An Effective Government

Kompas/Handining

.

The term “pemerintah” is the Indonesian translation for ”government”. The terms both mean “a system to execute authority and power to manage the social, economic and political life of a country by people – individuals or groups – who assume limited responsibility to use this power".

Despite being the same, the two terms have different connotations. The term "pemerintah" implies "the command of the ruler", commonly experienced by the children of colonized territories. When such “children” rise to public office thanks to independence, they have a tendency to continue the practice of colonizing rulers, that is, by giving commands. Not the other way around: by facilitating, by simplifying. Public affairs are made complicated. Processing an ID card, for example, which can actually be done in half an hour, is delayed weeks, even months. He shows off his power and governs from behind his desk. He becomes a bureaucrat of the colonial imagination.

Meanwhile, the term "government" implies "managing public welfare". This reminds those in power to protect the people. Those who hold power are, at the same time, both a servant of the people and a servant of the state. Holding public office is not a profession, but a calling.

However, a very critical question first needs answering. Who is really governing?

Yes, the president of the republic, ministers and the administration, under the supervision of the legislature. That is the constitutional pretension.

"Monopolists and conglomerates," say the masses and marhaenis (low-income people). "Technocrats," says a progress report. "The bourgeois elite that push for their interests through businesses and bureaucracy," says a labor union. "The nationalists," whisper a religious group decked out in green and white. "The military and police," says the workers’ group dressed in red at a May 1 rally.

Each opinion is based on arguments that are not all nonsense, nor without thought. According to their beliefs and conclusions– sociologists in their analyses of the dominant class, political experts in their decision-making studies, economists in their descriptions of market mechanisms, and more concisely but perhaps more concretely, journalists in their comments on public society– there are those who justify their explanations, along with those who doubt their accuracy. This means there is no thesis that is truly satisfying and convincing.

If so, this can possibly be summed up into two implications. First, that it is not possible to establish precisely the locus of the current rulers of our country – which at least applies to other countries as well. Second, that the official thesis and belief –the head of state leads the country with the support of ministers and the legislature to effectively oversee government policies – is doubtful, even questionable.

Death of government

The government is needed to guarantee peace and order in the lives of the people, the nation, and the state. Andas Montesquieu, the initiator of the Trias Politika concept, said, “Gouverner, c’est  prevoir”– to govern is to foresee. This means that the government should be able to tell its people what they have not yet realized, and then make choices. However, in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) today, can the government foresee whether it will be able to "choose" its policies freely?

In the state administration’ sactions thus far, the necessary freedom appears to be nonexistent. Geometrically cornered by national contraction, by the opposing pressures of risk and compulsion – not including those from outside – the government no longer has the power to choose, let alone foresee. It no longer initiates. It is forced to be satisfied with what it is, no longer possessing the capacity to choose all that is essential. It is forced to experience, and if it still has power, it simply reacts.

Therefore, as an answer to "who governs", we tend to answer: Nothing, nobody, a fatality.

This cynical answer does not constitute a criticism of the statesmen who are in power in Indonesia, because the opposition, which may later have its chance to control the government’s locus, will not be able to avoid the same fatal trap once they are in power. Simply for amusement, nearly all countries on the surface of the earth today face similar problems. The state, statesmen and politicians no longer have the capacity of foresight. They can only choose what is not needed, and not what is essential. The government is forced into blindness, and it no longer has the ability to choose as Montesquieu said. Then, what is the benefit of having a government?

KOMPAS/ARBAIN RAMBEY

Daoed Joesoef

The 1945 Constitution mandates that the NKRI apply a presidential system, a republican government whose head of state directly leads a cabinet. For 72 years of independence, the groups of citizens who have felt called upon to steer the nation’s boat have cheated, especially during the reform era.

Now, let us apply consequently and – of course –properly, the governmental system that was mandated by the nation’ founders s. Especially today, when the president and vice president are the results of being chosen directly by the people, who are said to be the true owners of the republic. Isn\'t vox populi vox Dei?

Under a presidential system, the president is head of state and head of government at the same time. It means he has the authority to carry out anything that the legislature determines to be the duties of the president, such as preparing broad options and making significant decisions, and anything else that the legislature deems the duties of the head of state –that is, managing common goodness and virtue. Therefore, give their freedom to the president and vice president, who have been chosen to select their competent assistants from among the political parties or without, and who have the opportunity to hold their positions for a five-year period with the possibility of being reelected– but not without limits, thanks to revisions in the reform era.

The presidential system does not dwarf the duties and quality of the people\'s legislative representatives in supervising the government’s performance and policies. The legislature still has the authority and duties in legislation and in planning the State Budget. What the people\'s representatives are doing is "supervising", not "obstructing" or let alone "attacking", as has been happening lately upon various artificial excuses.

As soon as the new government (cabinet) is formed, members of the House of Representatives (DPR) from political parties whose members were not chosen as cabinet ministers immediately call for a coalition, the main objective of which is to work together to confound the government’s achievements. It means they prevent the people from enjoying the goodness and virtues of the government’s policies.

Death of politics

Therefore, under the pretext of protecting the people from the abuse of power, they are prejudiced against the government. The behavior of an elected president that makes relevant and crucial decisions, for example, cannot be equated with a dictatorship, as was so cynically leveled against him by a leader of a political party that used to be in power. The president has to be free in making decisions, because he has been placed in the power locus to be bold enough to do so. Not making any necessary decision is also a decision, and one of the worst. Wasn\'t this the frequent conduct of the political figure who revealed his dictatorial nature when he had the chance to become president? It was he and he alone who dodged the undoubted duties of the presidency.

In general, our people have been mature and increasingly critical in politics. If it turns out the president that they chose directly is unable to bring about goodness and virtue, does not meet the promises they declared during their campaign, he will surely not be reelected. And, don\'t forget that they, the people, the marhaen, are very observant in monitoring the actions of party members, including those in the DPR who frequently play truant. It is clearer that they are no longer driven by "ideology", but by "opinion", which can change from day to day. It is becoming clear that the public office of "representing the people" is simply a source of living.

Sometimes we are startled to see how party figures that are so fundamentally different in their ideologies can cooperate in forming a coalition, simply to obstruct the government. Their intellect no longer controls their destructive aspirations. If this habit continues, it can be fatal. Doesn\'t sidelining ideology mean the death of politics?

Indeed, a presidential government is not a political panacea, but it is reasonable enough. It is technically effective and is justified constitutionally. Its politics remains to democratic. It has the potential to foresee and, in conjunction with this, to make choices. In short, a presidential government has the maneuverability to steer the state boat as it sails between Scylla and Charybdis.

DAOED JOESOEF

Alumnus of Universite Pluridisciplinaires Pantheon-Sorbonne