OECD Public Governance Reviews
Open Government
in Indonesia
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Open Government
in Indonesia
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the
OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not
necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status
of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers
and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2016), Open Government in Indonesia, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
ISBN 978-92-64-26589-9 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-26590-5 (PDF)
Series: OECD Public Governance Reviews
ISSN 2219-0406 (print)
ISSN 2219-0414 (online)
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights,
East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits: Cover © Maksim Kabakou-Fotolia.com.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at:
www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.
© OECD 2016
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD
publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and
teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given.
All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected].
Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed
directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du
droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].
FOREWORD – 3
Foreword
Over the last two decades, Indonesia has shown a strong commitment to
applying the principles of good governance to become a modern democratic
state that delivers efficient and effective services to citizens. Indonesia has
also recognised the value of open government principles to generating
inclusive growth by promoting transparency, accountability and stakeholder
engagement.
As a founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in
2011 and a member of the OGP Steering Committee continuously since the
OGP’s launch, Indonesia has shown strong interest in disseminating open
government principles and practices across Southeast Asia and worldwide.
Furthermore, Indonesia’s contribution to the United Nations’ 2030
Sustainable Development Agenda, and its commitment to the priorities
expressed therein, reflect its unique perspective on how to connect national
open government reforms to the country’s complementary multi-lateral
reform agendas.
In the context of its ongoing efforts to broaden and deepen the impact of
its government reform initiatives, Indonesia requested that the OECD
conduct an Open Government Review to highlight its achievements in these
areas and identify potential improvements. This review, implemented thanks
to the financial contribution of USAID (US Agency for International
Development) Indonesia, provides a comprehensive, evidence-based
assessment of Indonesia’s open government reforms. It was prepared within
the framework of the OECD Open Government Project, which supports
countries in designing and implementing open government reforms in
co-operation with citizens and non-governmental organisations. The
opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of
USAID.
The review features a comprehensive assessment of open government
reforms in Indonesia, with a focus on co-ordination, citizen engagement,
integrity, digital government, budget transparency and innovation in the
public sector. It also looks at how these elements are linked to the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It analyses Indonesia’s
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
4 – FOREWORD
institutions, legal framework and policies, and highlights achievements and
provides recommendations on how to overcome bottlenecks. The review’s
recommendations will help guide Indonesia’s efforts to apply the principles
of open government both horizontally across its national ministries and
vertically to subnational governments.
The review’s key finding is that Indonesia’s policy and legal
frameworks offer sound support for open government, though challenges
remain to ensure that the various ongoing initiatives are implemented
completely and effectively. To build a truly transparent and participative
public administration, Indonesia will need to continue to promote a greater
understanding of the value and importance of open government reforms
within the public administration. It will also need to ensure that public
officials have the necessary capacity to implement the reforms, both at
national and local levels of government. For Indonesia to be successful in
these efforts, it will have to rely more on its well-established civil society
and encourage the emergence of more non-governmental actors capable of
playing a positive role in the country’s open government agenda. Finally,
Indonesia must continue to support the links between its open government
reform efforts and other multilateral reform efforts, such as the SDGs, to
ensure that the various initiatives are mainstreamed into the country’s
national development processes.
The OECD’s Open Government Reviews contribute to the work on
public administration and management reform conducted by the OECD
Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. The
Directorate’s mission is to help government at all levels design and
implement strategic, evidence-based and innovative policies to strengthen
public governance, respond effectively to diverse and disruptive economic,
social and environmental challenges and deliver on government’s
commitments to citizens.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS –
Acknowledgements
The OECD Secretariat wishes to express its gratitude to all those who
made this report possible, starting with the Indonesian government, which
has shown great commitment to this project. In particular, the OECD would
like to thank Yanuar Nugroho, Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of
the President and his team, as well as Raden Siliwanti, Director for State
Apparatus, Ministry of National Development Planning and her team for
their continuous support.
The OECD would also like to thank representatives from the Indonesian
civil society organisations, who have shared their insights and enthusiasm,
as well as the following public officials who acted as peer reviewers:
Otávio Moreira de Castro Neves (Co-ordinator for Open Government and
Transparency, Corruption Prevention and Transparency Secretariat, Office
of the Comptroller General, Federative Republic of Brazil); Pepe Tonin
(Finance and Control Analyst, Office of the Comptroller General, Federative
Republic of Brazil); YS Lee (Executive Principal, National Information
Society Agency, Republic of Korea); and Chul Jeong (Deputy Director,
Public Data Policy Division, Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Korea).
The OECD team also wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions
made by the representatives of the Government of Indonesia, in particular
Tara Hidayat, Fithya Findie, Husni Rohman and Muhammad Daud, who
have been instrumental in the production of the review, including defining
its scope, mobilising all relevant stakeholders and providing their feedback.
The OECD is also grateful for their help in organising the missions of
OECD staff and experts and facilitating data collection.
This Review was prepared by the Public Governance and Territorial
Development (GOV) Directorate of the OECD, headed by Rolf Alter. It is
part of the series of Open Government Reviews developed by the
Governance Reviews and Partnerships Division, under the responsibility of
Martin Forst. Alessandro Bellantoni, Co-ordinator of the OECD Open
Government Project, led the review and drafting process, provided extensive
comments on all chapters, and harmonised the narrative. Craig Matasick
provided support throughout the review process and drafted the
Introduction, Chapter 3 (Citizen participation) and Chapter 8 (on the link
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
6 – ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
between open government and the UN Sustainable Development Goals) in
collaboration with Alessandro Bellantoni. The Review was written by a
team comprised of: Eva Beuselinck (Chapter 2 on Centre of government co-
ordination), Jeroen Michels (Chapter 4 on Public sector integrity),
Barbara Ubaldi and Rodrigo Mejia Ricart (Chapter 5 on Digital
government), Ronnie Downes and Annamaria Tuske (Chapter 6 on Budget
transparency) and Marco Daglio (Chapter 7 on Public sector innovation).
Sarah Puppini-Zaft and Nadjad Bacar provided administrative support.
Editorial work and quality control were provided by Will Bromberg, Julie
Harris and Ciara Muller, who prepared the manuscript for publication.
The United States Agency for International Development funded the
Indonesia Open Government Review. The OECD wishes to thank
Miles Toder, Zeric Smith, David Hoffman and Diah Januarti for their
generous support.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
7TABLE OF CONTENTS –
Table of contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... 12
Executive summary..................................................................................................... 15
Assessment and recommendations ............................................................................ 19
Chapter 1. Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia......................... 45
Cultural, historical, and political context................................................................... 46
Economic context ...................................................................................................... 48
Perceptions of public institutions and the space for open government...................... 51
The principles of open government ........................................................................... 58
Legal, policy, and strategic framework for open government in Indonesia .............. 61
Beyond open government.......................................................................................... 66
Organisation of the open government review............................................................ 69
Notes.......................................................................................................................... 70
References ................................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 2. Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and
practices in Indonesia ................................................................................................. 73
The centre of government as a strategic player ......................................................... 74
Centre of government and public administration reform in Indonesia...................... 80
The open government agenda.................................................................................... 90
Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of government .. 101
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 106
Notes........................................................................................................................ 107
References ............................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 3. Citizen engagement in Indonesia .......................................................... 111
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 112
OECD approach to citizen engagement................................................................... 112
Status of civil society in Indonesia.......................................................................... 117
Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia............................................. 120
Citizen engagement in practice ............................................................................... 127
Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia............................. 143
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 146
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
8 – TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notes........................................................................................................................ 149
References ............................................................................................................... 150
Annex 3.A1 Primary CSO partners on open government activities
in Indonesia ............................................................................................................. 153
Chapter 4. From transparency and participation to integrity in
Indonesia .................................................................................................................... 155
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 156
Participation in the policy cycle .............................................................................. 158
Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability
mechanisms for citizens .......................................................................................... 168
Awareness raising and citizen education................................................................. 178
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 180
References ............................................................................................................... 182
Chapter 5. Digital government as an enabler for open government
in Indonesia............................................................................................................... 187
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 188
Assessing the digital context of Indonesia .............................................................. 191
Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open,
transparent and participatory government ............................................................... 195
Achieving a whole-of-government approach in government use of
ICTs in support of open government....................................................................... 200
Adopting a strategic approach to alternative ICT channels to maximise the
outreach of government in a cost-effective way...................................................... 212
One Data for Sustainable Development .................................................................. 218
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 228
Notes........................................................................................................................ 231
References ............................................................................................................... 231
Chapter 6. Open, transparent and inclusive budgeting in Indonesia ................... 235
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 236
OECD principles for open, transparent and inclusive budgeting ............................ 238
Budget transparency in Indonesia ........................................................................... 242
Public participation in budgeting in Indonesia ........................................................ 254
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 265
Notes........................................................................................................................ 267
References ............................................................................................................... 267
