[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324

992. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

success due to limited coverage and functionality. The IRM recommended
intensifying the enforcement of the Law on Freedom of Information and the
Law on Public Services, which could in turn improve implementation of the
more specific initiatives in the three OGP Action Plan priority areas.
Overall, five out of the 12 total action plan commitments were fully met,
while the remaining seven were in progress, though work had started on all
of them (OGP, 2014). The IRM recommended:

• improving OGI as an instrument of the strong transparency framework
that Indonesia has instituted with its Freedom of Information Law

• selecting a strategic but ambitious scope for the next action plan

• deepening system transparency by strengthening structural incentives
and disincentives, rather than only by highlighting best practices

• strengthening the lead institution to enforce OGP implementation

• improving governance of the Core Team as a leading institution of OGI.

Despite these weaknesses, Indonesia made significant progress in
creating more overall visibility for open government within the framework
of the first action plan.

The second OGP Action Plan, issued in 2013, built on the first OGP
Action Plan to drive its further implementation and emphasised the need to
continue building the infrastructure for open government across the country,
thus seeking to address gaps identified in the course of the implementation
of the first OGP Action Plan. The second OGP Action Plan included
responsible institutions, achievement criteria and measures as well as
targeted deliverables.

To assess progress of the second action plan, the IRM released a Special
Accountability Report, prompted by the early release of the third action plan
and the change in administration during the period of evaluation. The
Special Accountability Report found that only two out of a total of
15 commitments were completed by the time of the drafting of the report.
On five commitments substantial progress had been made, whereas most
commitments had seen only limited implementation (OGP, 2015b).
Available evidence also suggests that in the case of most commitments (with
some notable exceptions) the involvement of civil society in the execution
of action plans for monitoring, evaluation and advocacy purposes was
limited (OGP, 2015b). Progress in this area was, however, made with the
creation of working groups in several fields by the CSO Coalition on Open
Government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

100 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

A third OGP Action Plan with commitments for 2014-15 was released
in September 2014, one year ahead of schedule, and preserved the three
grand challenges identified at the outset. The action plan set out to
strengthen the Triple Track Strategy, align the action plan with Indonesia’s
OGP Lead Chairmanship theme of promoting public participation, re-
emphasise implementation of commitments in provinces and cities, and
further push the implementation of the Law on Freedom of Information
(Open Government Indonesia, 2014). Compared with the previous
iterations, the third action plan includes more detailed information on the
action’s plan development process, emphasising the role and mechanisms of
public participation. To this end, a crowdsourcing platform (SOLUSIMU)
was created to gather ideas that would then be incorporated into the action
plan itself. Via the OGI website, the public was encouraged to provide ideas,
and youth in particular were encouraged to participate. Furthermore,
Indonesian CSOs initiated a national forum to develop recommendations
coming from the wider civil society, thus going beyond the specific CSOs
that were already members of the core OGI team. Most of the initiatives are
new, while only three remain from the previous action plans (Open
Government Indonesia, 2014). The action plan included four main groups of
commitments:

• strengthen open governance infrastructure to support better public
services

• improve quality of openness in basic public services (i.e. education and
health)

• accelerate open and good governance practices in corruption-prone areas

• improve quality of openness in common public interest areas.

The commitments generally conform to OGP guidelines (but unlike in
the previous action plans they are not time-bound) and hold the potential to
be transformative. The governance process was strengthened by the creation
of clearer monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, both internal and
external. Responsible institutions were established for each commitment, but
issues remained concerning both the availability of the financial and human
resources necessary to make good on these new commitments and the way
to ensure actual enforcement and implementation given that no penalties are
specified in case of lack of compliance.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1012. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Opportunities to strengthen open government through the centre of
government

Indonesia has a fairly strong starting position to foster open government
policies and practices:

• It is a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and
signed the OGP declaration in September 2011.

• It has a well-developed legal and regulatory framework on open
government (e.g. references to transparency and accountability in the
Constitution; Freedom of Information Law of 2008; etc.).

• It has reflected open government ideas in key strategic policy documents
like the Presidential Priorities and the Medium-Term National
Development Plan 2015-19.

• It has a tradition of institutional structures promoting the open
government agenda, such as UKP4 under the Yudhoyono
administration, and more recently the Open Government Indonesia
National Secretariat.

By fostering its open government agenda at the international, national
and local level, the country’s multilevel approach to open government is
ambitious and inspiring, although it also faces some challenges. In
particular, there is a risk that efforts to promote open government are
somewhat scattered and poorly connected. These efforts could be improved
by enhanced formalisation and communication. In a context of limited
human and financial resources, it is important that open government
initiatives at different governmental levels are mutually reinforcing. This
implies, among other things, that the CoG should act to develop a coherent
strategic approach, carefully consider complementarity across initiatives and
identify multiplier effects.

Connecting different governance agendas

Whereas the importance of the open government agenda is generally
acknowledged and promoted by the CoG actors, other transversal agendas
(such as anti-corruption and bureaucratic reform) also require substantial
time and energy of those same CoG actors. This results in a situation where
some CoG actors are more actively involved in the open government agenda
than others (e.g. Bappenas versus KemenPAN) and it may also result in a
situation where opportunities are missed to connect these transversal reform
agendas more explicitly. If it gains a better grasp of the connections and
possible mutual reinforcement at play in these policy areas, the CoG might

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

102 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

avoid missing out on opportunities or even working at cross purposes in
implementing these reforms.

In a similar vein, different instruments exist in parallel to promote
connected policy priorities across government. The existence of the planning
(and monitoring) of Presidential Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term
NDP goals, and an OGP Action Plan can become overwhelming and can
create substantial transaction costs. In addition, the status of less visible
reform agendas (e.g. bureaucratic reform) is somewhat unclear, and
opportunities to foster an integrated governance reform approach with a
limited set of mutually reinforcing objectives are likely to be missed.

The connection between different governance agendas could also be
strengthened at the institutional level. Whereas there are some initiatives for
institutional collaboration in the area of open government – such as the
LAPOR initiative where four institutions collaborate through a formal MoU
– it appears that a good share of the potential for more proactive
collaboration remains untapped and could be encouraged through measures
such as involving the Ministries of Home Affairs or Bureaucratic Reform
more closely in the design, implementation and monitoring of open
government initiatives.

Connecting horizontal (CoG and line ministries) and vertical
(central and subnational level) co-ordination

Indonesia is characterised by a high level of complexity when dealing
with governance issues, both because of its size and its decentralized
governance structure. This makes the ownership of transversal agendas like
open government across levels of government an even bigger challenge. For
that reason, the CoG should be particularly attentive to fostering the
coherence of the open government both horizontally and vertically:

• horizontally, i.e. between the CoG on the one hand, and line ministries
on the other

• vertically, i.e. between central government on the one hand, and
decentralised levels of government, on the other.

Whereas strong open government leadership by the CoG is valuable –
which was the case under UKP4 and thanks to the current role of the
National Open Government Secretariat – there is also a risk of disconnection
between the understanding and promotion of open government by the
central co-ordinating body and the ownership of the open government
agenda by the other governmental actors. In that sense, a balanced
involvement of both line ministries and decentralised governmental
structures in open government (throughout the policy cycle, i.e. planning,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1032. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of open government initiatives)
and the development of appropriate incentives to deliver upon the open
government agenda are all essential. This also suggests the opportunity for
the government to pursue an open state approach to more systematically
connect government bodies to open government principles. Box 2.9 outlines
how the Government of New Zealand has sought to clarify and structure
how ministries work together, and there may be lessons here to apply to
Indonesia’s centre of government co-ordination efforts, including those for
open government.

Box 2.9. Fostering collective commitment: The case New Zealand

New Zealand’s Crown entity system is a principles-based framework designed to help
Ministers, statutory entities and monitoring departments improve the way they work together to
achieve better results. Crown entities supply many of the services provided to New Zealanders,
and so delivering services better requires the government and Crown entities to work well
together.

To get the best results from government investment in Crown entities, all parties in the
engagement process need to understand the system as a whole and where they fit within it. The
operating expectations framework sets out in one place how the respective roles and
responsibilities underpinning those relationships are aligned. It is a tool for Ministers, statutory
entity board members and staff, and monitoring departments to foster collective commitment.
The expectations are aligned horizontally so that each of the three parties is aware of what is
expected of the other parties. Statutory Crown entities operate with three sets of expectations:

• The Enduring Letter of Expectations from the Ministers of Finance and State Services.

• Ministerial expectations, which inform entities’ strategic direction over the next four

years (set out in their statements of intent) and priorities for the coming year (set out in
their statements of performance expectations).

• Operating expectations, which guide engagement between the statutory entity, its

responsible minister and the monitoring department. These are intended to help the
parties achieve trusting, productive relationships.

The following four principles guide the expectations’ framework:

• clear roles and responsibilities;

• strategic alignment;

• efficient and effective monitoring; and

• trusted engagement.

Source: Ministry for Culture and Heritage of New Zealand (2014), Statutory Crown Entities – It Takes
Three: Operating Expectations Framework, Crown Copyright, www.ssc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/it-takes-
three-operating-expectations-framework.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

104 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

More active involvement of line ministries in the development of the
OGP Action Plan (as a consensus-building exercise to identify open
government priorities and as a feasibility check of deliverables requested
from line ministries), as well as ensuring the existence of sufficient
institutional capacity both within line ministries and at the level of
decentralised governmental actors (promoted and supported by the CoG) are
critical enablers of this horizontal and vertical co-ordination.

Connecting planning with implementation and strategic follow-up

Connecting an appropriate legal and regulatory framework for open
government initiatives with actual implementation capacity and a strategic
follow-up of deliverables remains a challenge for many countries, including
Indonesia. As phrased by one of the interviewees, “a lot of time is spent on
designing, printing and socialising, but not implementation”. Broadly, this
suggests that for the future open government agenda, the CoG should more
explicitly connect, and rebalance where necessary, the work on policy
development and policy implementation, as well as provide sufficient
resources for monitoring and evaluation of results. Therefore, the CoG
should also emphasize the roll-out and follow-up of open government-
related activities, rather than primarily focusing on legal and regulatory
framework, policy design, etc. It is important to set up mechanisms and
establish implementation details to guide technical operations. The
government needs to strengthen the OGP Action Plans to help guide the
government’s open government efforts, as well as ensure that all elements of
the Freedom of Information Law are followed.

