Technical-political Mentality

KOMPAS/WISNU WIDIANTORO

Ignas Kleden

It is public knowledge that a cabinet minister is appointed to lead a technical ministry.

This means that a minister of transportation or finance is supposed to have knowledge and expertise on related technical matters at the ministry. However, a ministerial is a political appointment and not just a technical one. The reason is that a ministerial appointment is not a kind of promotion in one\'s career in the bureaucracy. A minister is a political appointee; a ministerial position is not achieved through an election or on a career path, but by the appointment and endorsement of the president, who gives him assignments and political responsibilities.

After the Constitutional Court formally declared the victory of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin, discussions emerge on the composition of Jokowi\'s next cabinet. Should the majority of ministers be professionals competent in their respective fields of expertise, or should larger consideration be made for the politicians put forth by political parties, especially political parties that supported Jokowi’s presidential campaign? This kind of discussion appears to start with the assumption that the technical-political character of the cabinet and the government depends on the mix of professionals – even technocrats – on the one hand and politicians on the other.

Technical-political awareness

What has more influence for the success of the cabinet and the government is not a combination of people, but a combination of mentalities and mindsets that forms technical-political awareness with two equally important sides: the awareness that each political policy needs to be implemented technically so they are manifested as action with results that can be enjoyed by the greater public; second, the awareness that each technical implementation needs to be considered in terms of its political requirements and consequences so the action is justified politically. What Jokowi has done in the first term of his administration can illustrate this.

The program to equalize the price of basic needs, for example, has reduced the price gap between the center and the regions. In Merauke, Indonesia\'s easternmost city, the average price of Premium gasoline is now the same as in Jakarta at Rp 6,000 per liter. The price has doubled only in inland regions. Before price equalization was introduced, Premium gasoline in Merauke cost Rp 25,000 on average and could increase to tens of thousands of rupiah per liter. In inland regions, the gasoline was several times more expensive. Before price equalization was introduced, cement cost Rp 45,000 per sack in Java and Rp 1 million to Rp 1.5 million per sack in Papua. After the price equalization, cement cost Rp 58,000 in Java, around Rp 60,000 in Jayapura and Rp 75,000 in inland regions. This also applied to other basic needs, such as rice and other basic commodities.

The price equalization applied to basic necessities is clearly a policy that allows the equitable distribution of social welfare, even though absolute equalization in a market economy is impossible. The problem is whether unequal welfare can be reduced as much as possible so as to prevent injustice. The asymmetry is seen here: inequality is not always an injustice because, for example, different geographical conditions can incur added costs, but equity (insofar as it is not implemented through coercion as it is in a non-democratic system, but through technically possible means) can ensure the realization of social justice, which is a direct mandate of Pancasila as the foundational philosophy of our state.

The Jokowi administration\'s efforts to minimize inequality through introducing price equalization for basic necessities are a concrete step in establishing relative equality of welfare, thereby adhering to the requirements of our state ideology of social justice for all Indonesians.

This is especially so considering infrastructure development’s enormous budgetary costs.

The same thing can be said for the infrastructure programs: the Trans-Kalimantan, Trans-Sumatra and Trans-Papua highways planned for completion by 2020, the dam construction in Timor and the airport and new seaport developments in several locations could be criticized as an overly ambitious government plan that could result in the neglect of their technical supervision during implementation due to the pursuit of project completion. This is especially so considering infrastructure development’s enormous budgetary costs.

However, in considering all criticisms seriously, one thing can still be justified and maintained: that infrastructure development, which facilitates the connection of various locations in various regions that was formerly difficult to achieve, is a political decision to achieve national unity. This is done through not just political slogans, but by creating better physical and social facilities for unity. National unity is a mandate of Pancasila. Jokowi has fulfilled the mandate through the technical development of infrastructure that facilitates mobility and connectivity among regions throughout the country.

Jokowi\'s policy to sink illegal foreign fishing vessels in Indonesian waters has been criticized as uneconomical, because these vessels could be resold cheaply to local fishermen. This criticism can be rejected because it does not consider the policy’s political vision and intent. Its political intent is to uphold the political sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia over its jurisdictional territories as determined by law. The state must safeguard its jurisdiction over sovereign territory with clearly defined boundaries, because territory is a condition for a state to exist, and for it to achieve the recognition of other countries. These territories should also be Lebensraum, a place where the nation’s citizens can earn a living to support themselves and their families.

Sinking foreign ships fishing illegally in Indonesian waters is a political action that upholds and demonstrates the territorial sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, which other countries must respect. It is not intended to seize ships for reselling cheaply to the fishermen who need them.

Conversely, a government can implement its visions and policies technically, but fail to explain them adequately in terms of their intended political purpose.