Chapter 7. Public-sector innovation in Indonesia .................................................. 271
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 272
Institutional framework to support innovation in Indonesia.................................... 274
Barriers to public-sector innovation ........................................................................ 278
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
9TABLE OF CONTENTS –
The role of networks of innovators ......................................................................... 281
Successful practices in public-sector innovation in Indonesia ................................ 282
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 285
Notes........................................................................................................................ 287
References ............................................................................................................... 287
Chapter 8. Open government in Indonesia and the link with the
UN Sustainable Development Goals ........................................................................ 289
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 290
Current thinking on the connection between the SDGs and broader
governance reform efforts ....................................................................................... 294
The substantive link between open government principles and the SDGs.............. 295
Open government support for the process of implementing the SDGs ................... 304
Examples from Indonesia ........................................................................................ 311
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 315
References ............................................................................................................... 317
Annex 8A.1 SDG targets clearly informed and supported by open government
policies and principles ............................................................................................. 319
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
10 – TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables
Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia ............................... 63
Table 1.1. Legal framework of open government in Indonesia (continued)............ 64
Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions ............ 134
Table 5.1. Roles and responsibilities for digital government in Indonesia ............ 202
Table 6.1. Legal framework for budget transparency and public participation ..... 242
Table 6.2. Legal framework for gender budgeting and participation in
Indonesia ........................................................................................................ 260
Table 6.3. Key local government budgetary documentation ................................. 263
Figures
Figure 1.1. Level of real GDP in selected ASEAN countries.................................. 49
Figure 1.2. Absolute poverty rate (%), 2000-14 ...................................................... 49
Figure 1.3. Indonesia growth rates (2011-14).......................................................... 50
Figure 1.4. Unemployment rates in Indonesia and selected countries ..................... 51
Figure 1.5. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and ASEAN countries (2014) 52
Figure 1.6. Government effectiveness in Indonesia and OECD countries (2014)... 53
Figure 1.7. Is corruption widespread throughout the government in this
country, or not? (2015)..................................................................................... 53
Figure 1.8. Do you have confidence in the national government? (2015) ............... 54
Figure 1.9. Correlation between confidence in national government and
perception of government corruption (2015) ................................................... 55
Figure 1.10. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and ASEAN
countries (2014) ............................................................................................... 56
Figure 1.11. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia and OECD
countries (2014) ............................................................................................... 57
Figure 1.12. Government voice and accountability in Indonesia (2003-14)............ 57
Figure 1.13. OECD open government theory of change.......................................... 59
Figure 2.1. Focus of the centre of government ........................................................ 75
Figure 2.2. National Open Government Secretariat: Organisational chart .............. 92
Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries... 105
Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across
OECD countries ............................................................................................. 106
Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation .............. 113
Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service
delivery .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information ......... 121
Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman
institutions (1960-08)..................................................................................... 126
Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15.......................... 127
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS – 11
Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity ............. 157
Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying............... 168
Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government
Strategies........................................................................................................ 191
Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia .......................................... 192
Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia............. 192
Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in selected
countries......................................................................................................... 193
Figure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at
2000 constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013 .............. 194
Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index........................................................................... 196
Figure 5.7. Online Service Index ........................................................................... 196
Figure 5.8. UN e-Government Index ..................................................................... 201
Figure 5.9. ICT governance structures across the OECD ...................................... 203
Figure 5.10. Levers of ICT governance across OECD countries........................... 205
Figure 5.11. Selected central government Twitter accounts .................................. 216
Figure 5.12. Indonesian institutional accounts on Facebook ................................. 216
Figure 5.13. OURdata Index: Open, useful and reusable government
data, 2014....................................................................................................... 228
Figure 6.1. OECD flowchart of budget transparency ............................................ 240
Figure 6.2. OECD flowchart of openness, inclusiveness and participation in
budgeting........................................................................................................ 241
Figure 6.3. Links between government developmental planning and budgeting... 244
Figure 6.4. Annual budget cycle of Indonesia1 ...................................................... 248
Figure 6.5. Format of the budget............................................................................ 250
Figure 6.6. Use of citizens’ budgets in OECD countries in 2012 .......................... 252
Figure 6.7. Institutionalisation of participatory planning....................................... 255
Figure 6.8. Transfers to regional development and village funds, 2005-16........... 256
Figure 6.9. Land and forest governance index in selected districts 2012 .............. 262
Figure 6.10. Composition of revenue on subnational levels of
government, 2008-12 ..................................................................................... 264
Figure 6.11. Composition of expenditure on subnational levels of
government, 2008-12 ..................................................................................... 264
Figure 8.1. Percentage of countries involved in various types of public
engagement .................................................................................................... 299
Figure 8.2. Stages of the policy cycle .................................................................... 308
Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan
Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international
law.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
12 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms and abbreviations
ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations
ATI Access to Information
Ministry of National Development Planning
Bappenas (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional)
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
BPKP (Sejarah Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan
Pembangunan)
BPK RI Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia
CIO Chief Information Officer
CoG Centre of Government
CPI Corruption Perception Index
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DPD Regional Representatives Council
DPR House of Representatives
DPRD Regional House of Representatives
EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
FOI Freedom of Information
German Society for International Co-operation
GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit)
GOI Government of Indonesia
GRB Gender Responsive Budget
ICEL Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
ICW Indonesia Corruption Watch
International NGO Forum on Indonesian
INFID Development
Indonesian Parliamentary Centre
IPC Independent Reporting Mechanism
IRM Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic
Reform (Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur
KemenPAN Negara)
Komite Pemantau Legislatif
KOPEL Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi
Pemberantasan Korupsi)
KPK
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
LAN 13ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS –
MaPPI Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga
MoF Administrasi Negara)
MTEF Indonesian Court Monitoring Society (Masyarakat
MPR Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia)
NIS Ministry of Finance
OG Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
OGD People's Consultative Assembly (Majelis
OGI Permusyawaratan Rakyat)
OGP National Integrity System
OGR Open Government
OPSI Open Government Data
ORI Open Government Indonesia
Open Government Partnership
PATTIRO Open Government Review
OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation
PPID National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman
Republik Indonesia)
RPJMN Centre for Regional Information and Studies (Pusat
RPJPN Telaah dan Informasi Regional)
SAI Documentation and Information Management
SDGs Offices (Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
SISKOHAT Dokumentasi)
Medium-Term Development Plans
Stranas PPK National Long-Term Development Plan
Supreme Audit Institutions
TI Sustainable Development Goals
TI-I Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised
System
UKP4 National Anti-Corruption Strategy (Strategi
Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan
UNCAC Korupsi)
USAID Transparency International
WHO Transparency International Indonesia
YAPPIKA Presidential Delivery Unit for Development
Monitoring and Oversight (Unit Kerja Presiden
Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian
Pembangunan)
United Nation Convention against Corruption
United States Agency for International
Development
World Health Organization
Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan
Kemitraan Masyarakat Indonesia
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 15
Executive summary
Indonesia has made continuous progress in promoting transparent and
inclusive policy making since its democratic reforms began in 1998. As a
founding member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and a leading
member and the largest economy in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia has played a key role in disseminating open
government principles and practices. The administration of President Joko
Widodo (Jokowi) has reinforced Indonesia’s commitment to open
government and has maintained Indonesia’s leadership within the OGP and
in the design and drafting of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).
Indonesia must build on its legal, policy and institutional foundations to
address the challenges of aligning national and local reform priorities by
pursuing a whole-of-government “open state” approach. It should also seek
to ensure that its open government reforms support inclusive growth and
other multilateral reform initiatives, such as SDG implementation.
Steering and co-ordinating open government policies and practices
The centre of government plays an important role in policy development
and co-ordination, strategic planning, leading cross-departmental policy
initiatives and monitoring progress and outcomes. Since 1998, Indonesia has
sought to embed open government principles in its centre of government and
public administration reform activities. Throughout Indonesia’s public
administration reform efforts, strategic planning and performance
management activities, the principles of transparency and accountability are
gaining visibility and provide promising areas for expanding open
government activities. Indonesia’s centre of government should therefore
focus on helping to build capacity in the public administration to link open
government activities to its other public-sector reform priorities and on
ensuring that open government principles are reflected throughout the
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and reporting and
feedback of public policies.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
16 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Citizen engagement in Indonesia
Decentralisation reforms and various laws allowing for increased
freedom of association and access to information have provided citizens
with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels and to
participate in policy making and service delivery. The government has
supported participation through, for example, Public Information Offices,
legal protections for whistleblowers, public involvement in service
monitoring, participatory forums for national and local development
planning, and civil society involvement in developing the OGP Action Plan.
The government will need to respond more effectively to public inputs and
ensure that citizen engagement processes succeed in expanding public
involvement. Indonesia should also develop a more structured whole-of-
government strategy for civic engagement, clarify and consolidate
guidelines for citizen participation, continue to promote public access to
information and evaluate the impact of citizen engagement efforts more
systematically.