In addition, it is advisable to further foster the efforts aimed at fine-
tuning the OGP Action Plan planning cycle with 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. Moreover, as the
country has now reached the fourth generation of its OGP Action Plan, it is
also important to push for further mainstreaming of open government
policies and practices and to promote the sharing of success stories and
occasional failure.

In order to assure strategic follow-up of open government efforts, it is
important to invest in appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. A
recent OECD survey on open government shows that almost all of the
respondents confirm the use of monitoring instruments for their open
government initiatives. As shown in Figure 2.3, furthermore, the
mechanisms most commonly used by OECD countries include using normal
monitoring activities of relevant public institutions; OGP assessments; and
specific offices tasked with monitoring open government initiatives.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1052. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Figure 2.3. Monitoring of open government initiatives across OECD countries

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Through an ad hoc monitoring Through the normal monitoring Through OGP assessments (self-
mechanism.
Through a single institution/office in activities of each public institution assessment and IRM, if your country is
charge of monitoring all open
government initiatives of the involved in open government initiatives part of OGP)
Government.

Note: 1. Only countries which answered to monitor open government initiatives were asked this
question (n=OECD 30).

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Beyond monitoring activities, nearly half of OECD countries confirm
that the government also assesses the impact of open government initiatives.
Figure 2.4 shows that the most common instruments to measure impact
among those OECD countries that monitor open government initiatives
include via the normal activities of relevant public institutions; the OGP
assessment process; surveys of citizens and stakeholders; and independent
assessments conducted by NGOs.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

106 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Figure 2.4. Impact evaluation of open government initiatives across OECD countries

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Through an ad hoc Through the normal Through surveys Through surveys Through government Through independent Through independent Through the OGP

evaluation evaluation activities of among citizens and among public officials conducted studies on assessments assessments assessments (self-

mechanism focusing each public institution stakeholders the impact of open conducted by NGOs conducted by private assessment and IRM)

on impacts involved in the Open government initiatives companies

Government Strategy in specific areas

Note: 1. Only countries which answered to evaluate open government initiatives were asked this
question (n=OECD17).

Source: OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Connecting strategies with attitudes and practices

Open government reforms have as much to do with instituting a shared
culture and developing shared competences as they do with the mere
formulation of open government-related policy priorities. Some scepticism
appears to exist on the part of both civil service and civil society
representatives concerning the government’s ability to deliver on its open
government activities. Primarily, these concerns were related to challenges
posed by the country’s history and scale, and to specific concerns regarding
local capacity, bureaucratic culture, etc. This scepticism might be rooted in
observed reality, but aspects such as capacity and culture also lie at the heart
of genuine open government innovations. Therefore, a focus on soft issues
and skills like culture, debate and exchange, and building competencies, etc.
are essential to fostering both the supply of, and the demand for, open
government reforms.

Recommendations

The GOI has made important progress in developing the legal, policy
and institutional framework needed to support open government. Moving
forward, the GOI must continue to focus on ensuring these changes are
reflected throughout the policy cycle. Strong leadership from the CoG will

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1072. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

continue to be critical in guaranteeing that the government’s open
government priorities are implemented by the whole range of government
actors. Additionally, the OECD recommends that the GOI:

• Further strengthen the connections between, and mutual reinforcement
of, different governance-related agendas, including the Presidential
Priorities, short-, medium- and long-term NDP goals, OGP Action
Plans, and other reform agendas such as the bureaucratic reform
roadmap.

• Improve horizontal and vertical co-ordination to help maintain broad
ownership of the open government agenda. This suggests the GOI
should pursue the active involvement of both line ministries and
decentralised governmental structures throughout the policy cycle, as
well as the development of appropriate incentives to deliver the open
government agenda.

• Better connect the policy planning process with actual implementation
and strategic follow-up, particularly by providing sufficient resources
for 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.

• Focus on building local capacity and fostering a culture among civil
servants that supports open government principles so that understanding
of, and support for, open government reforms is central to the public
sector’s activities.

Notes

1. This section is based on OECD (2015), complemented with information
from the 2015 meeting in Helsinki (Finland) of the OECD Network of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

108 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

Senior Officials from Centres of Government on “Promoting Inclusive
Growth: A New Challenge for the Centre of Government”.
2. Presidential Regulation No. 66 of 2015 on Ministry of National
Development Planning.
3. Blöndal et al., 2009.
4. Presidential Regulation No.47 of 2015 on Ministry of State Apparatus and
Bureaucratic Reform.
5. Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform
www.indonesia.go.id/en/ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-the-
empowerment-of-stat apparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negara-
pendayagunaan-aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 24
June 2015).
6. The provinces of Aceh, Jakarta, Yogyakarta and West Papua have a
greater degree of legislative and executive autonomy from the central
government than the other provinces.
7. Ministry of National Development Planning, 2014; “Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019”. Access to the
Medium-Term Development Plan and the 2015 Annual Plan can be found
here: www.bappenas.go.id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968.
8. OECD, 2012.
9. World Services Group, “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”, Makarin &
Taira S., October 2009,
www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=305
8.
10. OECD, 2012.

References

Australia Indonesia Partnership for Indonesia (2010), “Delivery Strategy
2010-2015”, Australian Aid, http://dfat.gov.au/about-
us/publications/Documents/AIPD-delivery-strategy.pdf (accessed 8 July
2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1092. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA –

Budiarso, A. (2014), Improving Government Performance in Indonesia: The
Experience of Balanced Scorecard in the Ministry of Finance, PhD
Thesis, University of Canberra, May.

Jón R. Blöndal, Ian Hawkesworth and Hyun Deok Choi (2009), "Budgeting
in Indonesia", OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 9/2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/budget-9-5ks72wv89p48.

Jurnali, T. and Siti-Nabiha, A.K. (2015), “Performance Management System
for Local Government: The Indonesian Experience”, Global Business
Review, 16(3): 351-363.

Gallup (n.d.), “Gallup World Poll”,
www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx.

Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (n.d.), 2015-2019
Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap, www.indonesia.go.id/en/
ministries/ministers/state-minister-for-the-empowerment-of-state-
apparaturs/1645-profile/269-kementerian-negara-pendayagunaan-
aparatur-negara-dan-reformasi-birokrasi (accessed 15 June 2015).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2007), Rencana Pembangunan
Jangka Panjang Nasional Tahun 2005-2025 (Indonesian), National
Long-Term Development Plan 2005-2025, http://bappeda.ntbprov.
go.id/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/naskah-ruu-rpjpn-tahun-2005-
2025.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2015), “Design of the National
Secretariat of Open Government Indonesia (OGI).

Ministry of National Development Planning (2014), Rencana Pembangunan
Jangka Menengah Nasional 2015-2019 (Indonesian), National Medium-
Term Development Plan 2015-2019, www.bappenas.go.
id/index.php?cID=5009?&kid=1435317968 (accessed 15 July 2015).

OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way
Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2015), Lithuania: Fostering Open and Inclusive Policy Making,
OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235762-en.

OECD (2014a), “Vision, leadership, innovation: Driving public policy
performance”, 33rd Meeting of Senior Officials from centres of
government, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/gov/summary.pdf.

OECD (2014b), “Centre stage: Driving better policies from the centre of
government”, GOV/PGC/MPM(2014)3/FINAL, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/Centre-Stage-Report.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

110 – 2. STEERING AND CO-ORDINATION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

OECD (2014c), Kazakhstan: Review of the Central Administration, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264224605-en.

OECD (2013), “Survey of centres of government”, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/gov/cog-2015-session-notes.pdf.

OECD (2012), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012:
Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173637-en.

Open Government Indonesia (2014), “Indonesia 2014-2015, OGP Action
Plan”, Open Government Indonesia.

OGP (n.d.), “OGP national action plan guidance note”, Open Government
Partnership,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_action
plan_guide%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015).

OGP (2015a), “How it works: Action plans”, Open Government Partnership,
www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/action-plans (accessed
24 September 2015).

OGP (2015b), “Indonesia, Special Accountability Report”, Open
Government Partnership and Centre for Regulation Policy and
Governance.

OGP (2014a), “Indonesia Progress Report 2011-2013”, Independent
Reporting Mechanism, Open Government Partnership.

OGP (2011), “Indonesia, Open Government Partnership”,
www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia (accessed 24 September
2015).

TIFA Foundation (2013), “Implementation of Open Government Partnership
in Indonesia 2012-2013, Independent Report Monitoring”, TIFA
Foundation, Indonesia.

World Services Group (2009), “Indonesia - Law on Public Services”,
Makarin and Taira S., October,
www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp
?action=article&artid=3058 (accessed 15 July 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1113. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Chapter 3
Citizen engagement in Indonesia

This chapter will examine the strategic leverage points and the best
approaches to promote citizen engagement across the Government of
Indonesia. It will first lay out the OECD approach to citizen engagement,
including definitions, key factors to consider and general best practices. It
will then provide an overview of Indonesia’s civil society sector, legal
foundation and policy framework for public engagement and access to
information, as well as a review of the key mechanisms for civic engagement
being employed by the government. The chapter will conclude with a review
of strategic approaches to instituting civic engagement practices in the
country and specific recommendations.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

112 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Introduction

Enhancing citizen engagement and ensuring public involvement both in
shaping government decision-making and in the design, monitoring, and
delivery of public services are fundamental aspects of open government. As
one of eight founding members of the Open Government Partnership, these
are principles that Indonesia has committed to pursuing and in which the
country has made significant progress. However, as noted earlier, particular
challenges faced by Indonesia include managing geographic and cultural
diversity across the country’s islands and co-ordinating reform efforts across
multiple ministries and levels of government.

This chapter will therefore begin with a review of OECD principles of
citizen participation before turning to a discussion of the legal, policy, and
institutional framework in this area. It will also provide an overview of how
the country’s current citizen engagement initiatives can be supported,
expanded and linked to develop a more strategic approach to citizen
engagement.

OECD approach to citizen engagement

In an effort to promote open government reforms, the OECD, together
with its member countries, has identified key principles and good practices
regarding citizen engagement that will guide the analysis of the efforts of the
GOI to involve citizens in public governance. Specifically, this work is built
on the belief that governments, in order to benefit fully from active
interaction with their population, should inform, consult and engage with
them not merely as subjects, but as partners in the design, delivery and
evaluation of policies and services. The OECD therefore defines the
relationships between citizens and public administrations in increasing
levels of engagement, as described below (see also Figure 3.1):

• Information provision is a one-way relationship in which the
government produces and delivers information to be used by citizens. It
covers both “passive” access to information upon citizens’ demands and
“active” measures by government to disseminate information. Examples
include: allowing access to public records and developing government
websites.

