| Fri, 05/07/2010 9:26 AM | readers forum
The announcement that Sri Mulyani Indrawati is to leave her post as finance minister and take up a senior position with the World Bank gives rise to the inevitable question of did she jump or was she pushed? As the evidence seems to strongly suggest the latter, the follow-up question becomes what implications does Sri Mulyani’s apparently less-than-voluntary departure, from one of the most important and influential positions in the Indonesian government to a prestigious but far less influential position at the World Bank, have for the reform movement in Indonesia?
Given Sri Mulyani’s leading role in trying to develop more efficient and transparent government institutions in Indonesia as well as her much publicized confrontations with numerous vested interests in the DPR and the private sector, one must be tempted to see Sri Mulyani as, ultimately, being a casualty in the ongoing struggle to contain, if not neutralize, the influence of those vested interests.
To the extent that the vested interests have succeeded in engineering Sri Mulyani’s departure for a World Bank sinecure, well away from levers of power in Indonesia, the vested interests have surely triumphed over the reformers, at least in the short run.
Sri Mulyani’s resignation as Finance Minister can, of course, be viewed as a political necessity for the President, forced upon him by the demands of his stronger coalition partners and as a statesmanlike way to handle a very difficult situation, in the aftermath of the Bank Century inquiry, which has clearly undermined the finance minister’s effectiveness. However, would-be successor reformers to Sri Mulyani are not likely to see things in this sanguine light.
The message that would-be reformers are apt to read into what has happened is that, in Indonesia, the realistic, long-term, government career expectations of any would-be reformer are extremely limited and no one should imagine that the vested interests will not be able to, ultimately, neutralize even the most popular and successful reformer.
Perhaps the influence of the vested interests in the Indonesian government has been somewhat tempered by the work of Sri Mul-yani and others, with the result that the vested interests now have to proceed more discretely and indirectly in achieving their objectives. At the end of the day, though, and notwithstanding all the genuine reform that has unquestionably taken place in Indonesia during the past 10 years, would-be reformers may well conclude that the vested interests are still largely in control and well able to realize their objectives, even if it takes them rather longer to do so than used to be the case.
Having regard to the foregoing, while many Indonesians will, rightly, take some considerable pride in seeing Sri Mulyani, as one of their own, become a managing director at the World Bank, more thoughtful. Indonesians may also ask themselves whether Sri Mulyani’s resignation means that government reform is now going to revert to its traditional glacial pace.
Certainly, Indonesia’s next finance minister, assuming he does not suffer from overt suicidal tendencies in terms of his career, will surely feel a very strong temptation to be much more circumspect, than was Sri Mulyani, in confronting the vested interests. This hardly seems like a positive development for the future of government reform in Indonesia.
William A. Sullivan
Jakarta
The announcement that Sri Mulyani Indrawati is to leave her post as finance minister and take up a senior position with the World Bank gives rise to the inevitable question of did she jump or was she pushed? As the evidence seems to strongly suggest the latter, the follow-up question becomes what implications does Sri Mulyani’s apparently less-than-voluntary departure, from one of the most important and influential positions in the Indonesian government to a prestigious but far less influential position at the World Bank, have for the reform movement in Indonesia?
Given Sri Mulyani’s leading role in trying to develop more efficient and transparent government institutions in Indonesia as well as her much publicized confrontations with numerous vested interests in the DPR and the private sector, one must be tempted to see Sri Mulyani as, ultimately, being a casualty in the ongoing struggle to contain, if not neutralize, the influence of those vested interests.
To the extent that the vested interests have succeeded in engineering Sri Mulyani’s departure for a World Bank sinecure, well away from levers of power in Indonesia, the vested interests have surely triumphed over the reformers, at least in the short run.
Sri Mulyani’s resignation as Finance Minister can, of course, be viewed as a political necessity for the President, forced upon him by the demands of his stronger coalition partners and as a statesmanlike way to handle a very difficult situation, in the aftermath of the Bank Century inquiry, which has clearly undermined the finance minister’s effectiveness. However, would-be successor reformers to Sri Mulyani are not likely to see things in this sanguine light.
The message that would-be reformers are apt to read into what has happened is that, in Indonesia, the realistic, long-term, government career expectations of any would-be reformer are extremely limited and no one should imagine that the vested interests will not be able to, ultimately, neutralize even the most popular and successful reformer.
Perhaps the influence of the vested interests in the Indonesian government has been somewhat tempered by the work of Sri Mul-yani and others, with the result that the vested interests now have to proceed more discretely and indirectly in achieving their objectives. At the end of the day, though, and notwithstanding all the genuine reform that has unquestionably taken place in Indonesia during the past 10 years, would-be reformers may well conclude that the vested interests are still largely in control and well able to realize their objectives, even if it takes them rather longer to do so than used to be the case.
Having regard to the foregoing, while many Indonesians will, rightly, take some considerable pride in seeing Sri Mulyani, as one of their own, become a managing director at the World Bank, more thoughtful. Indonesians may also ask themselves whether Sri Mulyani’s resignation means that government reform is now going to revert to its traditional glacial pace.
Certainly, Indonesia’s next finance minister, assuming he does not suffer from overt suicidal tendencies in terms of his career, will surely feel a very strong temptation to be much more circumspect, than was Sri Mulyani, in confronting the vested interests. This hardly seems like a positive development for the future of government reform in Indonesia.
William A. Sullivan
Jakarta
Comments
Post a Comment