Open government, integrity and anti-corruption in Indonesia
The government of Indonesia is committed to tackling corruption and
building a culture of integrity in the public sector. In addition to the
Corruption Eradication Commission, several other citizen feedback channels
and complaint services (such as LAPOR) have been developed to encourage
government accountability. In several areas, however, Indonesia will need to
ensure that relevant laws are implemented effectively and that transparency
measures lead to real accountability. Indonesia should also improve the
connections between its reporting channels, provide better protection for
whistleblowers and enhance asset declaration regulations. Opportunities also
exist to further connect the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda with
international best practices, instruments and objectives.
Open and digital government
The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access
information and share data present opportunities and challenges for
Indonesia. Connected and informed constituencies are demanding more
tailored and agile interactions with governments, more effective policies and
improved public-sector performance. In addition to responding to these
demands, budgetary pressures and the search for efficiency gains have
prompted Indonesia to expand digitisation efforts, such as through the online
Hajj pilgrimage management tool and the central open data portal, which is
designed to provide access to key datasets and improve the transparency of
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 17
public-sector activities. Indonesia will also need to address the digital
divide, where urban, relatively wealthy and younger citizens have much
higher Internet and mobile connections rates. Indonesia must therefore
develop multi-channel service delivery models to support its digital tools
and expand citizen engagement. Indonesia must also build government
capacity and develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
to reap the full benefits offered by the information and communications
technology tools already in place.
Public financial management: Budget transparency and citizen
participation
Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how
governments plan budgetary policy and raise and use financial resources.
While Indonesia’s budget process has generally reflected its movement
toward open government by formalising citizen engagement processes in the
development of the budget priorities, the later phases of the budget cycle,
particularly during the parliamentary budget review and approval processes,
have not yet fully integrated the principles of transparency, accountability
and inclusiveness. This could be improved by mandating the publication of
meeting minutes, data and decisions. Furthermore, Indonesia’s diverse
institutional landscape and strong subnational governments pose challenges
to ensuring the uniform implementation of national laws such as those on
budget information transparency and to disseminating good practices
throughout the public administration.
Innovation in the public sector
Indonesia is strengthening the institutional capacity of its public sector
to develop innovative solutions to drive change and increase government
openness. Open government principles can likewise promote innovation by
enhancing public involvement to collect information, share best practices
and generate ideas. Like many OECD countries, Indonesia does not have a
stand-alone whole-of-government policy on fostering innovation in the
public sector and lacks clear technical guidance, standard operating
procedures and a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public
officials to innovate. Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important
examples of public-sector innovation at all government levels, touching on
areas including health, education, business licensing, access to services, etc.
Indonesia would benefit from scaling up relevant initiatives and
strengthening cross-government co-ordination to avoid duplication and to
help streamline efforts.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
18 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Open government and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
Linking the broad themes of improved governance, transparency and
inclusion found in both the OGP principles and the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia, as the
country played a leading role in establishing the OGP and designing the
SDGs. Open government practices contribute to the substantive targets of
the SDGs primarily through Goal 16, though the principles of engagement,
transparency and accountability also support the implementation of all SDG
targets that seek to enhance social, economic, and political inclusion, expand
community engagement, and increase access to information. Importantly,
furthermore, open government principles can also support the process that
leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of the SDGs.
Through its establishment of an SDG Secretariat to co-ordinate the
government’s response, Indonesia has recognised the importance of acting
strategically in pursuing the SDGs. Continuing to develop the linkages
between Indonesia’s open government activities, such as the OGP National
Action Plan development process, and the design and implementation
process for the SDGs, will also help ensure that the government’s open
government agenda simultaneously supports the SDGs.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
19ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
Assessment and recommendations
The Government of Indonesia (GOI) has asked the OECD to assess how
open government policies and principles are integrated in and contribute to
Indonesia’s broader public governance reforms and to provide
recommendations based on OECD good practices, principles and
instruments. The present OECD Open Government Review (henceforth the
review) covers the following areas: open government context and drivers,
steering and co-ordination of open government policies and initiatives,
citizen participation, integrity and anti-corruption, ICTs and open data,
budget transparency, and innovation in the public sector. A final chapter is
dedicated to the links between open government and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals.
Given the country’s impressive though unfinished liberalisation process,
which started in 1998, the question identified by the current administration
is how open government principles and practices can help the country
expand on the successes made to date and how to address the areas still left
for improvement. While Indonesia’s focus on implementing open
government reforms dates back to 2011, the recent approval, in September
2015, of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
provides an opportunity to explore the links between the principles of
transparency, accountability and citizen participation with the national
development agenda, as explicitly requested by Indonesia.
Indonesia’s efforts to implement open government initiatives are an
extension and continuation of the country’s broader reform efforts. The fall
of President Suharto in 1998 initiated the Reformasi period, in which the
country pursued more open and liberal policies by, inter alia, providing for
greater freedom of speech and an enhanced role for civic participation. This
era of reform also led to broad decentralisation, whereby sub-national
governments have started to play a fundamental role in the provision of
government services.
Despite these efforts, however, Indonesia’s governance indicators show
a complex picture and suggest that the reform efforts are not yet complete.
On the one hand, citizen confidence in the government and the country’s
relative good performance within Southeast Asia regarding perceptions of
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
20 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
freedoms of expression, association and media suggest that Indonesia is well
positioned to continue to use open government reforms to build on these
achievements. Conversely, the citizens’ perception of high corruption and
relative low government effectiveness call to attention pressing governance
challenges.
These challenges are particularly important to tackle given that many of
the development challenges the country faces – including more and better
infrastructure, improving health and education outcomes, strengthening the
social safety net and fighting poverty and inequality, and responding to the
diverse needs of various ethno-cultural and regionally based groups – have
significant governance implications. Good governance, including the
government’s ability to set, co-ordinate, implement and monitor public-
sector reforms, is therefore key to ensuring that policy objectives can be
achieved efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2013).
Since the start of Indonesia’s democratisation process, the number of
civil society groups and the prominence of their role has grown due to
increasingly favourable policy and legal frameworks at the central level, as
well as to the de-centralisation process that has created new opportunities
for the public to engage in policy design and service delivery at the sub-
national level. Indonesia’s civil society organisations have played – and
continue to play – a crucial role in promoting and implementing open
government activities in the country.
The first dedicated push toward implementing specific open government
policies came during the administration of President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono. It was under President Yudhoyono that the country helped
found the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in September 2011 and
became compliant with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI) in October 2014. The Yudhoyono administration also established the
Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan
(UKP4), which was tasked with supervising, co-ordinating and helping to
ensure the successful implementation of open government initiatives.
During the election campaign of 2014, President Jokowi pledged to
bring a more inclusive style of politics to the office of the president, and he
has maintained the administration’s focus on implementing open
government principles. Despite the continuity between administrations in
their support for open government policies, the transition between
administrations was disruptive nonetheless. With the change of government
at the end of 2014, the UKP4 was dissolved, and the new government did
not establish arrangements for the management of open government
initiatives until 2015. Importantly, however, many of the open government
programmes implemented under President Yudhoyono have remained, and
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
21ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
many of UKP4’s previous functions were taken over by the Ministry of
National Development Planning (Bappenas) and the Executive Office of the
President, which together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now form the
National Open Government Secretariat that has the mandate to co-ordinate
the national and international open government agenda. Furthermore, the
country’s election to the OGP Support Unit Steering Committee for 2015-18
and the Jokowi administration’s commitment to serve as co-chair of the
OECD’s Network for Open and Innovative Government in Southeast Asia,
which was launched in Jakarta in March 2015, both highlight Indonesia’s
dedication to promoting open government globally.
Nevertheless, Indonesia is faced with the challenges of translating its
broad strategy into specific goals, synchronising its work with the local
level, and ensuring buy-in for the reform process across national ministries
and agencies. These challenges suggest that the Government of Indonesia
should seek to develop an “open state” that would formalise collaboration of
open government issues across the executive, legislative and judicial
branches to promote a whole-of-government approach. This OECD Open
Government Review will look at how Indonesia can respond to these
challenges and develop a comprehensive policy to streamline open
government and civic engagement.
Steering and co-ordination of open government policies and practices
Broadly, the institutions at the centre of government (CoG) – namely,
those institutions that provide direct support and advice to the head of
government – primarily direct the steering and co-ordination of Indonesia’s
open government policies and reforms at the national level. Indonesia finds
itself in a strong position to foster open government policies and practices.
First, being a co-founder of the OGP and having a tradition of national
institutional structures promoting the open government agenda, such as
UKP4 and more recently the National Open Government Secretariat, has
helped provide the institutional infrastructure to support open government.
Furthermore, Indonesia’s legal and regulatory framework on open
government generally supports transparency and accountability via the
Constitution, Freedom of Information Law of 2008, etc., and the country’s
key strategic policy documents such as the Presidential Priorities and the
Medium-Term National Development Plan 2015-19 all reflect open
government priorities.