• Consultation is a two-way relationship in which citizens provide
feedback to the government. While this step requires access to
information and depends on citizen participation, governments still
define the issues for consultation, set the questions and manage the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1133. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

consultative process. Examples include: disseminating public opinion
surveys and seeking comments on draft legislation.
• Active participation is a relationship based on partnership with the
government, in which citizens engage in defining the process and
content of policy making. Active participation acknowledges equal
standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and
shaping the policy dialogue, though the responsibility for the final
decision or policy formulation rests with the government. Examples
include: hosting consensus conferences and citizens’ juries (OECD,
2001).

Figure 3.1. Defining information, consultation, and active participation

Source: OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

Generally, when governments encourage public consultation and
engagement, they are able to receive new ideas and feedback from citizens
on policies and services, thereby enhancing both their quality and
compliance with them. Broadly, citizen engagement (i.e. the combination of
information, consultation and active participation initiatives) has positive
effects on the quality of a country’s democratic life and has the potential to
promote socio-economic development and generate the conditions for
inclusive growth.

Another element of citizen engagement is the concept of “co-
production” of policies and services, or those collaborative approaches
whereby citizens engage in partnerships with service professionals in the
design and delivery of a public service (OECD, 2011b). Co-production is
seen primarily as contributing to greater user involvement and improved

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

114 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

service outputs and outcomes, with less emphasis on cost cutting. Survey
results (see Figure 3.2) indicate that in the large majority of cases (69%)
reported by countries across all service categories, the reason for engaging
in co-producing is to achieve stronger user and citizen engagement (OECD,
2011b).

Figure 3.2. Reasons for partnering with citizens and CSOs for public service delivery
As a % of cases reported by countries across all service categories

80% 69%
61%
70% 57%
49%
60% 40%

50% To increase To build citizen's To improve To improve service To increase the
productivity trust and confidence effectiveness, quality involvement of
40% users or citizens
30% 28% in governments outcomes and
achieve greater
20% value for money

10%

0%
To cut budget

expenditures and
costs

Source: OECD survey on “Innovation in Public Services: Working Together with Citizens for Better
Outcomes”, 2010; 22 OECD countries, Brazil, Egypt, Russia and Ukraine responded to the survey.

The OECD has found that the three most commonly cited factors for
successful co-production activities include top-level commitment and
leadership; government willingness and capacity at all levels to engage; and
clarity of strategies and objectives. Successful implementation of co-
production, furthermore, can help make better use of resources and contain
costs; increase effectiveness; help identify solutions to complex problems
and contribute to enhancing societal, as well as individual, well-being; and
can improve democratic governance and build public trust (OECD, 2011b).

Nevertheless, for co-production (and citizen engagement more broadly)
to achieve these outcomes, it is important that citizen engagement is
conducted following certain criteria. The OECD Principles for Open and
Inclusive Policy Making (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) support countries in
designing and implementing an effective framework for citizen engagement
and are based on good practices implemented by OECD member countries.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1153. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

In particular, the principles first highlight the importance of co-ordination of
engagement initiatives across the whole of government in order to avoid
consultation fatigue and to create a coherent and systematic approach.
Second, the principles stress the key role of accountability mechanisms,
which implies reporting back to citizens about the impact of their inputs.
Third, the role of monitoring and evaluation of participation initiatives to
capture their effectiveness and outcomes is also underlined and, lastly, the
principles emphasise the relevance of promoting an active citizenship that is
capable of engaging with the government.

To manage consultation and co-operation in an effective manner, it is
essential that government, CSOs, and other stakeholders establish and use a
set of consistent guidelines that translate the principles into practical
procedures. Box 3.1 presents a number of factors that should be considered
when designing a specific consultation and tailoring the overall guidelines to
the needs of a particular case.

Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation

Citizen participation can take a wide variety of forms depending on the
following key factors:

• Size. Size of process can range from a few participants to hundreds or

thousands, and online processes potentially involve millions.

• Purpose. Processes are used for many reasons: to explore an issue and

generate understanding, to resolve disagreements, to foster collaborative
action, or to help make decisions, among others (NCDD, 2008).

• Goals. Objectives can include informing participants, generating ideas,

collecting data, gathering feedback, identifying problems, or making
decisions, among others.

• Participants. Some processes involve only expert administrators or

professional or lay stakeholders, while others involve selected or diffuse
members of the public.

• Participant recruitment. Processes may use self-selection, random

selection, targeted recruitment, and incentives to bring people to the table.

• Communication mode. Processes may use one-way, two-way, and/or

deliberative communication.

• Participation mechanisms. Processes may occur face-to-face, online,

and/or remotely.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

116 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 3.1. Understanding key factors in citizen participation
(continued)

• Named methodology. Some processes have official names and may even

be trademarked; others do not employ named methodologies.

• Locus of action. Some processes are conducted with intended actions or

outcomes at the organisational or network level, whereas others seek
actions and outcomes at the neighbourhood or community level, the
municipal, state and national levels, or even the international level.

• Connection to policy process. Some processes are designed with explicit

connections to policy and decision-makers (at any of the loci listed above),
while others have little or no connection to policy and decision-makers,
seeking instead to invoke individual or group action or change.
Source: Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen Participation, IBM
Center for Business of Government,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan048340.pdf.

Ultimately, the extent to which shifts toward public engagement
contribute to improved policies and development outcomes depends on the
degree to which the changes are able to overcome existing power structures
resistant to such changes, such as an entrenched bureaucracy, a culture of
entitlement among officials or patronage networks. Where these hurdles
exist, methods should be sought to identify civil society organisations and
innovative or pro-reform government officials to reinforce their efforts to
challenge existing power structures (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).

Based on more than a decade of data collection and policy analysis,
OECD member countries have shown that open government policies can
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, as well as
increase the transparency and accountability of the public sector. The focus
of the remainder of this chapter will therefore be on how to make
government decision-making and service provision more transparent and
participative in Indonesia and how to empower citizens individually and
civil society organisations collectively in such a way as to improve good
governance and democracy, enhance citizens’ trust, and ultimately generate
inclusive growth.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1173. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Status of civil society in Indonesia1

Though civil society organisations have seen their roles expand and
change in critical ways since the democratic reforms of 1998, the beginnings
of civil society activity, marked by organised and relatively independent
community groups focused on education, social issues, religion, economics
and even politics, can be traced back to the time of Dutch colonialism in the
beginning of the 20th century (Ibrahim, 2006). Throughout most of
Indonesia’s history, however, civil society organisations have not had the
scope to be involved in the political process. This was particularly notable
during the New Order regime under President Suharto (1966-98), when the
political system was designed to exert strict control over civil society though
the prohibition of freedom of association and expression (Ibrahim, 2006).

Toward the end of the Suharto era, several organisations focused on
human rights advocacy and democracy were established in Indonesia, in line
with the growing global focus, and funding prioritisation, of these issues
(Ibrahim, 2006). Since 1998, the growth of civil society groups, from the
national to the local level, has also been supported by donor programming
for democratisation and governance reforms, with the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID, 2007) providing significant
assistance to Indonesian CSOs. To date, funding and support from
international donors remain essential for CSOs in Indonesia (Antlöv et al,
2010).

As a direct consequence of the 1998 democratic reforms, the role of
civil society groups in Indonesia has grown in importance. Notably, CSOs
have moved from their previous stance in opposition to the state to more
constructive relationships with state institutions in conducting institutional
reform projects (ICNL, 2015). This has been due to the dual effects of laws
that have allowed for increased freedoms of association and access to
information, as well as to the country’s decentralisation 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. Although within the public sector there remain pockets of
suspicion of civil society, a 2012 report by AusAID noted that space for co-
operation between CSOs and the government continues to expand, and civil
society representatives “rarely experience violence or legal restrictions.” In
fact, CSO leaders are joining political parties and the government at a rate
that would have been impossible under Suharto (AusAID, 2012).

It should also be noted that while labour unions have grown in number
and importance since the fall of Suharto,2 they are not closely linked with
open government activities in the country. Until the end of the Suharto
regime, only one labour organisation was acknowledged by the government,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

118 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

while others were often persecuted or accused of communist links. Many
organisations were only formed after Law No. 21/2000 Concerning Trade
Unions/Labour Unions was passed.3 For the most part, labour associations
are principally involved in issues related to social security and do not
participate in the national development planning or budgetary planning
process. They are also not involved in the OGP National Action Plan
development process.4

Despite its relatively recent liberalisation, Indonesia is nonetheless
ranked 49 out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2014 Democracy
Index. Indonesia’s highest scores were for its civil liberties (7.35/10) and
electoral process and pluralism (7.33/10), while the country’s scores for
political participation (6.67/10) and political culture (6.25/10) were lower.
The lack of wide variation in Indonesia’s scores in the Democracy Index’s
categories highlights that there is ample room for the strengthening of the
country’s democratic underpinnings. The report noted the importance of the
victory of Joko Widodo in Indonesia’s presidential election in July 2014,
however, as it broke the grip on power of a small political elite (EIU
Democracy Index, 2014).

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 CSOs throughout Indonesia, the lack
of details creates difficulties for other CSOs, donors, or the GOI, to identify
where the organisations are operating, what they are working on and how to
contact them. The report also noted that most CSOs in Indonesia are
disproportionately located in Jakarta, and are focused on service delivery or
organising communities for self-help rather than focusing on macro-level
changes (AusAID, 2012).

Challenges faced by civil society in Indonesia

Despite the progress made by civil society since the country’s
democratisation, the legacy of the country’s political control has had a
considerable impact on it, as for more than three decades they were treated
as “part of problem” (Ibrahim, 2006) rather than as key actors in the
identification of solutions. Since some public officials still question the
legitimacy of CSOs’ role as a watchdog, there remain communication
barriers even when organisations have valid critiques. As also noted by
AusAID, these barriers are more evident in some regions and can be more
prominent when dealing with land or labour issues or with culturally
sensitive issues like gender or LGBT rights (AusAID, 2012).

Another legacy of the country’s past repression of civil society groups is
that government officials have often considered the design and delivery of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1193. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

public services as their exclusive domain and view citizens only as end
users, not as stakeholders. While this attitude is clearly changing rapidly,
CSO capacity to aggregate citizens’ interests and translate preferences to
policy makers does not have deep roots in Indonesia (Antlöv et al, 2010).
Building CSO capacity to effectively 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.