These three examples show that reviewing the political relevance of policies and their technical implementation reveals the appreciation for and criticism of the government – whether central, provincial or regional. A government can have good and perhaps attractive political visions and policies, but the test is whether it succeeds or fails in implementing them technically. Conversely, a government can implement its visions and policies technically, but fail to explain them adequately in terms of their intended political purpose.

With respect to this, I believe that the Jokowi administration has carried out many useful technical implementations, but these need to be strengthened by providing an explanation as to their political significance, especially as regards whether and to what extent the technical implementation of these policies fulfill the mandate of Pancasila as the foundational philosophy of our state.

Done well, this is an effective way to illustrate to the public how practically and politically Pancasila is manifested through the development programs. This is also a useful and effective method for familiarizing Pancasila to the public and actualizing the foundational state philosophy. The government plays a very instrumental role in introducing Pancasila indirectly by demonstrating the relationship between a policy’s political purpose and technical realization to revitalize Pancasila in a non-doctrinal manner, but methodically, technically and empirically.

On the other hand, the same method can be used to levy political criticism by showing whether a policy’s political purpose and technical implementation correlate in a way that justifies Pancasila’s mandate through political praxis. A more common example, especially pertaining to political contests, is a candidate’s presentation of their vision and policy programs through formulations that are rhetorically interesting, but are unclear and avoid mention of their design for technical implementation. These shortcomings have tried to be filled by providing auxiliary statements – additional statements that could provide the political rationale, but still do not provide the technical implications of their implementation. It could be that a statement that rejects reclamation is replaced by stopping reclamation.

Logically, stopping means refusing to continue. However, this reformulation raises two new issues. First, stopping means that the reclamation has already been carried out and that this is what will not be continued. The question is, why was the reclamation carried out? One compromise is to utilize a structure that already stands in a reclaimed area for the greatest benefit of the people, and building permits can be granted for this purpose. However, in this compromise, why should not the reclamation continue, as long as there are regulations that stipulate that the use of all buildings and facilities on the reclaimed land must be for the greatest benefit to the people, and not just to increase the capital of the entrepreneurs involved in the reclamation?

Second, an ethical problem arises if the reclamation project is stopped, since the structures already built on the reclaimed land might be used legally to provide the greatest benefit to the people. This presents both legal and moral issues. If an action is legally prohibited, but the prohibited action has brought about useful results, such as the results of the illicit gains or stolen goods, can the results of the prohibited action be used legally for the benefit of the many?

Corruption is indeed legally and morally prohibited, but can the results of corruption be reinvested as capital to improve agriculture or to build new irrigation channels and dams? In law, is an action permissible because of its legality, or does the result of that action – even if it is illegal – determine the legality of that action? In moral terms, does a person\'s actions have to be adjusted to the prevailing moral norms, or can the results of a person\'s immoral actions then gain moral value because they are used to benefit many people?

Two examples of this problem are raised to show that a policy that is justified politically simply by changing its formulation might offer logical justification, but at the same time create much greater difficulties because is still unclear in its technical implementation.

The technical-political mentality is needed not only among executives, but also party politicians and legislators, even political activists of civil society organizations and especially NGOs. If a concerted effort is made in organizational synchronization to develop and implement this technical-political mentality, it is very possible that we might avoid many complex problems, but do not touch substantial matters and focus our attention and energy on the issues that touch the vital interests on the current political stage.

Party platforms

One thing that has become a concern among our political society is that almost all political parties today have difficulties in formulating their platforms in a specific and focused way and implementing them in their own programs. On the other hand, Pancasila provides five principles that serious political parties can use in their political platform. Why hasn\'t any party built their platform on the principle of a just and civilized humanity and elaborated upon it to formulate a political program that can be implemented? Can political parties translate civilization and justice in more concrete ways than the human nature that we now embrace?

Likewise, nationality is an important principle that deserves to be translated into a political program.

Using a little imagination and creativity in elaborating the principles of Pancasila into a political program will imbue our politics with a clearer vitality and orientation and renew its attraction for young people to participate authentically in politics: Working on the foundational philosophies and principles of our state is an existential handle for using politics to excite and mobilize society in a direction that promotes public welfare, glorifies humans, and gives rise to new patriotism – or constitutional patriotism as in Juergen Habermas’ philosophical term, defined as loyalty to the state and the homeland in compliance with the constitution.

The technical-political mentality is the minimal guide that allows us to utilize national politics as realpolitik for facing and dealing with today’s problems, while at the same time moving towards the ideal goals that politics must realize as “the art of the possible”

Ignas Kleden, Sociologist; Chairman of the Indonesian Community for Democracy