Implementation of Accountability in Indonesia

Implementation of the Accountability Concept in Indonesia The concept of accountability in Indonesia is not something new. Almost all government agencies and institutions emphasize this concept of accountability, especially in carrying out government administrative functions. This phenomenon is the impact of society's demands which began to be raised again at the beginning of the reform era in 1998. This society's demands arose because during the New Order the concept of accountability was not able to be applied consistently in every line of government which ultimately became one of the causes of weak bureaucracy and became trigger for the emergence of various irregularities in financial management and state administration in Indonesia. The reform era has given new hope in implementing accountability in Indonesia. Moreover, this condition is supported by the many demands from donor and grant-giving countries which are putting pressure on the Indonesian government to improve the bureaucratic system in order to realize good governance. UNDP emphasizes that the principles of good governance include participation, legal compliance, transparency, responsiveness, agreement orientation, equality, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability and strategic vision. It is clearly illustrated that accountability is an important aspect of good governance. Several developed countries in Europe such as Germany and England have implemented the concept of accountability in almost every aspect of government since the 1970s. England in the era of John Major and Toni Blair promoted accountability by compiling Output and Performance Analysis (OPA Guidance) or treasury guidelines for government departments/agencies and Guidelines on Annual Reports which contained instructions for compiling an agency's annual report to ministers, parliament and general public. Apart from that, the British government established the idea of Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability, the essence of which is that every decision should not only be oriented towards how much expenditure and/or absorption of funds for each area, but also regarding increasing the services provided and making improvements. . In contrast to England, Germany, as a country in the form of a federation, stipulates that central involvement in the activities of each minister is limited to personnel issues, information technology and financial matters. From this pattern of government, the government according to its level formally has accountability (public accountability) to parliament at each level of government (federal, state and local). Likewise, by enjoying a high level of operational independence, a minister can freely carry out his activities, and thus the concept and principles of accountability can be implemented comprehensively. In Indonesia, socialization of the concept of accountability in the form of Government Agency Performance Accountability (AKIP) has been carried out in 41 Departments/LPND. At the Echelon I work unit level, it is carried out based on requests from the work unit concerned, therefore the achievements and coverage are still relatively low. With the commitment of three parties, namely the State Administration Agency (LAN), the State Secretariat, and BPKP, the government is starting to show its attention to implementing this accountability. This is clearly seen with the issuance of Presidential Instruction no. 7 of 1999 concerning Accountability for the Performance of Government Agencies. This Presidential Instruction instructs that at the end of every year all government agencies (from echelon II and above) are required to publish a Performance Accountability Report (LAK). With LAK, all government agencies can convey their accountability in concrete form towards achieving the organization's vision and mission. The development of state administration in Indonesia shows serious efforts to produce a government that is oriented towards fulfilling the mandate of the entire community. Law Number 28 of 1998 concerning the Administration of a State that is Clean and Free of KKN outlines the principle of accountability in state administration and government management. This suggests that in order to create a government that is responsive, free from corruption and corruption, accountability conditions are sufficient conditions or conditions that must exist. Another manifestation of the implementation of accountability in Indonesia is the enactment of Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances, especially in article 14 paragraph (2), which states that government agencies are required to prepare work plans and budgets based on the work performance they will achieve. Thus, there is a close relationship between the government budget (APBN and APBD) and the performance that will be achieved based on strategic planning. However, the implementation of the concept of accountability in Indonesia is not without obstacles. Some of the obstacles that become obstacles in implementing the concept of accountability in Indonesia include; low employee welfare standards which trigger employees to commit deviations in order to meet their needs by violating the principle of accountability, cultural factors such as the habit of prioritizing the interests of family and relatives over services to the community, and a weak legal system which results in a lack of support for punishment factors if at any time deviations occur, especially in finance and administration. Basically, all of these obstacles can be solved if the government and all its components have the same understanding of the importance of implementing accountability in addition to the moral hazard factor of individual implementers to carry out governance in a trustworthy manner. Conclusion The ongoing bureaucratic reform in Indonesia has experienced many improvements. In terms of quantity, all government agencies have implemented bureaucratic reform with various indicators applied in implementation. In terms of quality, changes have also begun to appear in several government agencies. For example, apparatus resources have focused on aspects of competence and quality in government administration. Apart from that, recruitment of apparatus resources has also been carried out in a professional and accountable manner, thus providing good implications for improving the quality of government apparatus. Implementing bureaucratic reform in a country is not an easy thing. There must be a strategy that is implemented so that the desired reforms can run in accordance with the reform objectives. There are two strategies that can be used, namely comprehensive strategy and incremental strategy. These two strategies have their respective advantages and disadvantages depending on the government's role in implementing these strategies. In principle, the implementation of accountability in Indonesia has been carried out in stages within the government environment. Support for regulations that are directly related to the need to implement accountability in every government agency shows the government's seriousness in efforts to reform the bureaucracy. However, there are still several obstacles in implementing accountability such as; employee welfare is still low, cultural factors, and weak implementation of law in Indonesia.