Financial and operational issues also continue to present challenges to
the CSO sector in Indonesia. Operational obstacles include the quality of the
Indonesian education system and a lack of mentorship and capacity building
opportunities (AusAID, 2012). There is also a gender component to staffing
issues, as men make up the majority of CSO employees, whether on a
voluntary, semi-voluntary or salaried basis (Suryadarma et al, 2011).
Furthermore, many CSOs operate on short-term, project-based funding
cycles. Many lack money for operational costs and access to Indonesian-
language training and information, and few organisations request support
from donors for such matters. Subnational organisations also shared their
perception that donors favoured Jakarta/Java-based organisations even when
strong organisations exist locally (AusAID, 2012).

Specifically regarding citizen engagement, some CSOs noted that the
link between the national planning and budgeting process remains obscure.
Since the budgeting process is less open to external participation than the
planning process, CSOs expressed their concern that they have limited
access and information on which to base their analysis. CSOs also noted that
the planning and budgeting process is not accessible enough to women and
minorities, a problem that is particularly notable in more rural regions.

Gender impact assessments (GIAs) are one type of tool that policy
makers can use to assess the impact that new legislation or policies may
have on women. Building awareness and understanding among policy
makers of the potentially different effects of policy choices on men and
women is key to inclusive policy making. According to the OECD Survey
on Gender, Public Policies and Leadership, of the OECD responding
countries, 84% (16 countries) reported having requirements for ex ante (e.g.
before the proposed law or policy has been approved or gone into effect)
GIAs on primary legislation compared to 37% (7 countries) for ex post (e.g.
following implementation). In general, however, it seems the majority of
responding countries reserve GIAs for primary and secondary legislation
rather than for policies and programmes (OECD, 2013). Expanding the use
of such a tool would prove useful to Indonesia in helping it to gather
additional information on the potential effects of public policies, data that
would help inform discussions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

120 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Civil society representatives have also expressed their desire to clarify
their relationship with the government and advance the conversation on how
to increase citizen engagement. The protracted transition between different
administrations’ management of open government in Indonesia and the
change in formal governance mechanisms with the dissolution of UKP4 and
OGI in December 2014 made it difficult for CSOs to consolidate and co-
ordinate their approach. The establishment of the National Open
Government Secretariat in November 2015 will provide clarity and facilitate
the engagement of civil society at the national level.

Legal framework of citizen engagement in Indonesia

Overview

The 1945 Constitution, and subsequent laws, regulations and
presidential decrees provide a sound foundation for citizen engagement.
Together, the country’s legal framework recognizes the public’s right to
participation, guarantees access to information and establishes the
mechanisms through which information is disseminated, and provides
various independent state agencies and accountability mechanisms.
Nevertheless, despite this supportive legal framework and the political
commitment placed on open government in Indonesia, in practice public
institutions do not automatically operate openly, nor do they provide
consistent access to citizens. This is partly a legacy of the more than three
decades of authoritarian rule, which prevented citizen access to or
involvement in government affairs (Transparency International-Indonesia,
2014), but it is also due to a generalised lack of awareness of and capacity to
implement open government initiatives in public institutions at central as
well as local levels.

Access to information

As noted by Transparency International, Indonesia is “very advanced” in
regulating transparency. The right to information is broadly acknowledged
in the 1945 Constitution (Article 28F) as well as in Law No. 14/2008 on
Freedom of Information (Transparency International-Indonesia, 2014), and
further supported by Government Regulation No. 61/2010, which sought to
clarify and speed up the implementation of the public provision of
information. Together, 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) that
receive part or all of their funds from a government budget. Law No.
14/2008 is the primary vehicle through which the public is given the right to
access information. The law, which came into effect in May 2010,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1213. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

recognizes that “the right to obtain information is a human right and
transparency of public information is a significant characteristic of a
democratic state that holds the sovereignty of the people in high esteem;”
the law also recognizes the role of information to “materialize good state
management”. (See Figure 3.3 for an illustration of how ATI laws have
grown within OECD countries.)

Figure 3.3. Number of OECD countries with law on access to information

2001-2008 29
24
1991-2000
20 25 30
1981-1990 13
15
1971-1980 7

1961-1970 5

Before 1960 2

05 10 35

Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264075061-en.

Importantly, Indonesia’s law guarantees both the government’s
obligation to provide information and the citizens’ right to know. It requires
that public agencies establish an information and documentation system to
manage public information properly and efficiently in order to ensure
accessibility. This is primarily achieved through the Pejabat Pengelola
Informasi & Dokumentasi (PPID) offices (see below for additional
information). The law also establishes the Information Committee, which
consists of a Central Committee, Provincial Information Committees and
District/Municipal Information Committees. Collectively, their role is 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.

The law requires that public information applicants be Indonesian
citizens or Indonesian corporations; in 71% of OECD countries, conversely,
there are no restrictions on who can file a request (OECD, 2011a).
Applicants in Indonesia must also show identification and provide their
name, address and subject of the information, and CSOs must provide their
registration information. Together, these requirements prevent anonymity.
The law also does not require public institutions to transfer information

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

122 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

requests to other offices if they do not have the information, nor does it
guarantee access for court decisions or provisions and funding information
regarding law enforcement bodies (Transparency International-Indonesia,
2014). Other limits on information provision include information that could
obstruct the process of law enforcement; information relating to protection
of businesses from unhealthy competition; information relating to personal
medical, financial, or family situations; and information that may be
hazardous to the defence and security of the state, as well as to the national
economic security of the country. Furthermore, while the country has passed
a code of conduct that obliges all public officials, including legislators and
judges and their families, to file a financial disclosure form at least once a
year, the law does not explicitly require that interest declaration forms be
made public (Law No. 5/2014 on Civil Administrative Servants, articles 3
and 4).

Law No. 14/2008 does, however, provide for the proactive publication
of certain types of information, including information on the financial
performance of public agencies and any information that may threaten the
life of the people and public order. This practice compares favourably with
OECD countries, 94% of which also proactively disclose budget documents
(OECD, 2011a). The public agency that receives the information request is
obliged to respond within ten days (with a seven day extension, if needed),
which is in line with most OECD countries, almost all of which have
established standards for timely responses, usually within 20 working days
or less (OECD, 2011a). Any refusal to provide information must be justified
in writing within the ten day window; refused applicants can appeal to the
Information Committee for adjudication. Box 3.2 describes Brazil’s access
to information law and procedures, as well as potential lessons concerning
the institutional operation and monitoring of the law’s implementation.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1233. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Box 3.2. Co-ordination for the implementation of the Law on Access to
Information in the Federal Government of Brazil

Brazil’s Law on Access to Information (Law 12 527/2011) regulates the constitutional right that
allows citizens to obtain information from the government freely, similar to Indonesia’s Law No. 14
of 2008. Brazil’s ATI law states that government information is public by default and can only be
denied to citizens for specific purposes, such as the protection of taxpayers’ information or to
preserve national security. The law was passed in 2011 and was implemented in May 2012.

By the end of 2015, more than 300 public organisations (including companies) had made
information available for request through an online platform and through bureaus created in each of
the organisations. More than 334 000 requests have been made and more than 99% of the requests
have been answered. It takes an average of 11 days to answer a request and information is denied
less than 10% of the time.

The implementation of Brazil’s ATI law provides potential lessons regarding both freedom of
information in Indonesia and for other transversal policies that involve co-ordination of multiple
government organisations.

Design: In order to help ensure widespread buy-in, the ATI law was designed with the
involvement of CoG organisations, as well as with agencies that hold a large amount of confidential
documents and those that could expect the bulk of the requests.

Planning: Each public organisation was required to prepare a roadmap to facilitate the
implementation of the law. The roadmaps established deadlines for tasks, such as nominating the
responsible representatives, organising information within the agency, creating internal processes to
answer to requests, etc.

Co-ordination and Monitoring: The Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) is charged with
co-ordinating and monitoring the implementation of the law and sharing good practices. The CGU
gathers data on the performance of each organisation and tracks the number of requests and answers,
the profile of the requesters, popular topics and other relevant information. Reports on the
performance of each organisation are available publicly.

Training: Agencies and public companies offered staff training. Courses offered by the CGU
included procedures, how to use the web platform and legal issues.

Procedures: The procedures to make and respond to information requests and appeals are
detailed in regulations put forth by the federal government. Similar to the PPID’s role in Indonesia,
each government unit was obligated to create a Service of Information to Citizens Office (Serviço de
Informação ao Cidadão, or SICs) to manage requests and provide support to citizens. An online
platform called e-SIC (sic.gov.br) allows citizens to make information requests to any agency.
Citizens can use the platform to make requests and receive answers, make appeals, save their
requests and access the database with questions and answers made by others. In part due to the
flexibility provided by e-SIC, 85% of Brazil’s 5 570 municipalities have at least one active
requester.

Sponsorship: The ATI law states that each organisation must appoint a high-level official to
oversee the compliance of the law.

Networking: The CGU organized a network of SICs to exchange experiences and provide
continuous training. The CGU also works with civil society organisations to improve its monitoring
the law and encourages third party assessments of its performance.

Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

124 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Citizen involvement in policy making and accountability

The 1945 Constitution explicitly recognizes the right to associate,
assemble, and express opinions (Chapter X, Article 28). Subsequent laws
and other instruments have further guaranteed 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.
Indonesia’s constitutional amendments in 1999-02 codified a set of human
rights provisions mirroring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Indonesia also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights in 2006, which provides protection of fundamental freedoms, such as
expression and assembly. Law No. 17 of 2013 on Societal Organizations
(which replaced Law No. 8 of 1985 on Societal Organizations, a measure
that had given the Suharto administration broad controls over the civil
society sector) regulates the oversight of CSOs in the country and builds
upon the legal framework that guarantees freedom of association and
expression (ICNL, 2015).

Regarding the country’s decentralisation process, as discussed in
Chapter 2, one of the factors motivating the country’s decentralisation was a
desire to bring government closer to the public and, as expressed by
President Yudhoyono when presenting the regional development policy,
allow the government to “provide better services and satisfy community
needs in better, faster and more appropriate ways (USAID, 2007).” Notably,
Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Governance devolves authority over a
number of sectors to regional governments, and it makes public participation
a primary means to address community welfare objectives. The law is meant
to create a sense of public ownership of local governance, ensure greater
transparency and accountability, and facilitate the ability to transform
community aspirations into tangible programmes and services (USAID,
2007).

The primary legal vehicle that supports citizen participation is Law
No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning, which seeks to “optimize
public participation (Article 2),” and lays out the process by which the
public can participate in the creation of the country’s development plan.
Law No. 25/2004 also institutionalizes the creation of multi-stakeholder
consultation forums (Musrenbang) (Articles 1, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24) at all
levels of government for the long-term, medium- term and annual
development plans.