Since the Reformasi era’s democratisation push, Indonesia has identified
openness in government as a tool to achieve its goals of providing better
access to and quality of public services. In addition to the country’s specific
focus on open government, three broad reform areas affect the
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
22 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
implementation of the country’s open government reforms: the bureaucratic
reform agenda, the country’s decentralisation and its strategic planning
process. Each of these three reform areas can be linked with specific open
government priorities and goals, such as increased transparency or increased
consultation and participation.
The country’s bureaucratic reform efforts show how open government
priorities such as transparency and accountability are part of the broader
public administration reform agenda. For example, the current 2015-19
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap provides detailed plans to evolve toward a
bureaucracy that is clean, accountable, effective and efficient. Through its
leadership in the current Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (KemenPAN) plays an important
role as a CoG actor.
Second, Indonesia’s de-centralisation push since the turn of the 21st
century has changed the structure of the public administration, as well as the
state-citizen relationship, and as the decision-making process came
(physically) much closer to citizens, new opportunities for public
consultation and participation arose. Despite this shift, there have been
concerns about the lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the
different levels of government as well as the relationships between them.
Moving forward, the challenge will be to grant both administrative and
financial autonomy to local governments while ensuring that central co-
ordination is performed in a way and to an extent that is locally acceptable
and that the central government’s national priorities are met. The country’s
CoG actors will play an important role in enabling open government and in
managing the complexity, size and different levels of capacity that affect the
multi-level governance dynamics.
Finally, the country’s strategic planning process and increased attention
to performance management offer possible entry points to anchor the open
government agenda. In response to Law No. 25 of 2004 on the National
Development Planning System, the Government of Indonesia is required to
draft National Long-Term Development Plans (RPJPN) every 20 years.
Within the long-term development plan cycle, the government is required to
draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) every five
years. These five-year cycles overlap with presidential terms of office so
that the administration’s plans align with the vision and mission of the
National Long-Term Development Plan.
The goal of the current National Medium-Term Development Plan
2015-19 with respect to public governance is to build a government that is
“clean, effective, democratic and reliable.” Importantly, the plan’s strategies
regarding public administration and open government reforms also support
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
23ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
the Jokowi administration’s National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita), which
synthesises the nine presidential policy priorities for the 2014-19 period and
incorporates a clear reference to open government. The RPJMN also
informs the annual strategic planning process. Through this system,
Bappenas has established itself as a key CoG actor to foster strategic
coherence throughout the public sector.
By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national
and local level, the country’s multi-level approach to open government is
ambitious, although it also presents some challenges. In particular, there is a
risk that efforts to promote open government are somewhat scattered and
disconnected. The newly created National Open Government Secretariat,
staffed by personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bappenas and the
Executive Office of the President (KSP) was designed in part to mitigate
that risk.
The government envisions six major functions for the National Open
Government Secretariat: public policy and co-ordination; open data and IT
platforms; capacity development; monitoring, evaluation and knowledge
management; public outreach and communication; and finance and
administration. The National Open Government Secretariat will also play a
co-ordinating role for provincial and district/municipality-level open
government efforts. Given the country’s de-centralisation process and,
hence, the fact that open government is to a large extent is expected to be
delivered at the sub-national level, the catalyst role of such sub-national
secretariats will be important.
The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy
and institutional framework supporting open government. Moving forward,
the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring that these developments are
reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will
continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government is able to
implement its open government priorities. The OECD recommends the
following proposals to support Indonesia’s centre of government co-
ordination efforts:
• Strengthen the connections across, and mutual reinforcement of,
different governance agendas, including the Presidential Priorities;
Annual, Medium- and Long-term National Development Plans; OGP
Action Plans; and other reform agendas such as the Bureaucratic Reform
Roadmap. This suggests, among other implications, that the CoG should
develop a coherent strategic approach, carefully consider
complementarity across initiatives and identify multiplier effects.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
24 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Improve co-ordination horizontally (between the CoG and line
ministries) and vertically (between central government and de-
centralised levels of government) to help maintain broad ownership of
the open government agenda. Indonesia is characterised by a high level
of complexity when dealing with governance issues, both because of its
size and its de-centralised governance structure. The GOI should pursue
the active involvement of both line ministries and de-centralised
governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as well as the
development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open government
agenda.
• Connect the planning process for open government initiatives with
strategic follow-up of deliverables, particularly by providing sufficient
resources for the monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the
CoG should ensure that the OGP Action Plan cycle is linked to the
national planning and budget cycle to make sure that open government
activities have a secured budget and are part of the national monitoring
system. A major task – or challenge – of the National Open Government
Secretariat is, next to the promotion of the open government agenda, to
link the country’s efforts under the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) with its ongoing public service reform efforts and to help ensure
that the SDGs are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans and
initiatives.
• Build local capacity and foster a culture among civil servants that
supports open government principles, so that understanding of and
support for open government reforms are central to the public sector’s
activities.
Citizen engagement in Indonesia
The role of citizens and civil society groups in public governance has
continued to grow in importance since the democratic reforms that began in
1998. This has been due to the dual effects of laws that have allowed for
increased freedom of association and access to information, as well as the
country’s de-centralisation process. Together, these reforms have provided
citizens with new opportunities to engage with the government at all levels,
as well as to participate in policy making and service delivery.
Good information on the make-up of the Indonesian civil society sector
is limited. While a detailed review of the sector in 2012 estimated that there
were roughly 2,300 active and viable civil service organisations (CSOs)
throughout Indonesia, the lack of details creates difficulties for other CSOs,
donors and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to identify where the
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
25ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to contact
them. The report also noted that most CSOs active in the field of open
government in Indonesia are located disproportionately in Jakarta, and they
generally focus on service delivery or organising communities for self-help
rather than on macro-level changes (AusAID, 2012) or on advocacy on
specific policy issues.
Despite the progress made by civil society organisations since
Indonesia’s democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control
prevented the growth of a vibrant public sector, and it has only been over the
past two decades that CSOs have been able to play a key role in identifying
solutions. Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society
groups is that government officials have often considered the design and
delivery of public services as their domain and view citizens only as end
users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing, the
capacity of CSOs and the government to translate citizen preferences into
policies does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010) and
would benefit from greater support both by the government and by the
international community.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the country’s legal framework,
beginning with the 1945 Constitution and including subsequent laws,
regulations and presidential decrees, provides a sound foundation for
openness and citizen engagement. Namely, it recognises the public’s right to
participation, guarantees access to information and provides the mechanisms
through which information is disseminated, and establishes various
independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.
The public right to information is broadly acknowledged in the 1945
Constitution and in Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information. These
legal instruments guarantee access to information (ATI) and require
proactive publication by most public bodies (with the exception of some law
enforcement and judiciary offices) when part or all of their funds originate
from a government budget. Importantly, Indonesian law guarantees the
government’s obligation to provide information as well as the citizens’ right
to know. It also requires that public agencies establish an information and
documentation system to manage public information properly and efficiently
in order to ensure accessibility.
The mechanism through which government offices disseminate
information in Indonesia is primarily the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi &
Dokumentasi (PPID) offices. The law also establishes the support
mechanisms to decide on implementing procedures, settle disputes brought
by requesters of information and report on the implementation of the law to
the president and the parliament. Regarding the PPID offices, even though
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
26 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
the government implemented Law 14/2008 in 2010, as of March 2015, less
than 50% of the PPID units have been established across all levels of
government. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is
limited, as there is no other designated government unit designed to handle
requests for information.
One factor that has held back the institution of PPID offices has been the
extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have
varying degrees of interest and capacity. Furthermore, many offices have not
faced much public pressure for improved access to public information and
thus have not prioritised the law’s implementation. The GOI’s approach is
therefore to enhance both the “supply” of information (the ability for the
government to provide information) and the “demand” for information (the
desire of the public to obtain information). Establishing PPID offices is a
critical step in supporting the supply of information and ensuring that the
law functions as intended.
The 1945 Constitution also recognises explicitly the right to associate,
assemble and express opinions. Subsequent laws and other legal instruments
have further ensured and delineated the rights of civil society organisations,
as well as the public’s right to monitor the delivery of public services and
participate in policy planning and evaluation. The country’s legal and policy
framework also provides support for the protection of whistleblowers and
establishes the foundation for public participation in the overview of public
service provision, including via the creation of the National Ombudsman
Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or ORI) and through
platforms such as LAPOR, which serves as a public online platform that
provides a complaint-handling service at the national and sub-national
levels.
The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law No.
