T

ension between State-Owned Enterprises Minister Dahlan Iskan and House of Representatives lawmakers over rent-seeking politicians has yet to subside, but Cabinet Secretary Dipo Alam has started a fire that exacerbates disharmony between the two power branches.

As if to confirm Dahlan’s drive against corrupt politicians, Dipo filed reports of alleged graft and mark-ups within three ministries that involved several politicians with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Dipo also accused special staff of Cabinet ministers’ who come from political parties of playing the powerful “mafia” role in determining tender winners of various projects.

Dipo’s maneuver carries some strategic objectives.

First, as one of the non-partisan Cabinet ministers, the move is expected to deal political parties a blow that could ultimately reduce their credibility within the Cabinet. Within the ministries led by politicians, civil servants usually become “second-class citizens” who have to serve the interests of “first class citizens” who comprise special staff and aides loyal to the ministers.

Because of their proximity to the ministers, the special staff are usually more powerful than structural bureaucrats. They can arrange or even rig procurement processes, intervene career officials and determine promotion and rotation.

Highlighting complaints from civil servants, Dipo was seizing momentum to lift the bureaucrats’ bargaining power vis-à-vis the “political brokers” within the bureaucracy.

Second, apart from his attempt to restore the bureaucracy’s image, Dipo seems to strive to encourage bureaucratic elements who want to disclose the corrupt practices by offering them protection from backlash attempted by political elements both inside and outside of the ministries. Despite the reform, whistleblowers within the bureaucracy remain unprotected and are offered rewards, but will collectively be attacked by the corrupt elites and peers.

Third, Dipo’s move is a blatant show of political support for Dahlan’s fight against rent-seeking politicians who hijack the bureaucracy, ministries or state enterprises as their cash cows. Their initiatives seem to reinforce the suggestion that uncontrolled political parties’ intervention with the bureaucracy has led to internal decay that is detrimental for the future of government.

On the other hand, Dipo’s move reconfirms public perception that internal monitoring within the ministries does not run well. Supervision performed by the Inspectorate General in every ministry is merely a camouflage, if not a rubber stamp, of ministerial policies.

To some extent, Dipo deserves appreciation for promoting the spirit of accountability and transparency within the government. His decision to file reports on alleged corrupt practices within three ministries, however, clearly shows inter-ministerial confrontation within President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Cabinet.

Ideally, the Cabinet members should work in concert, synergy and harmony. They should have complemented each other in the fight against corruption. Had they worked in tandem, the ministers would have managed to set up a comprehensive road map to address graft within the government. But what Dipo did is evidence of the mutual distrust among the Cabinet members.

The Cabinet obviously lacks internal coordination mechanism. The situation is exacerbated by limited communication among the ministers and their desire to create political sensation ahead of the 2014 elections and silent rivalry.

Although the three ministers whose offices implicated by Dipo have said they would not block the move or any possible KPK investigations, the “cold war” could be easily sensed. Dipo is deemed to have overstepped their “territories”.

More importantly, the lack of coordination among the ministers speaks volume of the President’s inability to discipline his aides. Using simple mapping, the Cabinet can be split into three major elements. The first consists of non-partisan ministers who are completely loyal to the President, the second gathers politicians from Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party who are definitely loyal to the President and the third comprises partisan ministers who maintain their loyalty to their respective political parties.

Ministers who belong to the third group are beyond the President’s control. They are protected by their political parties and their representatives at the House. Despite their pledge to support the government, the political parties do not allow the President to control them through a permanent coalition.

However, the partisan ministers must report to the President according to the Constitution. The President’s silence amid the competition between his ministers as in the Dipo case is therefore a matter of weak leadership.

But, there is also speculation that Dipo was executing the President’s hidden agenda to discipline ministers. Through Dipo, the President hopes to send a message of counterattack to both coalition members and opposition bloc that are aggressively attacking the Democratic Party’s ministers and politicians for their alleged role in some high-profile corruption cases.

If that’s the case, Dipo’s move was just a politically motivated maneuver aimed at seeking political compromises rather than addressing the deep-rooted corruption plaguing the power branches. The goal of the action is to score political points, shoot down political rivals, consolidate power and maintain allegiances among Cabinet members.

It is just beyond my imagination to think that a crucial initiative of a cabinet secretary was not consulted with the President in advance. In this sense, the President is actually testing the waters to see how political parties would react to Dipo’s action.

As a Javanese character of power and polity (Anderson, 1972), President Yudhoyono prefers “face-saving strategies” in lieu of confrontation by steering political developments from behind the scene.

If the President is committed to the fight against corruption, he would surely know what measures to use in order to strengthen zero tolerance in regards to corruption within his Cabinet, which could include the dismissal of ministers implicated in graft cases. Unfortunately, his unassertive leadership style has trapped the Cabinet in a state of coordination-less and unhealthy competition among ministers, inhibiting an effective government and the anticorruption drive.

The writer is a senior fellow at Paramadina public policy institute, Jakarta.