Law No. 25/2009 on Public Services provides additional clarity to the
relationship between the public and the government (Articles 1, 18, 20).
This law states that the public must be involved in organising public services
and that society is entitled to oversee the implementation and setting of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1253. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

service standards, as well as to receive responses to complaints filed. This
law provides the regulatory framework for public participation in the
delivery of public services, including mechanisms to participate in their
implementation, mechanisms for joint public / private provision of public
services and for citizen and community monitoring (Article 39).5
Furthermore, Law No. 12/2011 on the Establishment of Legislation
(Article 96) sets out a general requirement mandating that government
agencies at the national, local, and service delivery levels consult with
citizens and stakeholders in their decision-making processes. It should be
noted, however, that the legal framework does not consider citizen
participation in the budget process.

In addition to ensuring the public’s right to express opinions and to
participate in the creation of public policy, the country’s legal framework
also creates specific mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of laws
and government activities. Indonesia has established numerous independent
state agencies and accountability mechanisms, including the Supreme Audit
Institution, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the National
Public Procurement Agency (LKPP), and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), and has established a code of conduct and
financial disclosure requirements for state administrators. These will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Similarly to most OECD members,6 the country’s legal framework also
provides for the protection of whistleblowers, as well as for formal
mechanisms for the public to file complaints. The whistleblower protection
legislation (including Law No. 31/1999 and Law No. 20/2001 on the
Eradication of Corruption; Law No. 30/2002 on the Commission for the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption [Article 15]; and Law No.
13/2006 on Witness and Victim Protection) broadly protects citizens who
reveal wrongdoing. The legal framework protects public and private
employees who report corruption and bribery cases, and it provides
mechanisms through which citizens and public officials can report
corruption, graft, and abuse of power or resources (Transparency
International-Indonesia, 2014). Note that these laws are explained in more
detail in Chapter 4.

The country has also laid a legal foundation for public participation in
the oversight of public service provision, including via the creation of the
National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, or
ORI). The ORI was established in 2000 by Presidential Decree Number
44/2000 to fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations
into irregularities in the public sector; Law No. 37/2008 on the Ombudsman
strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making it an official state
institution. Among other goals, one of the Ombudsman’s primary objectives

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

126 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

is to “encourage government and public administration which is free from
corruption, collusion, nepotism; clean, open, fair, effective and efficient
(Article 4).” (See Figure 3.4 for an illustration of how laws related to
ombudsman institutions have grown within OECD countries.)

Figure 3.4. Number of OECD countries with laws on ombudsman institutions (1960-08)

2001-2008 27

1991-2000 24

1981-1990 19

1971-1980 13

1961-1970 7

Before 1960 3 10 15 20 25 30
0 5

Source: OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.

The ORI is an independent institution and is free from the intervention
of other authorities (Article 2); it also publishes its yearly reports on its
website. As noted in the law, any Indonesian citizen or resident is entitled to
file a grievance to the Ombudsman free of charge (Article 23), and since its
inception in 2000, the Ombudsman has received more than 17 000
complaints, with particularly impressive growth coming more recently, as
shown in Figure 3.5.

The legislation discussed above provides essential guarantees for public
participation in creating government policy and in monitoring its
implementation. Despite this supportive legal framework for citizen
engagement in Indonesia, however, the country faces a number of
challenges in ensuring effective implementation of the laws. As discussed in
more detail below, inconsistent implementation of the country’s laws is
especially problematic for laws that depend on local implementation and
that allow for some discretion in their implementation (for example, the
freedom of information law allows public institutions to determine what
documents are secret and leaves it up to local offices to staff the PPID).
Moving forward, the GOI should look to ensure more consistent oversight of
the implementation of these laws.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1273. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 3.5. Number of complaints received by the ORI 2009-15

8 000 6 677
7 000
6 859

6 000

5 000 5 173

4 000

3 000

2 000 2 209
1 000
1 867

1 237 1 137

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: OECD work based on 2015 Ombudsman Annual Report,
www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/laporan/laporan-tahunan.html.

Citizen engagement in practice

Despite the relatively recent opening of the country with the end of the
Suharto administration, Indonesia has made rapid advancements in its ability
to engage civil society in public affairs. The government at all levels has
widely, though not uniformly, recognised the importance of public
involvement in policy design and in the monitoring and provision of public
services, and has embraced reforms that have provided avenues for citizen
engagement, though work remains to be done to improve effectiveness.

Citizen participation in policy and strategic framework documents

National Development Strategies

The primary vehicles through which the Government of Indonesia lays
out its strategic and policy direction are its overlapping Long-Term and
Medium-Term Development Plans, along with each presidential
administration’s government programmes, such as current President
Jokowi’s Nawa Cita agenda. In addition to its role in supporting open
government reforms, Bappenas is also in charge of developing the planning
documents. The role that Bappenas and these documents play in setting the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

128 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

country’s strategic direction is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2; their
importance to citizen engagement, however, is reflected in both the open
government principles and initiatives they promote as well as in the method
by which the documents are drafted.

The current National Long-Term Development Plan covers the years
2005-25. Within the long-term development plan cycle, the GOI is also
required to draft National Medium-Term Development Plans (abbreviated
RPJMN) every five years. These five year cycles overlap with presidential
terms of office so that the each administration’s plans align with the vision
of the national long-term development plan. At the time of publication, the
GOI is working under RPJMN 2015-19.

The goals of the 2005-25 Long-Term Development Plan refer generally
to the importance of civil society, openness, and public access to
information. One of the eight National Development Priorities that laid the
groundwork for the subsequent medium-term development plans is to
“establish more solid democratic institutions; strengthen the role of civil
society… (and) ensure the development of the media and freedom of the
media.” The RPJPN also refers to the importance of citizen engagement in
public life by noting that, “The progress of democracy has also seen the
development of consciousness of the rights of people in political life,
which…is expected to further stimulate people to more actively participate
in…the management of public affairs. Progress cannot be separated from the
development of the role of political parties, non-governmental organisations
and other civil society organisations.”

The RPJPN also explicitly links citizen engagement to broader good
governance goals. For example, it states that, “public access to information
that is free and open…will further facilitate the control over the fulfilment of
the public interest. The role of free media is crucial in the process of
discovering, preventing and publishing various forms of abuse of power and
corruption.” The RPJPN also notes that strengthening the role of civil
society is a key component of achieving a “fair and democratic Indonesia.”
Given that the RPJPN provides the primary strategic context for the country
through 2025, its recognition of the role of open government and the value
of citizen engagement both as a means to ensure good governance and as a
valuable goal in and of itself is noteworthy.

The Medium-Term Development Plans (RPJMN) of 2010-14 and 2015-
19 have further outlined the framework establishing the importance of
citizen engagement in public life outlined by the RPJPN. For example, the
RPJMN of 2010-14 described as one of its priorities the importance of
strengthening the role of civil society in national life. More explicitly, the
Medium-Term Development Plan of 2015-19 has identified a number of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1293. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

targets that directly relate to increasing citizen engagement. One of its nine
National Development Agenda points is to “Build Clean, Effective
Democratic and Reliable Governance,” which includes two targets directly
related to increasing citizen engagement in public life. First, Target 6.2.3
seeks to “Build Transparency and Accountability in Government
Performance,” which includes efforts to “establish PPID offices; and
provide space for public participation in formulating and overseeing the
implementation of public policies.” Additionally, Target 6.2.5 specifically
seeks to “Increase Public Participation in Public Policy-Making Process.”
Part of the strategy to achieve this target, which includes “increasing
implementation of open government in all government agencies,” is to
“strengthen partnerships with local governments, civil society organisations,
the private sector and the media to educate the public about the importance
of public information and participate in the process of preparing and
monitoring policy.” This target also seeks to “strengthen the role of the
PPID role in managing and providing quality information services and
encourage local governments to increase public participation in the making
of public policy, public policy programmes, and public decision-making
processes.”

Based on the publication of the Medium-Term Development Plan for
2015-19, the Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucracy Reform
developed a Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in 2015 that establishes the role
that bureaucratic reform will play in supporting the country’s national
development priorities. Regarding open government and citizen
engagement, the Roadmap notes that the “principles of good governance are
not fully applied and that the government is not yet fully able to open their
space and encourage involvement of the general public in their operations
and development.” It also lists citizen engagement as a key element to
improving the functioning of the government, and it seeks to improve the
quality of the national bureaucracy by moving to meet the 2015-19
RPJMN’s goals of: establishing and appointing PPID offices; increasing
public awareness on public information transparency; publishing all
planning, budgeting and budget implementation processes on ministry
websites; providing opportunities for the public to participate in the drafting
of public policies and monitoring their subsequent implementation; and
developing a proactive, interactive, and accessible information publication
system.

Notably, the RPJMN for 2015-19 reflects President’s Jokowi’s
government programme, or Nawa Cita. Specifically, it links to Nawa Cita
agenda item two, which seeks to realize “a sustainable society and
developed democratic state based on the rule of law (by) encouraging public

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

130 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

participation in the process of public policy and to improve people's active
participation in public policy-making.”

The mutually reinforcing nature of the country’s development strategies,
reform efforts and government programme in the areas of open government
and citizen engagement signals the country’s formal recognition of the
public’s essential role in setting and monitoring policies and services. CSOs
have noted that if they are unable to link their work to Nawa Cita, it is
difficult to for them obtain government support for their agenda. Given the
Jokowi administration’s explicit support for improving public participation,
CSOs have expressed the hope that the administration will actively pursue
the open government priorities expressed in the long-term and medium-term
strategies. They noted, for example, that such support could take the form of
ensuring that the national open government secretariat is made permanent,
thereby helping to smooth the transition between presidential
administrations moving forward.

Open Government Partnership

In addition to Indonesia’s national strategies and the Jokowi
administration’s governing programme, Indonesia’s membership in – and
leadership of – the OGP provides a valuable opportunity to increase and
deepen citizen engagement. As regards community engagement, however,
the country’s experience in implementing its three National Action Plans has
to date produced mixed results.