25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimise
public participation” and delineates the public’s ability to participate
formally in government activities via the Multi-Stakeholder Consultation
Forum for Development Planning process (Musyawarah Rencana
Pembangunan, or Musrenbang). While the Musrenbang process is an
important formal opportunity to involve the public in determining
development priorities across all levels of government, both government and
CSO representatives noted its limitations, primarily involving identifying
the correct CSO partners, ensuring that public inputs are taken into account,
and reporting on their impact to citizens and civil society to avoid
consultation fatigue or – worse – mistrust and lack of participation in future
consultations.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
27ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
The government’s explicit intention of improving its relationship with
citizens is also evidenced in the relevance of this topic in its National
Annual, Mid- and Long-Term Development Plans and the administration’s
governing platform, Nawa Cita. The mutually reinforcing nature of these
strategies signals the country’s formal recognition of the public’s essential
role in setting and monitoring policies and services. Because of this, CSOs
expressed the hope that the administration will pursue the open government
priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term strategies by, for
example, ensuring that the National Open Government Secretariat is made
permanent, thereby giving a sign of stability and, in the future, helping to
smooth the transition between administrations.
The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the
analysis of current civil engagement practices and strategic opportunities in
Indonesia:
• Develop a more structured and consistent whole-of-government
policy to streamline open government and civic engagement.
Although open government and civil engagement priorities are included
in the country’s development strategies, Indonesia should focus on
translating its national vision on open government into specific actions,
including timelines, lead agencies and actors, etc.
• Clarify the guidelines for citizen participation. Establishing a
structured, systematic and transparent mechanism for citizen
engagement would help foster the involvement of a larger share of the
population. For example, the government could develop a Code of
Practice on Citizen Consultation to delineate the role of public
consultation in the law-making process, specify the opportunities for
public engagement and create mechanisms for government reviews on
how consultation processes influence policy.
• Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes
and success stories with the public and civil servants. Investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines
for public communication and training for government officials – is
essential to promoting effective engagement, as it helps give citizens the
sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication,
especially regarding success stories, can also help build support for open
government initiatives throughout the government.
• Support the capacity of the country’s civil society organisations to
engage actively in public governance activities. Despite the deepening
of the relationship between the public and the government in Indonesia,
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
28 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
there is still scope to increase the role of CSOs. To this end, the GOI
can:
− Provide tools and training opportunities for civil society
representatives and the public to help support the planning,
implementation and evaluation of government policies and to secure
their position as partners in the provision of government services.
Building CSOs’ capacity to advocate for the public and to take full
advantage of enhanced engagement mechanisms will be critical in
improving citizen engagement in Indonesia, particularly outside of
Jakarta.
− Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of
public services.
• Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s legal
framework supporting ATI, the government could do more to ensure
freedom of information by helping to ensure the anonymity of
information requests and promoting access to information. Improving
sensitisation efforts to build knowledge of the FOI law and building
human resources capacity would also help facilitate the establishment of
PPID offices.
• Increase the country’s capacity to evaluate the impact of citizen
engagement efforts. For example, this could include enhanced tracking
of statistics and information on the number and results of public
consultations, as well as more consistent data collection of such
interactions at the local level. The national government could also
facilitate co-ordination across the public engagement tools that are
already in place and deepen its analysis of the value-added of public
consultations. Importantly, the GOI should also focus on building the
capacity of public officials to process information received during
consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to report government
decisions back to the public. Together, these efforts will help ensure the
quality and effectiveness of public engagement and highlight the
public’s impact on public policy.
Open government, integrity and anti-corruption Indonesia
Tackling corruption, in all its forms, remains a priority in Indonesia, and
the government is committed to building a culture of integrity, in
collaboration with public officials at all levels, CSOs, the private sector and
ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, citizens play a
prominent role in promoting a culture of integrity across three broad areas:
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
29ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability, and
awareness raising.
The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to
collaborating with citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity
through consultation initiatives in the development of its anti-corruption
policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anti-corruption progress
and by implementing joint awareness-raising activities. For example, in
addition to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel operated by the
Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), several channels
exist, such as LAPOR, the Ombudsman Offices, and complaint services
within line ministries and at the sub-national level. Together, these
contribute to improving government systems and corruption eradication.
Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness
to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which
may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different
institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and privacy rights
of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.
Another avenue through which citizens can strengthen the demand for
integrity in the public sector and in society as a whole is through their role
as watchdogs, helped by CSOs, media and public institutions. In addition to
the KPK, relevant public integrity institutions include the two public audit
institutions, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), although these
have not yet been at the forefront in engaging with citizens.
In order to play this oversight and accountability role, ensuring the
availability of reporting channels, providing assurances of follow-up on the
part of the government and protecting whistleblowers are key conditions that
need to be in place. Effective protection of whistleblowers is particularly
important to help instil a culture of integrity, as it enables citizens to report
corruption, as well as to have confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in
public institutions more generally. Notably, Indonesia has established legal
and institutional provisions for the protection of whistleblowers through
several laws, though these laws could be strengthened, as they do not yet
provide comprehensive protection against discriminatory or retaliatory
action.
Asset disclosure is another key element of any public-sector integrity
framework, as it is an important tool for transparency and oversight of
public officials. The asset disclosure system in Indonesia covers a wide
range of public officials, and compliance with administrative and
bureaucratic procedures is increasing as more data become available online.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
30 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Nevertheless, Indonesia’s asset declaration system faces several challenges,
including that it does not stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and
on administrative and criminal penalties. Moreover, the KPK may not have
sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to detect
corruption.
Finally, in order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of
society, the government should pursue awareness-raising activities, such as
citizen education initiatives, communication campaigns and information
exchanges. Notably, the KPK has implemented various awareness-raising,
public information and broadcast activities. As some of these activities are
carried out in partnership with CSOs, the KPK could use the OGP National
Action Plan development process to explore synergies with CSOs in civic
education and anti-corruption awareness raising.
Opportunities exist to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption agenda
with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives,
including the United Nations 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals.
In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels, whistleblower
protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made significant efforts in
recent years to increase transparency and accountability, as well as to
engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on the country’s efforts to
improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts, the OECD has developed
the following recommendations designed to strengthen the three interrelated
roles of public participation in the policy cycle, oversight and accountability,
and awareness raising:
• Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy
cycle, including in agenda setting, the policy development process,
and monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore
synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anti-
corruption awareness raising. The GOI should also look to strengthen
co-operation between citizens and the two public audit institutions in
Indonesia – the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and
the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) – to
promote a culture of integrity.
• Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements can be more effective and efficient in producing
structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough
assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and
examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout
the complaint-handling cycle.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
31ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
• Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.
Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime and examine
how to make improvements, for example by including legislation that
stipulates disciplinary action, placing the burden of proof on the
employer to prove that any action taken against an employee is
unrelated to his or her whistleblowing, etc.
• Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming
to enable public scrutiny and to further protect the policy cycle from
capture.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for
corruption prevention and prosecution through setting priorities based
on a risk assessment and an evaluation of the processing capacity.
Open government, ICTs, social media and open data
The digital transformations that have changed how people work, access
information and share data present both opportunities and challenges for the
Government of Indonesia. More connected and informed constituencies are
demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public
administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector
performance. In Indonesia, as is common globally, budgetary pressures and
the search for efficiency gains have also encouraged the government to
improve and scale up its digitisation efforts.
The use of ICTs to support open government and to satisfy the demands
of more transparent and participatory governance relies on infrastructural
enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet. Although
Indonesia has benefited from sustained growth in the number of Internet
users and mobile subscriptions, the growth rate of Internet users has been
modest compared with regional peers or other countries facing similar
demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users in Indonesia
representing merely 17.14% of the population. The GOI will also need to
respond to challenges presented by a digital divide across regions and
income levels. If not addressed, existing digital divides are likely to
aggravate regional inequalities as the country transitions toward a more
digital-intensive economy. Besides regional disparities, even in the best-
equipped urban areas, digital divides are still determined significantly by
gender, age and education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013;
Utomo et al, 2013). This context hinders the impact of digitally enabled
participation, transparency and service delivery.
Addressing the existing digital divide requires significant levels of
investment. Ensuring the expected returns on investment, however, also
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
32 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
makes it necessary for the government to look at the demand for ICT use. In
certain regions, both public officials and citizens lack the knowledge and
skills to take advantage of the benefits of having access to the Internet,
highlighting that overcoming the divide depends on more than just access to
infrastructure and the affordability of technological devices. Despite the
limited access to ICTs for certain segments of the population, it is important
to note that Indonesian urban and tech-savvy youth have grasped the
opportunities provided by digital technologies. Broadly, Indonesian Internet
users are overwhelmingly young and very active on social media.
The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce digital public
services that represent an important step in the design of more citizen-
oriented services, supporting greater transparency and citizen engagement.
For instance, the Ministry of Religious Affairs developed SISKOHAT, an
innovative application that is helping Indonesian citizens monitor their
status in the queue for the Hajj pilgrimage.
Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in
leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of
the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial
burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven
approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens
as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.
For instance, increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven
approaches has been the driving force for the organisation of thematic
hackathons, particularly at the local level. Such local-level initiatives
empower Indonesian citizens and developers to propose innovative solutions
to improve healthcare and education, fight corruption, manage disasters or
support small farmers. These activities have also provided local
governments with the opportunity to engage with service users and better
understand their needs.
