Reform And Bureaucracy

REFORM AND BUREAUCRACY A. Introduction Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia has been underway since 1998. In the implementation of the first stage of reform, reform in the bureaucratic sector did not progress compared to the implementation of reform in the political, economic and legal fields. Therefore, in 2004 the government reaffirmed the importance of implementing bureaucratic reform in order to realize good governance. In 2010, after conducting an evaluation regarding the implementation of the first wave of bureaucratic reform, the government issued the Grand Design for Bureaucratic Reform 2010-2025 through Presidential Regulation Number 81 of 2010 concerning Grand Design for Bureaucratic Reform 2010-2025 as the main platform for implementing bureaucratic reform in Indonesia. Then the grand design for bureaucratic reform was operationalized by the Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform through the Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform Regulation Number 20 of 2010 concerning Road Map for Bureaucratic Reform 2010-2014. Bureaucratic reform is a policy created to change or make improvements in government bureaucracy. The changes or improvements that want to be made include the structure and processes in the delivery of public services, as well as changes to the mindset and culture of the employee set. Bureaucratic reform is intended as a renewal process through transforming the bureaucratic system or order in a more efficient and professional direction (Rakhmat, 2009). Apart from that, bureaucratic reform also aims to improve government bureaucratic administrative procedures, improve the use of state finances and accountability for the performance of government agencies. The legal basis for implementing this bureaucratic reform policy is contained in Presidential Regulation No. 81 of 2010 concerning the Grand Design of Bureaucratic Reform 2010-2025. The explanation is stated in Permenpan & RB No. 20 of 2010 and Permenpan & RB No. 11 of 2015 concerning the road map for Bureaucratic Reform. The reflection of the implementation of bureaucratic reform so far has not had a significant impact on the changes and improvements that have occurred in government agencies. An indication that the implementation of bureaucratic reform has not been optimal can be seen from the still high level of corruption among government officials. Public services are still not optimal and the performance of government officials is not in line with the expectations of the wider community. In order to implement the bureaucratic reform that is currently underway, and aims to provide better services to the community, it is necessary to have a process of accountability and transparency in bureaucratic activities, both at the regional level and at the center. This accountability aims to account for the success or failure of planned programs and activities. Accountability is a measure or means of proving to the public whether bureaucratic activities or services carried out by the government are in accordance with the community's expectations or not, apart from that, accountability will also be able to see whether the services provided have accommodated the needs of the people collectively or not. Accountability is the most important element and is the main challenge facing the government. Apart from that, accountability is also closely related to the attitude and spirit of accountability of government institutions. Philosophical accountability arises from the existence of power in the form of a mandate/trust given to a person or certain party to carry out their duties in order to achieve a certain goal using existing supporting facilities. B. Bureaucratic Reform Policy Bureaucratic reform policies in all elements of government, both central government and regional government, provide significant opportunities to improve and develop better and better quality state apparatus. Improving the quality of apparatus is not only vertical, but the horizontal aspect is also part of developing apparatus resources. Bureaucratic reform has now experienced a lot of improvement. 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. In particular, recruitment of apparatus resources is carried out in a professional and accountable manner, so that it has good implications for improving the quality of the apparatus within it. Ideally, according to Islamy (1997), quoted by Triyono, et al. (2003) that bureaucratic reform at the conceptual level is directed at accommodating the basic characteristics of bureaucracy, namely: 1. The bureaucracy must prioritize a task approach that is directed at providing protection and service to the community and can avoid the impression of a power and authority approach. The approach developed should be more about aspects of professionalism and proportionality as an effort to improve the quality of service to the community. 2. The bureaucracy needs to make organizational improvements that are characterized by a modern, lean, effective and efficient organization that is able to differentiate between tasks that need to be handled, including dividing tasks that can be handed over to the community. Modern organizations as a characteristic of improving bureaucracy have become an important part of government administration. 3. The bureaucracy must be able and willing to make changes to its work systems and procedures that are more oriented towards the characteristics of modern organizations, namely fast, precise, accurate, open service while maintaining quality, efficiency, cost and timeliness. Changes to implementation with significant changes in the instruments used, media used, and existing performance competencies. So that the goal of bureaucratic reform towards good governance can be achieved which is oriented towards the quality of public services felt by the community. 