In the country’s first Action Plan (2011-13), the stakeholders accepted
that the development of the action plan would help establish OGI and
provide an opportunity for the government to focus on building the process
and institutions of open government. The first Independent Reporting
Mechanism (IRM), which are progress reports issued by external experts on
each country participating in OGP that assess the development and
implementation of OGP action plans, commended the government for
ensuring that the process and timeline for public consultation was available
online prior to beginning consultations. Unfortunately, CSO representation
was heavily skewed to those based in Jakarta and the surrounding areas,
although the CSOs that participated did represent a diverse range of sectors
and issues. CSO representatives also raised concerns that the selection
process for CSOs was not participative, though the IRM noted that
considering Indonesia’s diversity, it would be difficult to reach out to all
relevant stakeholders. Ultimately, the IRM concluded that the consultation
was meaningful in the sense that the government provided a space for
stakeholders to make recommendations on the government’s action plan.
The downside to this strategy, however, was that it led to a plan that was too
large for government to be able to deliver on it (IRM 1).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1313. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

The IRM produced after the second OGP NAP noted that the
consultation process “did not conform to OGP guidelines,” as neither the
timeline nor the schedules of the consultations were available to the public
prior to the stakeholder consultation events. The consultation group also
relied heavily on CSO Core Team members. Nevertheless, the IRM noted
that the CSOs that were involved in the NAP development process had a
stronger and clearer relationship with the government than those that had
participated in the first NAP process, and that this led to more active
participation and ultimately more success in including their priorities in the
final version of the Action Plan (IRM 2).

The third IRM report noted that progress had been made in increasing
public participation, but it suggested that more outreach was needed to align
citizen-driven demands with available open government solutions.
Specifically, the development of the third National Action Plan sought to
address criticism from previous IRM reports. The most notable change was
the creation of a public contest wherein citizens could submit ideas for
improving public services for inclusion in the Action Plan. However, the
“lack of advance notice, lack of evidence of consultation events, and lack of
clarity on the incorporation of citizen-generated ideas in the action plan
undermined the government’s increased public participation efforts
(IRM 3).”

The lessons from the country’s previous National Action Plans suggests
that the consultative process that Indonesia has undertaken as part of its
OGP related activities could be improved, both in terms of ensuring a
sufficient and representative sample of citizens’ voices, as well as in
clarifying when and under what circumstances public input is included in
the National Action Plans. A formalized OGI structure will also help
provide a consistent platform for citizen engagement and help insulate
action plan implementation from political changes (IRM 3).

Formal mechanisms for citizen engagement

Musrenbang

As directed by Law No. 25/2004 on National Development Planning,
the Government of Indonesia has instituted the Musrenbang (Musyawarah
Rencana Pembangunan, or Multi Stakeholder Consultation Forum for
Development Planning), which are multi-stakeholder fora that seek to
identify and prioritize community development policies. The meetings are
held during the first half of the calendar year and the priorities put forward
are made public.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

132 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Musrenbang held at the community level serve to define programme
priorities of local government departments to be funded from the local
annual budget and village allocation funds. Representatives selected from
the community level Musrenbang attend the meetings at sub-district level
and district level, where the function of the Musrenbang is to agree on the
final draft of the Annual Local Government Work Plan and Budget. As
noted in interviews with the OECD, furthermore, some local and regional
governments have embraced the potential of the Musrenbang to expand their
citizen engagement activities beyond the requirements of the law. For
example, Bandung has set a formal target via local regulation and its
strategic plan to allocate more than 30% of its local budget to be used to
facilitate Musrenbang priorities. Furthermore, Bandung, along with other
subnational governments such as Jakarta, have instituted online (or e-
Musrenbang) platforms to expand the reach of the fora and facilitate the link
between the Musrenbang and complaint management systems.

While the Musrenbang process is an important formal opportunity to
involve the public in determining development priorities, both government
and CSO representatives noted their limitations. For example, as noted in
interviews conducted by the OECD, many of the fora have seen a decline in
the number of participating CSOs, leading to claims that the Musrenbang are
not participatory or representative. Some government representatives have
also noted that enthusiasm from CSOs is decreasing, primarily because
CSOs have said it is not clear whether their inputs are taken into account.
Government representatives noted that it is often difficult to identify the
correct CSO partners, and many local governments do not have a history of
working with CSOs, so their relationship with them is still developing7. For
their part, CSOs at the local level often display limitations in their
understanding of the planning process and their ability to push for greater
transparency or participation (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011). Nevertheless,
the government has stressed that several steps have been taken to improve
the quality of the Musrenbang, such as socialisation to try to build a culture
of participation and engagement, as well as measures to ensure concrete
follow-ups (Siliwanti, 2014). Increasing the transparency of the process by
which citizen feedback is included and illustrating to the public the
importance of their participation could be other ways to provide more
credibility to the process. Continuing to pursue these activities will be
essential to help this avenue of citizen engagement to achieve its potential.

Access to information

Given the critical role that information and data have in ensuring that
citizens can play an active role in the design and oversight of public policies,
continuing the push to enhance access to information should remain one of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1333. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

the GOI’s primary goals. Backed by information, civil society groups can sit
down with government agencies and discuss public service improvements.
Data on staffing and service quality, for example, can give citizens’ groups
the information that they need to hold public agencies accountable for their
actions, granting citizens the necessary resources to become political actors
in their own right. Generally speaking, improved data gathering has become
a powerful tool for community empowerment that can lead to changes in
government policy and practices (Antlöv and Wetterberg, 2011).

In addition to providing the legal basis for public access to information,
Law No. 14/2008 on Public Information Disclosure also mandated the
creation of the Pejabat Pengelola Informasi & Dokumentasi
(Documentation and Information Management Offices, or PPID) responsible
for storing, documenting, and providing government information to the
public. Institutions such as the PPID and the Information Committee that
help co-ordinate and implement access to information also play an important
role in OECD countries.

The establishment of these offices is a critical step toward increasing the
transparency of national and local governments, and remains a clear priority
for the government. With the presence of other initiatives such as the House
of Representatives’ Alun-Alun Demokrasi platform, described in interviews
with the OECD as an information system designed to allow people to track
legislation, allow comments, and ultimately improve the relationship
between the public and the Members of Parliament, Indonesia has a number
of initiatives that could significantly broaden the public’s range of
opportunities to access information.

Regarding the PPID offices, even though Law 14/2008 was
implemented in 2010, as Table 3.1 shows, as of March 2015, less than 50%
of the PPID units have been established across all levels of government as of
2015. Without PPID offices, the public’s access to information is limited, as
there is no other designated government unit to uniformly handle requests
for information.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

134 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Table 3.1. Number of PPID offices established within public institutions

Institution Number 2013 Year 2015 %
#% 2014 # 100%
Ministerial 34 #% 33.33%
Central agencies 129 34 100% 34 100% 34 88.24%
Provincial govt 34 36 27.91% 41 31.78% 43 43.61%
District govt 399 23 69.70% 30 88.24% 30 61.22%
City govt 98 98 24.56% 168 42.11% 174 49.14%
Total 694 38 38.77% 60 61.22% 60
227 32.76% 333 47.98% 341

Source: PPID Kemkominfo, http://ppid.kominfo.go.id/regulasi/konsultasi-publik/r-p-m/fk-ppid/
(accessed 21 March 2016).

One factor that has held back the creation of PPID offices has been the
extent to which the implementation depends on local governments that have
varying degrees of interest and capacity. Some entities, especially at the
local level, have had the perception that establishing and supporting PPID
offices is a distraction from their day-to-day work. It was noted in
interviews with the OECD that this perception has been exacerbated by the
practice of some citizens who have used their rights to effectively blackmail
public bodies into offering them jobs or contracts by threatening them with
unmanageably large information requests, thereby distracting public
officials from their tasks, though the extent of this tactic remains unclear.

Another factor that has held back the implementation of PPID offices
has been a perception among some government agencies that only general
information should be published. Efforts to raise awareness and expand
knowledge of the FOI law and to build human resources capacity would also
help facilitate the establishment of PPID offices. Finally, many offices,
particularly at the local level, have not faced much public pressure for
improved access to public information, so they have not prioritized the law’s
implementation.

Garnering support for establishing PPID offices and improving access
information more generally will require a concerted response to develop
understanding and capacity at the national level, but also at the local level,
which is where much of the actual implementation will take place. Before it
was dissolved, UKP4 was in charge of facilitating the establishment of PPID
offices. Due to the initial slow progress once the law came into effect in
2010, the Yudhoyono administration issued Government Regulation
No. 61/2010, which sought to clarify the role of public offices in providing
information and to ensure that all PPID offices would be established by
2011.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1353. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Since local governments do not face sanctions for failing to set up PPID
offices and often may not see the incentive to open data, the Jokowi
administration has focused on building understanding within the government
and encouraging public demand for information as a means to increase
access. The Executive Office of the President continues to monitor
implementation based on the reports of the Information Commission, an
independent institute that monitors and supports the implementation of the
law by providing technical directives and settling disputes that arise from
information requests. The Ministry of Home Affairs supports the
establishment of PPID offices at the local level, while the Ministry of
Communication and Informatics has helped establish standard operating
procedures and oversees their implementation at the national level. As noted
in interviews with the OECD, the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics also provides capacity building support to PPID offices in
government agencies, though it focuses less on assisting PPID offices in
non-governmental organisations. In 2015, The Ministry of Communication
and Informatics also helped found the Forum for PPID (FKPPID), whose
aim is to help share good practices, build capacity and help PPID offices co-
ordinate and respond to information demands. The Forum is currently only
working with PPID officers based in Jakarta, but plans to expand to the
provincial level.

Broadly, the GOI’s approach is to boost both the “supply” of
information (the government’s ability to provide information) and the
“demand” for information (the public’s desire to obtain information).
Establishing PPID offices is therefore the first step in supporting the supply
of information and ensuring the law functions as intended. The GOI
understands, however, that the publication of the data on its own will not
necessarily lead to increased awareness, involvement, or participation. To
create public participation, in addition to having access to information,
citizens need to understand their rights and take the initiative to access and
use the data.

For those institutions that have not yet established a PPID office, the
Ministry of Communication and Informatics is therefore also pushing to
increase the demand for information from citizens to make the case for the
creation of PPID offices. In 2013, the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics launched its “Let’s Ask; Let’s Open” campaign, which
highlighted both the public’s right to know and the government’s obligation
to allow access to information. In order to educate the public on how to use
their rights correctly, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics has
instituted a “Right to Know Day” (28 September), which is used to inform
the public about the use of the law. While the limited budget for this activity
has to-date precluded its expansion beyond Jakarta, this is an important

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

136 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

effort to broaden the public’s understanding and appreciation of their right
to access information.