These initiatives operate as small pockets of innovation and have not yet
benefited from the necessary co-ordination and scaling-up mechanisms.
Insufficient levels of interoperability of government information systems
have hindered the public sector’s ability to deliver transactional and
integrated services that encourage the use and uptake of online channels and
improve the quality of services and the management of its data. Scaling up
these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital service design and
delivery would require the development of governance frameworks,
standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design, prototype, test
and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.
Furthermore, the Government of Indonesia has recognised the potential
represented by Open Government Data (OGD) – namely, the release of data
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
33ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
collected and produced by public organisations while performing their tasks
or of data commissioned with public funds – to enhance the transparency,
accountability, integrity and performance of the public sector. Indonesia’s
central open data portal, which is designed to provide easy access to key
datasets and improve the transparency of key public-sector activities, is
signalled as one of the country’s current OGP commitments, and the use of
open government data for anti-corruption is part of the country’s National
Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Eradication. Moreover, Indonesia
was an active contributor in the elaboration and adoption of the International
Open Data Charter and in the development and adoption of the G20 Open
Data Principles for Anti-Corruption. These engagements illustrate
Indonesia’s commitment and support for OGD as a tool to implement open
government reforms.
Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires
that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.
The Government of Indonesia will need to take steps toward creating more
transparent and inclusive decision-making processes and public-sector
activities in line with the “OECD Recommendation on Digital Government
Strategies” and outlined below:
• To unlock the transformative potential of technologies in the context of
changing government-society dynamics, the Government of Indonesia
should make substantive efforts to achieve scale on its key
initiatives. Participatory platforms should be expanded to achieve a
critical mass of users, and other potentially high-impact initiatives
should be strengthened and streamlined for the government to be able to
reap its full benefits (e.g. LAPOR, public dialogues, hackathons, service
design standards, etc.). This will require additional resources and plans
to develop institutional capacities, regulatory frameworks such as
standards for service design, robust co-ordination and peer-learning
mechanisms.
• The use of digital technologies should be framed by an overarching
policy to help ensure strategic coherence across the administration.
This policy should be aligned with broader policy objectives – such as
those on open government and sustainable development – and with
public-sector reform strategies and action plans. The policy should
provide coherent incentives to create a culture that strengthens the use of
technology for more open, innovative and participatory service design
and delivery. Involving the relevant stakeholders in the development of
the digital government policy will help ensure that the resulting
strategies appropriately reflect the different views. This will also help to
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
34 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
develop a common vision and align objectives with the required levels
of ownership for successful implementation and to deliver impact.
• The development of the policy with contributions from all stakeholders
also provides the opportunity to design sound institutional
frameworks with desirable levels of accountability, control and
transparency. This should include strong co-ordination mechanisms at
the strategic and operational levels to ensure alignment with the
government’s ambitions and institutional mechanisms. Institutional
arrangements should clarify roles and responsibilities in digital
government policy making, particularly between the Ministry of
Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology. The Government of
Indonesia would also benefit from a Chief Digital Officer under the
National Chief Information Officer that can support the digital
transformation, making government digital by design.
• The Government of Indonesia should align incentives for public
institutions and civil servants to respond to national policy
objectives and facilitate a fundamental cultural shift across the
government toward more open, inclusive and citizen-driven processes
and toward the development of ICT and data skills. To achieve this, the
governance frameworks of digital government should equip the co-
ordinating unit with the adequate mix of policy levers (“carrots” and
“sticks”) to be able to induce the expected behavioural change across
public institutions.
• The development of the National E-Government Master Plan should
be complemented with the establishment of a business case
methodology and an ICT project management model that can help
public institutions better plan and structure their ICT investments.
These management tools would allow public institutions to clearly
identify expected benefits, manage risks, monitor the implementation of
ICT projects, identify drivers of failure and success, and make
adjustments as required. The creation of such a tool would allow the
Government of Indonesia to monitor and evaluate ICT initiatives both at
a micro and macro level more effectively.
• The Government of Indonesia should develop a strategic approach
to the use of alternative channels for public engagement and service
delivery, such as social media platforms and mobile phones. This new
approach should recognise the potential of social media and mobile
devices as sources of data, allowing the Government of Indonesia to use
predictive analytics to spot trends, analyse social interactions and
determine service users’ needs. A strategic approach in the use of this
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
35ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
channel can help the Government of Indonesia increase its outreach for
service delivery to vulnerable or excluded segments of the population
living in remote areas (e.g. m-services).
• The Government of Indonesia should recognise data as a strategic
asset and develop governance frameworks, infrastructure and
institutional capacities to support the strategic use of government
data for decision making. To avoid missing the opportunities of
government data and of the digital era more broadly, the Government of
Indonesia must create a vigorous broadband ecosystem that includes an
enabling legal and regulatory environment, as well as appropriate
market conditions supporting high-quality services.
• Make efforts to develop a dynamic open government data ecosystem,
which will require addressing legal and regulatory challenges and
limitations, raising awareness and ownership, developing data skills
across society, and actively engaging with data producers, providers and
users to identify valuable datasets and foster reuse that can deliver
social, economic and good governance value.
Public financial management with a focus on budget transparency and
citizen participation
Budget transparency promotes access to and openness about how
governments plan, raise and use financial resources, in the process
underpinning sound public financial management. It has therefore become a
broadly accepted principle of public financial management over the past two
decades and a cornerstone of public governance themes such as open
government, civic participation and public-sector performance.
Indonesia’s political democratisation process and movement toward
transparency, in addition to the advent of the inclusive national strategic
planning development process, have affected budgeting and public financial
management. In broad terms, Indonesia’s developmental planning
framework has some advanced and innovative features. These aspects of the
policy-development framework are compatible with the OECD
Recommendation on Budgetary Governance, which explicitly calls on
governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open,
transparent and accessible” and to “provide for an inclusive, participative
and realistic debate on budgetary choices”. However, the later phases of the
budget cycle and other domains of public financial management have not
yet integrated transparency, openness and inclusiveness into their systems to
the same extent.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
36 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the review looks at public financial management with a
focus on both budget transparency and citizen participation. The key
challenges faced by Indonesia in these areas primarily relate to the
management of a diverse institutional landscape across multiple levels of
government. Notably, this diversity leads to difficulties in ensuring the
uniform implementation of national laws (in particular those relating to
budget information transparency) and disseminating good practices
throughout the public administration.
Regarding budget transparency, the legal framework for budgeting and
public financial management that emerged following the 1997 Asian
financial crisis and the transition to democracy in 1998 comprises relevant
laws in the areas of development planning, budgeting, regional governance,
state auditing, fiscal balance and disclosure of public information. The
enactment of the laws related to the budget process were part of a broader
reform agenda moving away from the budget being conducted
predominantly by the centre of government toward a system in which the
parliament is more deeply involved in budget formulation, scrutiny,
approval and oversight. Recent reforms have refocused the parliament’s role
on the budgeting process, allowing the parliament a greater degree of
strategic input as opposed to its prior function of providing detailed budget
scrutiny.
Linking the national developmental planning and budgeting process at
every level of government is important to provide a solid foundation for
budget transparency. Together with involving all relevant stakeholders and
ensuring access to information, this integrated approach can help ensure that
the government achieves the best possible outcomes. Ensuring transparency
in the legislative, execution and auditing phases of the budgetary process
can support anti-corruption efforts, as well as evidence-based policy making
in priority areas such as social inclusion, education or healthcare.
While the Ministry of Finance has provided access to aggregated budget
data on their website, other public agencies, such as line ministries,
committees and local governments, decide independently whether to follow
this practice, and the practice is not yet universal. Nevertheless, several sub-
national governments have developed transparency initiatives that may
provide models for future expansion.
Regarding public participation in budgeting, while Indonesia’s public
finances include elements of participation, public involvement is more
advanced in national development planning than it is for the budget cycle.
Parliamentary engagement in budget deliberations is in line with the OECD
recommendations, although public involvement is limited. The situation is
similar concerning public participation in the budget’s implementation and
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
37ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
auditing phases. There is therefore scope to increase the inclusiveness of
already existing public participation initiatives, including the Musrenbang
meetings and the village funding mechanisms. One important goal would be
to eliminate obstacles facing certain sub-groups and to provide greater
openness to the views of local representatives on how resources are applied
in their areas.
Good practices for participative budgeting also exist throughout the
public administration, which may be applied more broadly after adapting
them to local needs and circumstances. Nationally, the Ministry of Finance
holds occasional public hearings on the budget prior to approval by the
legislature; building on this, the centre of government could look into
lessons to be derived from executive-led participation processes.
Finally, over the past 15 years, the GOI has increasingly integrated a
gender perspective into policy planning and implementation, and civic
engagement has been strengthened via an increasing focus on thematic
issues such as gender. During this period, the government introduced
gender-responsive budgets, which allocate funds to meet gender-responsive
objectives, as well as the National Program on Citizen’s Empowerment
(PNPM). Key priorities and achievements of these initiatives include
introducing gender mainstreaming in leadership training exercises, ensuring
equal treatment for training and scholarships, and offering maternity leave,
although it is unclear to what extent these initiatives have been
mainstreamed across the public sector.
