A

mong the milestones marking President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration over the last three years, perhaps bureaucratic downsizing and efficiency have received the least public scrutiny.

Yet, bureaucratic reform in slimming down the supposedly bloated bureaucracy and making efficient use of resources has been the main thrust of this administration.

Up to the third year of the current administration, the government had dissolved 23 non-structural state institutions — and with more to follow.

The Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry claims this move has saved about Rp 25 trillion (US$1.85 billion) in the state budget.

Dissolving a number of non-structural state institutions has indeed slimmed down the bureaucracy, forcing efficient use of resources. This is, without a doubt, a deservedly lauded move.

However, it would be best if this measure could be justified on the conditions that, first, the non-structural institutions fell short of the expectations stipulated for their very existence, and, second, the goals and targets to be achieved by the institutions had been met, thereby obviating the need to retain them.

Basically, a non-structural state institution is founded following an in-depth and comprehensive study of problematic situations facing the government — normally, a state ministry or institution. Generally, this problematic situation poses a unique and persistent challenge for which any satisfactory solution lies beyond the government organization’s range of competence or resources.
___________________

The Commission’s role does not overlap with those of any government ministry, but complements them.

In the Indonesian context, problematic situations of this sort, for the most part, revolve around either efforts that call for an effective and sustainable cross-sectoral coordination for certain development issues, which cannot be dealt with in isolation or the need for engaging a think tank to come up with alternative courses of action or breakthrough solutions, which normally fall beyond the purview of any single government
organization.

Once the problematic situations have been dealt with satisfactorily, any non-structural institution assigned to tackle those situations could be dissolved, simply because the goal has been achieved.

Another compelling reason for the dissolution of such an ad-hoc organization is that it has failed to serve its purpose — although an institutional reform or shakeup could also be an alternative to dissolution.

Dissolving any non-structural state institution based on these two conditions is a logical consequence and should be upheld by all of us as it helps prevent inefficient use of resources, which could be diverted for other more productive purposes.

Thus a non-structural state institution in Indonesia should be justified by the degree of positive contribution it makes to the goals it is supposed to achieve.

Whether the contributions of a non-structural institution to the cause it serves measure up to the expectations should be the sole benchmark to maintain or dissolve that organization. This is the most underlying question that should be addressed by the government in its ongoing effort to pursue bureaucratic and budgetary efficiency.

In its overzealous attempt to pursue a more efficient and lean bureaucracy, the government may get trapped in oversimplification of the problems faced, leading to an unnecessary backlash.

Some non-structural institutions could be tarred with the same brush, as unnecessary appendages to be gotten rid of, without taking into account their varying degrees of usefulness and relevance. Disadvantages of an organization’s dissolution may outweigh the benefits it is supposed to bring about.

The dissolution of the National AIDS Commission by the government by the end of 2017 could be a case in point.

By any standards, this is an organization whose role has been very instrumental in helping the government prevent and control the prevalence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in Indonesia.

The AIDS Commission’s role has been unique as it has filled the niche that could not be covered satisfactorily by formal government institutions. This primarily has to do with its advocacy role, which involves a socio-politically sensitive area with social stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS, as well as rife conflicting perceptions.

This area remains as sensitive as it was in the past, and represents the most challenging and tricky situation in HIV and AIDS prevention and control. In this sense, the Commission’s role does not overlap with those of any government ministry, but complements them in such as a way that it facilitates and creates an enabling environment for government programs in dealing with HIV and AIDS to take root and develop.

Ultimately, its dissolution should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers that despite their best intentions things can go wrong, particularly when they apply a blanket approach to a variety of things that should be judged individually on their own merit.
_____________________________________

The writer is coordinator at the National AIDS Commission. The views expressed are his own.