GBHN and Effectiveness of Development Planning

The idea to revive the State Policy Guidelines (GBHN) has emerged periodically before the public.

This time it was even one of the decisions of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) congress, the party that won the 2019 legislative elections. Details of the idea are not known, other than that the GBHN was proposed as a decree of the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), which is also recommended to return to being the highest state institution.

If what is expected is an increase in the effectiveness of development planning, our energy should not be spent on amending the Constitution to bring back the GBHN, but on improving the National Development Planning System (SPPN), which is currently regulated through Law No. 25/2004.

RPJP already exists

Why is there no need for us to revive the GBHN if this is all about the effectiveness of development planning? The answer is concise: We already have a National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJP-N), which is also intended to give direction to the development of the nation-state within a period of 20 years, which for the present time is manifested in Law No. 17/2007 on the RPJP-N 2005-2025.

However, why have many parties felt the absence of a clear direction in the development of the Indonesian nation since the start of the reform era up to the present, thereby triggering the idea to revive the GBHN? This is most likely caused by the lack of a "sense of ownership" of the RPJP-N. There is an impression that the RPJP-N is too technocratic and only understood by a handful of people, especially planners at the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas). There is also the possibility that those proposing the GBHN have not yet had the opportunity to study the RPJP-N or SPPN.

Moreover, the pragmatic ideology reflected in the RPJP-N also frequently raises the view that the long-term plan is "empty of ideology" and therefore seems as if it does not provide for a clear partisanship. In fact, the vision of Indonesia, which is independent, developed, just and prosperous, contained in the RPJP-N, has the potential to more directly guide medium and short-term steps.

A less widespread sense of ownership of the RPJP-N may also be caused by the fact that its deliberation process does not involve broad participation. As a law, the determination of the RPJP-N has certainly gone through a political process in the DPR. However, apparently at that time it did not receive the attention of the mass media, civil society, the business community and political actors outside the DPR.

This is then exacerbated by public discourse that tends to focus on medium-term development because that was where campaign promises were included. Abandoning the concept of the Master Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesian Economic Development, the product of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono\'s administration, which was replaced by Nawacita (a nine-point development program) by President Joko Widodo\'s administration, was politically valid, but it could give the impression the country lacked a long-term development direction. As a result, there is a reasonable concern that what is being pioneered today may not continue after 2024 if the political situation changes.

However, bringing back the GBHN is not the answer to the above-mentioned problem. This even has the potential to add new problems, such as: What would the relationship between the GBHN and the RPJP and RPJM (Medium-Term Development Plan) at the national and regional levels? The GBHN in the New Order period actually lasted for five years or equivalent to the National Medium Term Development Plan (RPJM-N). An impression of consistency might arise because the president had been the same man for 32 years. Of course, we do not want to return to this situation.

Therefore, we should focus our energy on increasing the effectiveness of development planning in the midst of new realities that are different from the reality when the GBHN took effect in the New Order era.

New realities

The new realities are decentralized and democratized governance in the midst of an economic and political world situation that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). The development of information communication technology, which is often called disruptive, also adds to the complexity of the new realities.

Decentralization gives a very large role to local governments, while democratization opens up a broad space of involvement for other stakeholders in development, especially civil society: not to mention the contribution of private actors who often have their own way of thinking and are not accommodated in development planning.

This fragmented governance can no longer be managed with a top-down planning approach and implementation through command and control as in the past. Every region has, of course, its own wants and problems. Likewise, every component in society has different interests. For those of us who are used to being in an organized, controlled environment this seems to be chaotic and confusing. However, controlled governance tools such as in the past can no longer be used. The world has changed and will continue to change more and more quickly.

Effectiveness of planning

The most extreme suggestion for a rapidly changing world is an anti-planning or laissez-faire approach: No development plan is needed! Let the "market" and "invisible hands" determine actions more efficiently. The reason is we would not be able to predict any future conditions, let alone long-term ones. Therefore, any plan would very easily fail.

However, if we follow this view, it would certainly be very ironic because it is also outdated. Even though for different reasons, Adam Smith had mentioned it two and a half centuries ago when world change had not taken place as fast as now and when awareness of the limitations of natural resources had not been widespread. Therefore, we still have to make a plan because by doing so the limited resources can be used to achieve optimal results. However, what kind of plan would be effective in the midst of fragmented new realities?

Actually the SPPN, as regulated by Law No. 25/2004, has accommodated central-regional fragmentation and differences in political-populist and technical-technocratic aspirations through a process that combines a top-down and bottom-up approach. The process of development planning deliberations (musrenbang) at various levels, from villages to the national level, is an effort to combine various fragmented aspirations and conditions. Indeed, until now this approach has not been fully effective and efficient. However, rather than throwing it away, it would be better for us to strengthen it and fix it.

To do that at least three steps need to be carried out. First, integrating the planning and budgeting processes would make the National Budget (and regional budgets) a true "financial mirror" of the development plan. This means that it is necessary to integrate Law No. 17/2003 on State Finance and Law No. 25/2004 on the SPPN. Indeed it will not be easy. However, Government Regulation No. 17/2017 on the Synchronization of the National Development Planning and Budgeting Process can be an initial step whose implementation needs to be continuously monitored and evaluated.

Second, integrating development planning with spatial planning in such a way that the spatial plan truly becomes a "spatial mirror" of the development plan, including the enactment year, which is sometimes different. This is not easy because there are several laws governing it. There is Law No. 26/2007 on Spatial Planning in addition to the aforementioned laws related to the SPPN. Efforts to align them have been made, but they still need to be monitored and evaluated for the effectiveness of their implementation.

Third, communications with various stakeholders need to be encouraged, both with politicians, private actors and civil society components. On paper, the musrenbang process as stipulated in the SPPN has indeed tried to accommodate this. However, its effectiveness is still often underestimated as can be seen from the large number of developments that occur outside the plan.

Utilization of information and communications technology, which is currently widely used through e-musrenbang or e-planning, still needs to be continuously improved. Technology has the potential to capture wider participation. The Regional Development Award (formerly the Pangripta Nusantara Award), which has been taking place since 2011, can also be seen as part of the communications. From the observation of the writer, who was also a member of the Independent Assessment Team from 2012 to 2019, there are indications of a better connection between regional and national planning: the consistency of the statements on problems with the proposed program, the completeness and depth of the analysis needed and the measurement of the objectives to be achieved. Lately the aspects of innovation and development achievement also received special attention.

The quiet work in the ears of the public and politicians above has actually slowly improved the development planning system in Indonesia. However, it is still far from perfect, but rather than negating what we already have and looking for new things, even if taken from the past, it is better to devote energy to increasing the effectiveness of the existing national planning system so that it can meet the demands of a continuously changing era.

Wicaksono Sarosa, Director of the Ruang-Waktu Knowledge Hub for Sustainable (Urban) Development