Based on this review, the OECD has developed the following key
recommendations:
• Improve the quality and quantity of data and information accessible
for the public throughout the budget cycle. In part, this suggests that
the GOI should continue joint efforts of the Ministry of Finance and
CSOs to develop web-based solutions that provide open budget data at
both the central and local government levels using an integrated
platform. The GOI should also look to improve access to information
about indicative budget ceilings and programme priorities, including via
the Musrenbang process. Furthermore, during the budget approval
process, parliament could make the working sessions of the committees
more open, including by publishing minutes of meetings, data and
decisions.
• Improve the content and the timing of the budget documents. The
GOI should make available the main figures of the Pre-Budget
Statement in advance of the submission of the actual Budget Proposal.
This would facilitate stakeholders in engaging in a realistic and
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
38 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
constructive debate. The government should also publish the Citizens’
Budget as early as possible so that it can engage more citizens
throughout the process, potentially leading to greater inclusiveness of
budgetary priority setting. The GOI could also open the audit process to
public engagement through regular reporting of audit results and
soliciting the views of stakeholders on the quality and impacts of public
spending. This would enhance confidence in the integrity and efficacy
of public financial management.
• Strengthen public participation in the budget cycle. This could
include increasing the co-operation between the parliamentary budget
office and civil society organisations, for example by providing
opportunities to comment on the economic forecasts; improving the
inclusiveness of the Musrenbang meetings; granting public access to the
proposal of the budget and other budget-related meetings of the
parliament; and allowing, through a regulated mechanism, for
accredited/pre-selected CSOs to submit alternative suggestions to the
budget.
• Strengthen the monitoring of local governments by building their
capacity and encouraging the participation of local stakeholders.
This could include continuing efforts to implement participative gender
budgeting and other thematic approaches to budget monitoring.
• Deeper impact could be achieved through targeted training for local
officials and citizens, leading to proposals that fit local needs better and
complement national development programmes. Assisting certain sub-
groups of the society (such as and citizens with disabilities) that face
difficulties in attending meetings would promote the representative
quality of the budgeting process. Improving Internet access in rural
areas and applying web-based solutions would also contribute to more
active participation and inclusiveness.
Innovation in the public sector
In instituting its reform agenda, Indonesia is focused on strengthening
the institutional capacity of its public-sector organisations to learn from and
replicate international good practice while at the same time developing its
own innovative solutions. This section focuses on how innovation, while
often associated with other public-sector reform agendas, can also support
open government principles, the impact of policy reforms and the reach of
government initiatives. Similar to many OECD countries, however,
Indonesia does not have a stand-alone whole-of-government policy on
fostering innovation in the public sector. Furthermore, Indonesia may also
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
39ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
need to continue to develop a common understanding of what constitutes
public-sector innovation across the national government.
The enabling framework supporting innovation in Indonesia
encompasses both the legal provisions and strategic plans that reinforce the
development of innovative solutions in government. Notably, Law No. 25 of
2009 on Public Services and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the Civil Service provide
a context for government action to increase the quality of public services
and enhance the flexibility and transparency of the civil service.
Additionally, Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government supports innovative
behaviour through its creation of a de facto “right to innovate”, which
ensures legal protection to local innovators in case of failure. Furthermore,
the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-19 indicates public
innovation as instrumental to improving the quality of public services, and
the OGP 2014-15 Action Plan recognises the contribution of innovation to
“unlock Indonesia’s potential in the economy, public services and
innovation”. The OGP Action Plan also notes specifically that one of the
plan’s goals of increasing the availability of open data will improve
innovation, in addition to public services and economic growth.
While there are several initiatives that identify and acknowledge public-
sector innovation at the central government level in Indonesia, these efforts
appear to be isolated, and formal structures for ensuring co-ordination of
innovation from a central government perspective are not yet in place.
Notably, the GOI lacks a comprehensive incentive system to motivate public
officials to innovate; the lack of technical guidance and standard operating
procedures has also been flagged as a barrier facing government innovators
at the local level. The Ministry of Interior is looking into developing
partnership models to encourage government, community groups and the
private sector to come together to provide technical assistance and funding
mechanisms.
Nevertheless, Indonesia exhibits a number of important examples of
public-sector innovation at the national and local level, as well as those that
focus on service delivery for improved social outcomes. It is important to
recognise these examples, as experience from OECD member countries has
shown that using a variety of innovative approaches to increase the
transparency and the performance of public services can maximise impact.
The review has identified the following key recommendations regarding
the development of innovation in the public sector in Indonesia:
• Innovation happens across the country, and the GOI recognises and
rewards innovation efforts. The government has not, however,
implemented the systems and procedures to ensure that innovation
sticks, nor has it developed mechanisms for the systematic exchange
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
40 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
across the public sector of good experiences. The GOI should consider
taking a co-ordinated approach to identifying and tackling the
barriers to innovation creation and diffusion in the public sector.
Detailing a vision and plan of action with interventions could create
momentum to support a change agenda, as well as ensure buy-in and
support of responsible entities during implementation.
• Innovation needs to be insulated from changes in the policy cycle
by, for example, identifying formal structures for ensuring co-
ordination at the central government level. Indonesia might want to
consider approaches to innovation co-ordination and promotion
emerging from the experience of other countries (e.g. innovation units,
inter-agency committees and innovation strategies) while concurrently
examining adjustments to streamline administrative complexity.
• Indonesia might want to reflect on possible approaches to replicating
experience from the local to the national level, looking at the drivers
for scaling and potential benefits for diffusion of successful initiatives.
Similarly, roles should be clarified for government institutions that
provide capacity building at the local level for public-sector innovation.
• Within the overall context of its commitment to open government
reforms and its membership in the OGP, Indonesia could consider
prioritising the inclusion of innovative open government practices in
its OGP Action Plans. By doing so, the government could build on the
considerable momentum for open government initiatives to promote
innovation more effectively across the public sector.
Open government and the link with the UN 2030 Sustainable
Development Agenda
Linking open government reforms and initiatives related to the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development is particularly relevant for Indonesia,
as the country played a leading role both in designing the Post-2015
Development Agenda and in establishing the OGP. The broad themes of
improved governance and inclusion found in both the OGP principles and
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides an opportunity to
connect open government practices and approaches to the ambitions
represented by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Through its endorsement of the OGP Joint Declaration on Open
Government for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development in September 2015, Indonesia has already recognised the
potential value of linking these two initiatives. Specifically, the declaration
notes the “importance of harnessing [countries’] efforts and championing
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
41ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
the principles of transparency and open government as crucial tools for
ensuring the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.”
Open government principles, policies and practices contribute directly to
both the substantive targets of the SDGs (specifically through Goal 16,
which aims to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build effective,
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”), as well as to the process
that leads to the identification, implementation and monitoring of all the
SDGs. Notably, by making the policy cycle that underpins the SDG-related
activities inclusive and better tailored to the needs of the citizens, open
government contributes to and supports the achievement of the various
targets of each SDG (i.e. economic development, gender equality,
infrastructure development, etc.).
As evidenced by the public-sector reforms described throughout the
review, Indonesia has already made important progress in pursuing the kind
of initiatives necessary to realise the governance targets laid out under Goal
16 as well as support the process for inclusive design, implementation and
monitoring of all SDGs. Given that meeting these targets will
simultaneously support the country’s efforts to implement the universe of
goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda by promoting transparent, accountable
and inclusive government, it is important to take stock of the ongoing
initiatives that can help Indonesia reach its targets. The following projects,
initiatives and offices are already in place in Indonesia and are well placed
to exploit the synergies between open government policies and SDGs:
• The National SDG Secretariat, which was established in 2016 with
support from UNDP, is designed to co-ordinate the country’s SDG
implementation. The Secretariat is tasked with laying the groundwork
for the implementation and mainstreaming of the SDGs into
development planning at the national and sub-national level. Similar to
the National Open Government Secretariat, Bappenas provides general
oversight of the SDG Secretariat, thereby facilitating the linkages
between the two secretariats. The SDG Secretariat is professionally
staffed and will collect best practices, facilitate communications and
provide government-wide support to help oversee, facilitate, and
monitor the implementation of the SDGs.
• The National Open Government Secretariat has helped to formalise the
government’s relationship with CSOs and co-ordinate open government
horizontally across agencies and vertically across levels of government.
This office provides a model and useful template for how the centre of
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
42 – ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
government can reinforce inclusivity and accountability for transversal
agendas.
• The legal framework for transparency and access to information clearly
supports Target 16.10 of the 2030 Agenda (“Ensure public access to
information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with
national legislation and international agreements”).