A primary challenge in implementing access to information initiatives in
Indonesia has been ensuring consistency across the government. The GOI
will need to increase its focus on providing consistent guidance and support
to the offices in charge of providing public information and serving as
platforms for citizen engagement. This is especially true in light of the abuse
of the PPID offices discussed above, which will require a co-ordinated
response and support from the national government to those offices that may
be unwilling or unable to cope with such demands. In addition to continued
efforts on the part of the Ministry of Communication and Informatics, the
Information Commission, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Executive
Office of the President, the GOI could take concrete steps to enhance ATI
by, for example, reintroducing a focus on access to information in the OGP
National Action Plans. The government could also ensure consistent and
clear budgetary support for ATI capacity building efforts, such as for PPID
offices, and awareness building among both the government and public on
the importance of promoting access to information.

Civil society organisations have noted the importance of using data in
their efforts to support public involvement in the national development
planning processes. Budget information in particular can be difficult to
obtain; the lack of data can lead the public to make uninformed requests,
which results in those requests being dismissed (CSO meeting). Bappenas
recognizes the importance of CSO engagement and the role that data plays
in bringing the public into the national planning process, though it
acknowledges that often citizens are not yet treated as full partners in the
law-making and strategy-setting processes. Identifying ways to involve a
wider range of stakeholders, and helping to ensure they have the information
to meaningfully contribute to policy making and strategic decisions, could
increase the positive impact of open government policies and ultimately the
country’s socio-economic development.

Another challenge faced by Indonesia regarding promoting access to
information is responding to the digital divide in the country, especially
outside of Java. Even as government ministries and local governments have
moved more information online, if it is not posted via other formats as well,
the digital gap will inhibit access (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of
this topic). Other access points, including the PPID offices, therefore play a
critical role in expanding access to information, especially for people who
do not have access to electronic files.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1373. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Ombudsman

Generally, ombudsman offices establish a point of contact for citizen
complaints, appeals and petitions for redress in their dealings with public
organisations. Almost all OECD member countries have an ombudsman
office, although their functions, roles and independence vary in accordance
with each country’s political-administrative system (OECD, 2012). In
Indonesia, as noted above, the ORI is an independent institution that reports
to Parliament. Founded in 2000, the office has 32 provincial offices in
Indonesia (out of 34 provinces), with a staff of roughly 500. Notably, the
ORI’s budget was doubled by the Jokowi administration in 2015, to USD 10
million. The Ombudsman has two primary functions: prevention of corrupt
and poor government administrative practices (referred to as
maladministration) and complaint handling. The ORI sees the prevention of
maladministration, including corruption and poor or unfair service
provision, as the key to improving government services. In addition to its
primary activities, the ORI therefore also produces an annual survey to
measure how well government institutions follow Law No.25 of 2009 on
Public Service, publishes manuals to educate public officials on how to
handle and prevent maladministration, and it provides trainers to the
Institute of Public Administration (Lembaga Administrasi Negara, or LAN)
to disseminate its principles.

Their second goal, that of responding to complaints, has grown as the
public has focused more on public service provision. Moving forward, the
Ombudsman will allow people to check the progress of their complaints
online. Per the Ombudsman’s office, public complaints have been increasing
rapidly - rising from 1137 reports in 2010 to 6859 in 2015 (ORI, 2015) –
and are forecasted to continue to do so. The ORI’s annual reports are public
(the most recent statistical update is from 2015), and provide a good
overview of the primary public complaints. For example, in 2014, the
complaints were directed primarily at local governments (42% of the cases,
or 2853), whereas almost 12% (806) were directed at police departments,
and 10% (663) were directed at Ministries or Agencies. These figures were
very similar to those of the previous year.

Per the ORI’s 2014 Annual Report, 25% of the complaints (1712) were
related to delays in services. Examples included licensing procedures not
being resolved in a timely manner, petitions for land certificates not being
resolved quickly enough and court rulings not being carried out. Other
leading sources of complaints were lack of services (14%) and abuse of
authority (12%) (ORI, 2014). Again, these results were very similar to those
of 2013.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

138 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Ombudsman representatives highlighted a number of changes that
would facilitate their efforts. For example, they recommended that they be
given the ability to advise officials on relevant fines and punishments; as of
now they can only report to Parliament and the media, but they have no
enforcement or sanctioning power. Increased involvement in the penalty
process would allow them to keep their autonomy while simultaneously
giving them more power. The ORI representatives also noted their desire for
additional institution building, particularly around how to expand their use
of ICT.

LAPOR

In addition to the ORI, one of the GOI’s primary means of increasing
citizen participation in overseeing public service provision is the People’s
Online Services and Complaints Aspiration System (more commonly
referred to as LAPOR; its acronym in Indonesian, means “report”), which is
an online platform that provides a complaint-handling service for the public
at the national and subnational levels. Launched in November 2011, this was
one of the most notable citizen engagement projects implemented by the
Yudhoyono administration (http://lapor.go.id/).

The system includes a Web and SMS-accessible platform and allows
citizens to monitor and verify the delivery of government services in real
time. Submitted reports are verified by LAPOR for clarity and completeness
and subsequently forwarded to the related ministry or office no later than
three business days after the reporting is verified. The relevant ministry or
office subsequently has five business days to respond. In addition to
bringing complaints to light, the government also uses this information to
improve its allocation of public resources in areas ranging from education
and health to energy and defence (McKinsey and Company, 2012).

If a citizen does not receive a response to their complaint within five
working days, LAPOR officials contact the agency’s liaison officer, after
which they send a report to the relevant senior official. If LAPOR still does
not receive a response, the agency can be reported to the ORI, which will
investigate the case and issue a binding order to the agency (GovInsider,
2015). The system assigns unique numbers to each case to facilitate tracking
and searching on the platform. Each report can also be labelled with the
geographic location, topic, status reports, and the relevant institutions so that
the government and the public can monitor the issue visually. This
functionality was used to good effect during flooding in Jakarta in 2012 and
2014 as a reference tool to assist in the distribution of aid. The platform also
allows for anonymity, and reports can be restricted for use by only the
relevant agency, measures which the designers hope will encourage the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1393. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

reporting of sensitive or private issues. LAPOR was shortlisted for a Bright
Spot Award and presented at the 2013 OGP Summit in London.

As of September 2015, LAPOR has had over 300 000 users, and it
receives 800 reports per day.8 LAPOR has been integrated with 81
Ministries/Agencies, six local governments, and 44 state-owned companies
in Indonesia (LAPOR website). The platform plans to increase its
integration with government offices and expand its ability to facilitate
community involvement with government authorities. LAPOR’s
management team is piloting in provinces first to expand as quickly as
possible, at which point the province will invite its cities and regencies to
connect (GovInsider, 2015). By allowing for co-ordination between agencies
as well as between the centre and subnational levels of government, LAPOR
provides a useful tool to improve citizen participation in the provision of
public services. Its primary drawback, however, is that it has yet to provide a
truly government-wide system, thereby limiting its utility and potentially
creating unreasonable public expectations of improvements to government
services.

Examples from local level

Given Indonesia’s size and political decentralisation, subnational level
governments play a critical role in providing channels for citizens to engage
in policy making and service delivery. The rule-making power given to
subnational governments through regulations (peraturan) and decisions
(keputusan) passed by heads of local governments - or by local laws enacted
by provincial, district, or municipal legislatures (perda) - provide
opportunities for local governments to promote transparency and deepen
consultative approaches. Decentralisation can provide the political space to
encourage legislative experimentation, while online and social media tools
give local governments and citizens additional avenues to identify new ways
to participate and interact (see Chapter 5).

Indonesia’s relatively recent decentralisation, however, raises the risk
that campaigns to enhance citizen engagement mechanisms will be inhibited
by capacity constraints and political barriers at the local level. Prior to the
country’s democratisation, local governments channelled programmes
designed by the central government, which made them dependent on central
planning and actively hampered local creativity and innovation. Under this
system, the Indonesian civil service was oriented towards responding to
higher levels of authority rather than to input from citizens (Antlöv and
Wetterberg, 2011). A major challenge to building citizen engagement in
Indonesia thus lies in ensuring the government at all levels fully appreciates
the role of the public and the opportunities that can derive from their greater
participation in the policy-making cycle.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

140 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

At the same time, decentralisation can serve to expand the arenas for
policy dialogue and decision-making. Furthermore, a critical determinant of
CSO capacity to interact with government and advocate effectively on
behalf of citizens is the degree of operational and political space these
organisations are afforded by a country’s politics, governance, laws, and
public administration. (Antlöv et al, 2010). To this end, the central
government, under both the Yudhoyono administration and the Jokowi
administration, has facilitated the implementation of open government pilot
projects throughout the country, initiatives that illustrate how subnational
governments are seeking to enhance citizen engagement in their particular
contexts. For example, in Ambon, the regional administration is focused on
improving the transparency of its budget (one result of this programme is the
publication of the Ambon province financial report on its website); in
Kalimatan Tengah (Central Borneo), the government is publishing school
performance data; and in Indragiri Hulu, the government is publishing data
on the health budget and results. The Jakarta Provincial Government has
implemented a Smart City website that is designed to allow citizens to report
problems in real-time as well as give the government the ability to monitor
officials and track how quickly and effectively they follow up on
complaints.

In Bojonegoro Regency, the government implemented a Public
Dialogue and Open Public Information programme in 2008. This is a public
forum held every Friday, attended by high-level officials who take note of
and respond to issues raised by the audience. Approximately 175 people
attend the dialogue weekly, and the events are broadcast on two local radio
stations, allowing most of Bojonegoro Regency to hear the discussion.
Furthermore, the questions and complaints addressed in the dialogue are
published on the website of Department for Communication and Informatics
of Bojonegoro Regency. The Regency’s commitment to open information
and data predates the implementation of Law Number 14/2008. As the
government has found, providing both a forum for consistent
communication as well as reliable and up-to-date information can encourage
participation from communities and their involvement in supporting
decision making. See Box 3.3 for an additional example of a programme in
Indonesia that is using enhanced data sharing and transparency to improve
public services at the local level, and Box 3.4 for an example of how the
Government of Brazil has partnered with CSOs and the public to improve
the provision of healthcare services at the national and local level.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1413. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Box 3.3. Case Study: Nusantara Sehat, Indonesian Ministry of Health

The Nusantara Sehat programme is a nationwide effort led by the Indonesian Ministry of Health
to improve medical care via community-based teams consisting of five to nine health professionals
(including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, community health workers, environmental health
personnel and nutrition and pharmacy personnel). In addition to promoting access and quality of
basic health services, the programme seeks to maintain the sustainability of such services by
improving the retention of health workers, to mobilize community development and to provide
integrated care. Nusantara Sehat also focuses on preventive care, particularly in poor and rural
regions in accordance with Nawa Cita, which expresses a commitment to implementing policies to
improve health outcomes for people in remote areas (website).

