In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. —Ronald Reagan
In Autumn 1980, an election unfolded in the United States, a must-celebrated tradition where Americans proudly displayed their democratic values. The resulting inaugural speech remains relevant today across global political arenas, as if it were a prophetic statement. But why, as Indonesians, do we view the US as a know-how state for good governance, a post-Cold War hegemony, when even they acknowledge their government’s inability to consistently produce sound public policy?
The Concept of Society and Government
Sociologist Emile Durkheim taught that society is composed of individuals shaped by their social structures and fabrics. These individuals, inherently interdependent, must work together or individually to resolve various issues. Politics, built on the distinction between public and private spheres, begins with the question: How should we organize, regulate, and govern society?
This fundamental question is crucial in developing the concept of government, an invention of humanity that has grown more vital as society has evolved from hunting and gathering to modern communication and technology. The need for government becomes absolute in any society that agrees to coexist and maintain social order within a unified state framework.
The relationship between the governed and the governors is at the heart of any political system, with public policy playing a pivotal role in maintaining harmony between the two. Indonesia, through its 78 years as a sovereign state, has experimented with different governmental systems, striving to find the most suitable for its own model. Though it lags behind the US’s 248 years of development, this gap is not entirely a failure—especially considering how Singapore, which gained independence two decades after Indonesia, has achieved milestones that Indonesia still struggles to reach.
This raises a critical question: How has Reagan’s 1980s statement about government’s inefficacy become even more relevant to Indonesia today, where the government exists in name but lacks tangible impact?
Indonesia’s Government: Caught Between Public and Self-Interest
More than 25 years after the Reformasi of 1998, which aimed to eliminate corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN), Indonesia’s government still struggles to make meaningful progress in these areas. While Reformasi was driven by protests against Soeharto’s 32-year regime, today KKN extends from the elites to the grassroots level, permeating every layer of society. Bribery, from small “ceban” transactions to multi-trillion rupiah deals, dominates the political landscape. Judges’ gavels are drowned out by the sound of money, while most Indonesians struggle to meet basic needs. Meanwhile, new mining projects offer jobs but leave the environment in ruins.
Henry David Thoreau once argued that “the best government is that which governs least,” a popular aphorism among political science students. Yet the question remains: Best for whom? In theory, public interest should guide policy, but special interests often claim to represent the public while serving their own ends.
The policy process typically rationalizes public concerns with problem-solving possibilities in mind. This involves debates about whether a problem can be solved, what potential solutions exist, the costs involved, and whether the chosen solution will be wholly or partially effective. But in Indonesia, the question is whether these policies prioritize public interest over self-interest. Often, government regulators, like the rest of society, act in their own self-interest, even when those actions harm the greater good.
This issue is compounded by what Henry Miller described as the hands-off behavior of civil servants and political appointees, who are more focused on avoiding trouble than taking necessary but risky actions.
Meritocracy: An Essential Solution
The Indonesian government’s core task is to deliver public services and allocate resources for the welfare of its citizens, as mandated by the Constitution (UUD 1945). Despite the many challenges it faces, this task must be carried out effectively.
To address the vast array of issues the government handles, participants in the policy process must become specialists in their respective fields. This can only be achieved through the implementation of a meritocracy system. Meritocracy ensures that decisions are based on measurable performance indicators like skill, integrity, and consistency—rather than personal connections or political loyalty.
Such a system would allow government operations to be more effective, efficient, and innovative. As Indonesia dreams of achieving its “Golden Era” by 2045, government restructuring and reforms are crucial. Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, Indonesia’s path to its golden era depends on prioritizing these essential reforms.