• The legal and policy framework supporting citizen participation,
integrity and whistleblower protections, in combination with the work
of Indonesia’s oversight bodies, supports several governance targets of
the 2030 Agenda, such as Targets 16.6 and 16.7, as well as those targets
that seek specifically to promote the rule of law and to reduce
corruption and bribery, such as Targets 16.3 and 16.5. Additionally,
complaint-handling services (such as LAPOR) and citizen engagement
mechanisms (such as the Musrenbang) highlight how the country has
made tangible progress in promoting accountable, inclusive and
transparent government, which responds to the implementation of all
SDGs.
• Indonesia has launched a number of digital government tools that
support a wide range of SDGs. For example, through its technically
advanced and user-friendly central data portal, the central government is
striving to provide easy access to key datasets that will improve
transparency of key public-sector activities.
Given the recent adoption of the SDGs, governments are still in the
process of determining how their current initiatives and priorities will fit
with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Nevertheless, the OECD sees
a number of steps the GOI can take to ensure that it takes full advantage of
the link between its open government agenda and the SDGs so that both
priorities are implemented as coherently, systematically and completely as
possible.
• Continue to develop the links between open government reform
efforts and the design and implementation of the SDGs to help
ensure that the government’s open government agenda supports the
SDGs. This will include supporting institutional collaboration
between the National SDG Secretariat and National Open
Government Secretariat, as well as:
− Explicitly linking the OGP National Action Plan development
process with the design and implementation process for the
SDGs. This could include discussing the SDGs in the context of the
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
43ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS –
development of the OGP National Action Plans and linking each
objective with relevant SDG goals or targets. This will help ensure
coherence between the two initiatives and will facilitate joint
monitoring of the progress and results of the two processes.
− Promoting the use of open data for reporting on SDG
achievements (see, for example, Mexico’s open data portal
designed to track the SDGs). This would not only support the role of
CSOs as watchdogs, but it would foster the reuse of public-sector
information in such a way that is specifically relevant for the
implementation of the SDGs.
− Developing a formal mechanism for capacity building and
sharing lessons to increase the staff that is familiar with both the
SDGs and the country’s open government priorities.
− Increasing the involvement of citizens in the policy cycle of each
SDG-related initiative to ensure that the initiatives are inclusive and
that they fully reflect public needs. This could be achieved by
ensuring that CSO actors and government representatives familiar
with the country’s open government activities and OGP reporting
cycles play a role in the design of the national SDG strategy, as well
as in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
activities.
• Leverage existing regional and international platforms and networks
for policy dialogue, such as the OECD Network on Open and Innovative
Government in Southeast Asia, to identify good practices and lessons from
OECD and non-OECD members alike on how to link open government
agendas with SDG implementation activities.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
451. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –
Chapter 1
Context and drivers of open government in Indonesia
This chapter provides an overview of the context and drivers of public-
sector reforms in Indonesia, including information on the cultural,
historical, political and economic contexts, as well as current perceptions of
public governance. It also introduces the concept of open government,
which the OECD defines as the transparency of government actions, the
accessibility of government services and information, and the
responsiveness of government to new ideas, demands and needs. It goes on
to discuss the key actors and the initiatives in which open government
policies are being developed and implemented.
Note: The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli
authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights,
East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
46 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
Cultural, historical, and political context
Indonesia is a sprawling and diverse nation of roughly 255 million
people – making it the world’s fourth largest nation, third largest
democracy, and largest Muslim-majority country – with over 200 major
cultural and language groups. The population inhabits over 6 000 islands,
although Java is the most populous and is home to over 100 million people,
15 million of them residing in the national capital, Jakarta (Vickers, 2005).
Indonesia’s cultural and geographic complexity is made more challenging
by the country’s exposure to natural disasters, as evidenced powerfully by
the 2004 tsunami.
The first regular contact between Europeans and the peoples of
Indonesia began in 1512, when Portuguese traders sought to trade in the
region. The physical boundaries of Indonesia were largely established by the
Netherlands, however, through their administration of the islands, first under
the Dutch East India Company, established in 1602, and later as the
dominant European power through the administration of the Dutch East
Indies (Ricklefs, 1991).
In 1942, Dutch rule effectively ended with the Japanese invasion of
Indonesia. The Japanese replaced much of the Dutch-created economic,
administrative and political infrastructure, and they actively encouraged
nationalist sentiment. Their involvement led to the creation of new
Indonesian institutions (including local neighbourhood organisations) and
elevated political leaders such as Sukarno, a leader of Indonesia’s nationalist
movement from the pre-war era. Two days after Japan’s surrender in World
War II, on 17 August 1945, Sukarno declared Indonesia’s independence. He
was appointed President, and went on to lead the four-year Indonesian
Revolution, culminating in the formal recognition of Indonesian
independence by the Dutch on 27 December 1949 (Vickers, 2005).
Under Sukarno, who served until 1967, Indonesia moved steadily
towards authoritarianism and close association with communist countries.
Public frustration at economic stagnation and tensions within the army and
society between left and right wing political factions culminated in an
attempted coup on 30 September 1965. The corresponding anti-communist
purge, led by anti-communist factions of the army and local vigilantes, led
to the killing of an estimated 500 000 people between late 1965 and early
1966 and to the destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party (Cribb,
2002).
This destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party, which had
supported Sukarno, helped lead to the rise of General Suharto, who was
named Acting President in March 1967 and formally appointed one year
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
471. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –
later. His “New Order” stabilised the economy and brought the country
closer to Western powers, but his regime continued the previous
administration’s focus on personalism, which came at the cost of institution-
building (Elson, 2008). The corruption of his administration – Suharto, in
fact, was named on a list of heads of state that had extorted the most
personal wealth (Vickers, 2005) – ultimately fed discontent and increased
the country’s vulnerably to the Asian financial crisis. On 21 May 1998, after
popular protests in response to the financial crisis, Suharto announced his
resignation, upon which vice-president Habibie assumed the presidency.
The fall of President Suharto initiated the Reformasi period, in which the
country pursued more open and liberal policies in the form of greater
autonomy for sub-national governments, greater freedom of speech, and an
enhanced role for civic participation. The first two post-Suharto
administrations, under presidents Habibie (1998-99) and Wahid (1999-
2001), loosened controls on the press and pursued an ambitious programme
of decentralisation.1 The country’s first free and fair general elections were
held in 1999, and direct elections of mayors and governors took place for the
first time in 2005 (Antlöv et al, 2010). Among the most notable
achievements during the Reformasi period were the reforms made to the
Constitution between 1999 and 2002. These reforms were designed to
respond to the problems that arose under the original constitution that had
allowed both Sukarno and Suharto to appropriate increasingly authoritarian
powers for themselves. Notably, they limited the powers of the president,
allowed for direct election of presidents and removed military seats from
parliament. The reforms also removed restrictions on civil society and
citizen participation, and allowed new political parties, labour unions, and
other civil society organisations to form (Elson, 2008).2
President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) was inaugurated on 20 October 2014,
with Jusuf Kalla serving as his Vice President. As Indonesia is a presidential
representative democratic republic, President Jokowi serves as both chief of
state and head of government, and was directly elected for a five-year term,
renewable once. His government exercises executive power, while the
legislative power is vested in the bicameral People's Consultative Assembly
(Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, or MPR), which consists of the Regional
Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah) of 132 seats and the
House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) of 560 seats. The
Government of Indonesia has 34 ministries.
Under the current arrangement, the state structure includes four levels:
34 Provinces (headed by a governor); regencies (415) and cities (93), which
constitute the municipal level;3 districts; and villages. The regencies and
cities are situated at the same administrative level and each has its own local
government and legislative body (a regency is headed by a regent, while a
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
48 – 1. CONTEXT AND DRIVERS OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
city is governed by a mayor). Both regencies and cities are further divided
into districts and sub-districts depending on the province.
Following the country’s decentralisation process, regencies and
municipalities have taken on the primary responsibility for providing most
government services. The municipal level in particular plays a key role in
the provision of services and the interaction with citizens and businesses, as
local leaders have the power to propose bills, oversee the regional budget
process and plan local infrastructure.
Despite the trend toward administrative decentralisation, the vast
majority of revenue is raised at the central government level, rather than by
provincial or municipal governments. Nevertheless, the budget is small,
even by the standards of comparable countries. Central tax revenue
(excluding non-tax resource revenue) is around 12% of GDP, where it has
remained for the past decade (OECD, 2015).
Economic context
In addition to the political evolution in Indonesia since the Reformasi
period, the country has also successfully maintained its general good
economic performance since the disruptions of the Asian financial crisis of
1997. Indonesia’s economy grew in the decade following that crisis thanks
to a prudent macroeconomic framework and policy reforms. Furthermore,
and contrary to its experience during the 1990s, Indonesia was one of only
three G20 countries to post economic growth during the global economic
turmoil that began in 2008, an achievement that also allowed the country to
outperform its ASEAN peers over that period (see Figure 1.1). This can be
attributed to both a robust consumer base and to sound macroeconomic
policies, such as inflation targeting and fiscal prudence (OECD, 2015).
OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search