4. The bureaucracy must position itself as a facilitator of public services rather than as an agent of development reform. Currently, bureaucracy is not oriented towards bureaucrats, but rather towards public services provided to the community. Bureaucratic development is no longer a development agent in the bureaucratic system, nor is it asking to be served by the community, but is more about being a service provider and providing the best possible service to the community. 5. The bureaucracy must be able and willing to transform itself from a bureaucracy whose performance is rigid to become a bureaucratic organization whose structure is more decentralized, innovative, flexible and responsive. In implementing bureaucratic reform, regulations are an advantage that must be followed by all stakeholders. But in other aspects, the bureaucracy is always flexible to adapt to community needs and conditions. Bureaucracy must be able to create new innovations with built creativity. Through creativity and existing innovations, it is hoped that the bureaucracy will improve and be of better quality, so that changes towards better government administration are in line with community expectations and make the government order better. C. Bureaucratic Reform Strategy The implementation of administrative reform, especially bureaucratic reform, does not always run smoothly, it is full of challenges, as stated by Cepiku and Mititelu (2010: 63) in the Journal of the Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences No. 3E, that bureaucratic reform in Transition Countries (such as Albania and Romania) requires a very mature agenda, because it was previously not prioritized and was not clearly defined in terms of effective implementation, even though it refers to a strong desire. For this reason, it is necessary to choose and develop the right strategy in an effort to make bureaucratic reform a success to realize effective governance in the government, as said by Hanh Been Lee (1970: 13) that strategy is a variable used to change bureaucratic reform which includes the type, scope and speed . A bureaucratic reform strategy is needed, because change agents are weak, the internal structure of institutions is not intended for major changes and the scope and pace of reform must be compromised. To move towards implementing bureaucratic reform, two strategies are offered, namely Comprehensive Strategy and Incremental Strategy (Lee, 1970: 1416). Comprehensive Strategy is a method or pattern used by a central managerial agency to control several areas such as personnel, budget and organization. In implementing this strategy, political support from the authorities is needed, while the legislature and political parties rarely provide adequate support (Samonte and Khosla in Lee, 1970: 14). The political commitment of the authorities is needed, considering that all plans for bureaucratic reform that will be carried out are made and must be known to the authorities, so that the desired goals can be achieved. As the results of research in several regions, it was found that one of the factors supporting the success of bureaucratic reform in regions is the commitment and political will of regional heads (Prasojo, Maksum and Kurniawan, 2006: 175-176). Incremental Strategy is an approach that views bureaucratic reform in stages and as a sequential chain, because reform is considered a process. This approach prioritizes training that not only involves staff from reform agencies, but also people from other relevant agencies. Each strategy has advantages and limitations. The advantage of Incremental Strategy is that it can build trust among reform agents. Meanwhile, the limitation is that the approach is gradual, so it will require a longer process. The advantage of Comprehensive Strategy is that the changes will be comprehensive and require a relatively shorter time than incremental. Its limitations require more attention from both the government and related institutions/agencies. Dror (Leemans, 1976: 129-130) put forward six clusters of bureaucratic reform strategies that are more concrete on reform issues. In general, Dror's contribution to the bureaucratic reform strategy concerns the need for quality human resources, separating the influence of political power on the bureaucracy and fundamental system changes, namely decentralization. Dror's six thoughts regarding administrative reform strategies, namely: 1. Produce administrative efficiency, which can be measured from the aspect of saving money, for example through simplifying procedures, changing procedures, reducing duplication of processes and the same approach in organization and methods. 2. Reducing practices that weaken bureaucratic reform (such as corruption, collusion, etc.). 3. Changing the main components of the administration system to produce ideal conditions, for example implementing a merit system in personnel, implementing a program-based budget system, building a data bank and so on. 4. Adjusting the administrative system to anticipate the effects of social change due to modernization or war. 5. Clearly divide employees in the administrative system and the political system, for example breaking down the power of bureaucrats or government officials at senior levels, so that they are more compliant with the political process. 6. Changing the relationship between the administrative system and all or part of the components of society, for example through decentralization, democratization and participation strategies. The method for implementing bureaucratic reform is carried out in four ways, namely: 1. Preemptive, namely predicting the possibility of bureaucratic practices that are considered inefficient, ineffective, causing long processes, opening up opportunities for KKN and others and taking anticipatory steps. 2. Persuasive, namely carrying out various bureaucratic reform efforts such as through outreach, public campaigns, internalization to build individual awareness and commitment. 3. Preventive, namely preventing the possibility of bureaucratic practices that are considered inefficient, ineffective, causing long processes, opening up opportunities for KKN, and others. Through changes in mind set, culture set. 4. Actions/sanctions, namely implementing sanctions or punishment for those who do not perform in implementing bureaucratic reform.