, the Presidential Staff Office during the Jokowi era, or it could be handled by the “new” version of Bappenas—the National Development Planning and Control Agency—which is attached to the President.
After, or rather while, fixing these three governance agendas, state capacity needs to be built and improved. How?
Building state capacity
I define state capacity as the government’s ability to realize development through five things: regulation, institutions, accountability, planning, and implementation. The problems of government performance—marked by rampant waste of resources and widespread corruption—open our eyes that our state capacity is worrying.
I propose five agendas to strengthen state capacity. First, the capacity to prepare regulations. Bureaucracy cannot function without regulations, so that policies (whatever the government decides to do or not do) can be realized.
Simple, firm, clear, and non-overlapping regulations are needed so that the bureaucracy works effectively, efficiently, and cleanly, from the center to the regions. Prabowo needs to comb through (evaluate, revise, if necessary delete before making new ones) all the rules to ensure that all optimally provide direction and corridors for bureaucratic work.
Second, the ability to organize the institutional framework. Prabowo’s main challenge with his large cabinet is coordination and efficiency. No single aspect of development, including all of Astacita’s promises, stands alone. Free lunch, for example, is not just the responsibility of the Nutrition Agency.
He also has portfolios of ministries of health, education, SMEs-cooperatives, and others. In addition to ensuring that the cabinet can run fast, it is important to appoint the highest person responsible for implementing government priorities. The many newly formed and reorganized K/Ls require clarity and effectiveness in institutional handling of national priorities so that the bureaucracy is efficient and optimal.
Third, the capacity to create accountability mechanisms. Corruption occurs because of the absence of accountability. Therefore, all government work must be accounted for. Success or failure to achieve development targets is an indication of accountability and the seriousness of the government in working.
Prabowo needs to involve the KPK and BPKP together with the presidential institution in planning, supervising implementation, and evaluating development achievements. This is important to ensure that resources are not corrupted and the government does not work half-heartedly.
Fourth, the ability to make plans and policies. The preparation of plans and policies requires three things. One, the use of data and evidence. Knowledge must be integrated into planning and policy: data and evidence must be considered and referenced (evidence-based policy).
The success of the government and its leadership will be judged by its ability to fulfill its political promises to improve the welfare of the people and improve government performance.
Two, inclusive public participation to ensure that civil society and non-governmental actors’ perspectives are taken into account in planning and policy. Three, better quality planners and policymakers, trained and exposed to intellectual traditions to enable better debate and discussion.
Don’t let the government be seen as unwilling to use data and evidence, or even criticized as anti-science. The goal is to make planning and policies more qualified, and their unintended consequences can be anticipated.
Finally, the state’s ability to implement. In the field which is always prone to abuse, implementation requires discipline and strictness: who does what, when, where, and how. Likewise, supervision, evaluation, and correction. Government services must reach the people who need them.
There is a fundamental difference between “firm” and “hard” implementation. Upstream, firmness is needed so that people follow the rules without having to be harsh, let alone rude. Downstream, the government must also be disciplined in itself and its apparatus: ensuring that services are received by citizens easily, cheaply, and quickly—free from bribes, extortion, and corruption.
Shaping the future
Prabowo does not have much time. Therefore, he must have determination and intention. The success of his government and leadership will be judged by his ability to fulfill his political promises to improve the welfare of the people and improve government performance.
He has the opportunity to shape the future of the country by ensuring prosperity, stability and justice for all through meaningful development reforms, improved governance and strengthening state capacity.