Regarding citizen engagement, the Ministry of Health, particularly under the Jokowi
administration, has focused on obtaining and publishing better community health data, including the
location of the nearest health centres, the number of staff on hand, the number of beds available, etc.
Internally, the Ministry of Health has also prioritized the transparency of the programme’s processes
and has integrated its planning and budgeting procedures. Moving forward, and in partnership with
the Ministry of Home Affairs, the programme will focus on improving its efforts to share
information with subnational governments and with professional and civil society organisations.

The programme’s data transparency efforts have faced challenges, including resistance to making
research data public and capacity issues, within the Ministry and by CSOs that are not trained to use
the data. Currently, the Ministry’s website is the primary tool to dispense data. While each hospital
has its own website, relevant information is often difficult to identify and locate, and the IT
management is not centralized, which can pose a problem given that IT infrastructure is often
lacking in rural areas. The programme’s focus will be on identifying ways to more clearly
communicate and present data to the public. Nevertheless, Nusantara Sehat’s efforts to provide
community-based care and increase access to local health data, and to go about this in a transparent
manner, are important.

Sources: Nusantara Sehat website; Interview with Diah Saminarsih, Ministry of Health.

Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil

Brazil established its first National Health Council in the 1930s aiming to fight countrywide
epidemics. Formed by researchers and government representatives, the Council organized
national conferences to debate health issues throughout the country. After the transition to
democracy in the 1980s, the Council began including civil society organisations and users of
the health services in its activities.

This experience allowed for the discussion of local realities, which led to the establishment
of local health councils focused on issues related specifically to states and municipalities.
Currently, Health Councils and conferences play a prominent role in planning and monitoring
health-related budgets and programmes. For example, local councils are empowered to oversee
spending and transfers made by the federal level to the local governments to help ensure that
the money is spent as assigned.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

142 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Box 3.4. Health Councils – a history of engagement with civil society in Brazil
(continued)

The National Council supports the creation of the country’s overall healthcare strategy and
also focuses on:

• Helping to define the methodology used to identify priorities to allocate budgets in

subnational governments

• Supporting the assessment and monitoring of local councils
• Advising the legislature on its oversight role of government resources
• Participating in the definition of strategies for the Health Sector

The stability and representation of health councils is also supported by their permanent legal
status and in that their member ship includes health professionals, government officials, service
providers and users of public health services. In this way, the councils help to both promote
inclusiveness and transparency, while at the same time improving public service provision.
Source: Comptroller General of Brazil.

OECD countries also provide relevant examples of citizen engagement
initiatives that help ensure that input from local governments and citizens is
taken into consideration. For example, the Civil Evaluation Initiative in Italy
shows how collaborative approaches can be carried out to promote both
greater participation and more inclusive service delivery (see Box 3.6).

The central government, specifically the Office of the President and
Bappenas, place great importance on the role they play in highlighting the
success of exemplary citizen engagement policies in order to encourage
greater implementation of such initiatives. Publicising and sharing the
lessons from such cases will help build consensus across governments and
civil society as to how best to carry this process forward.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1433. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Box 3.6. Civic Evaluation Initiative (Italy)

The Civic Evaluation Initiative was launched in 2008 as a pilot by the Department of Public
Administration in partnership with Cittadinanzattiva (national civic association). The general
aim of the project is to promote collaboration between the public administration and citizens
(users) in assessing public services. The initiative adopts a user-oriented perspective to build
evaluation tools and methodologies, which are then applied to real cases. It is not meant to
provide a structured assessment (like an inspection), but to engage citizens in a shared
evaluation in partnership with the administrations and civic associations.

In the first phase of the project, citizens in selected municipalities were involved in
evaluating school and front-office services (e.g., general information, tax payment,
demographic services). The second phase of the project started in 2009 and focused on “urban
quality”, aiming at evaluating services in urban areas of local municipalities (road
maintenance, street lighting, urban waste, state of public buildings). The dimensions of the
indicators applied within the citizens’ special monitoring were chosen following a participative
approach involving experts, representatives of administrations and of non-governmental
associations, and citizens.

The dimensions selected included: security, access and reliability, information, sociability,
transport and traffic, cleanliness, waste management and maintenance.

An evaluation of the preliminary results of the Initiative conducted in July 2010 indicates
that positive results are being achieved. The programme has facilitated the collection of an
evidence-base for decision making, fosters networking and social communications, and
increases public understanding of the problems faced daily by local administrations. The
initiative will be further expanded to make it widely available as a civic and participative tool
for improving administrations’ services and performance.

Source: OECD (2011), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society, OECD
Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

Towards a strategic approach to civic engagement in Indonesia

Indonesia’s role as a co-founder of the Open Government Partnership
and an initial signatory of the OGP Declaration in September 2011 illustrate
the country’s commitment to the open government and citizens’
participation. As noted by the OGP, openness in Indonesia has been gaining
momentum in parallel with the country’s democratic transition since 1998
(OGP website). Under the Yudhoyono administration, Indonesia’s open
government activities were driven by the Unit Kerja Presiden Bidang
Pengawasan dan Pengendalian Pembangunan (UKP4). This signalled the
administration’s prioritisation of open government, but the centralized

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

144 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

management structure did not ensure that other ministries and local
governments would fully buy in to the initiatives. This top-down approach
taken by the Yudhoyono administration did not consistently achieve the
same degree of acceptance outside of the executive branch. The Jokowi
administration has instead pursued open government as a tool to pursue its
anti-corruption and citizen engagement priorities; as the country’s re-
election to the OGP Steering Committee shows, however, Indonesia is still
very much engaged in the international support structures of open
government.

While it is true that the Jokowi administration has maintained the
commitment to the underlying principles of open government, the transition
between administrations in October 2014 nevertheless disrupted the
implementation of open government initiatives. Despite the support for open
government in the national strategy documents and the co-ordinating
impetus provided by the OGP, the government transition hindered the
provision of central strategic direction and led to fragmented
implementation. The current administration has viewed open government
through the lens of identifying how such policies can tangibly benefit the
people and how they can be linked even more closely to the national
development plan.

As noted in Chapter 1, the key priorities outlined by the Office of the
President in terms of open government are to: 1) ensure high-level
commitment to open government initiatives; 2) ensure the national agenda
for such reforms is implemented at the subnational level; and 3) identify
champions to showcase successful implementation of reforms. The section
below discusses the elements the GOI should focus on as it pursues these
priorities and implements a more consistent strategic approach to citizen
engagement.

Communication

A foundational component of providing a more integrated and co-
ordinated approach to enhancing citizen engagement will consist of efforts
to guarantee that the broad definition, objectives, and importance of open
government are clearly communicated, both within the government and
between the government and its citizens. A key internal challenge for the
government is to clarify what exactly it means by citizen engagement across
all levels of the public administration. By providing a clear definition of
what they hope to achieve through increasing the involvement of citizens,
the GOI will be able to increase understanding and ownership of the concept
throughout the government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1453. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

This remains a particularly important step in Indonesia, as these policies
were actively discouraged in the era prior to the democratic transition. Even
under the Yudhoyono administration, officials acknowledged in interviews
with the OECD that the government’s reform efforts would have been aided
by a greater focus on ensuring more comprehensive buy-in across ministries
and levels. While a number of government agencies and ministries had
frequent and valuable collaboration with relevant civil society partners,
these agencies often lacked a broader understanding of open government
principles, and they did not have a clear sense of how their interactions with
the public fit into the country’s larger open government priorities.

Additionally, the GOI would benefit from improving its communication
with citizens regarding its open government priorities and successes. A first
step will be to help build the capacity of public officials to process
information gathered during consultations, such as the Musrenbang, and to
report government decisions back to the public. In addition, investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines, tools
and training opportunities to civil servants – is also essential to promoting
open government and effective citizen engagement, as it gives citizens the
sense that their time and efforts are meaningful. Clearer communication can
therefore help build broader support for open government initiatives.

Expanding the public’s role in designing and monitoring public
services

As Indonesia implements its citizen engagement strategy, it will need to
consider how best to move along the spectrum from the one-way,
information provision relationship with the public to more comprehensive
forms of interaction, including co-production of public services. Enhancing
the role of citizens and CSOs in public decisions and actions broadens the
role of citizens beyond that of being objects of state policy or recipients of
government funding to a role in which the public assumes greater
responsibility. Providing avenues for citizens and their elected officials to
work together to design better public governance can therefore improve the
quality of democracy, both at the local and national levels (Antlöv and
Wetterberg, 2011), as well as support CSOs directly through providing
opportunities to identify funding, as well as collaborate and engage with
government and other like-minded organisations.

Moving beyond the traditional view of the public as consumers or
clients of public services – as people who receive the services delivered to
them – requires an understanding that in many areas of government activity,
the public may indeed play a necessary role in producing the services
(OECD, 2011b). To that end, the GOI should use its implementation of open

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

146 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

government initiatives to look for opportunities to co-deliver and co-produce
government services with the help of citizens, and in some cases this is
already happening. For example, one of the country’s more active CSOs in
this arena has worked with local governments in Indonesia to co-deliver
health care services. The Centre for Regional Information and Studies
(PATTIRO) is partnering with local governments to develop an SMS-based
platform for health promotion texts, emergency notifications and maternal
health information, and it is helping to provide access to information for
disabled citizens. PATTIRO is also helping local governments manage data
more efficiently (CSO Meeting). As these cases continue to proliferate, the
government will need to focus on identifying and spreading any lessons to
facilitate more widespread and effective implementation.

Open government link with the SDGs

Ultimately, Indonesia’s ability to link open government policies with its
other development priorities will be a critical factor in determining the
extent to which open government policies are implemented throughout the
government. While the Jokowi administration has made linking open
government to its national development plans a priority, the approval in
September 2015 of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
provides the administration with another avenue to help ensure that its open
government priorities are mainstreamed into Indonesia’s development plans
and initiatives.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that came out of the 2030
Agenda seek to be transformative and inclusive, as well as to integrate
actions in different parts of the government. Citizen engagement will
therefore play a critical role in supporting the government’s efforts to ensure
the SDGs are representative of and responsive to the public. This may take
the form of civil society advocacy in favour of the inclusion both of SDG-
related goals within the country’s OGP NAP and of the principles of
transparency, accountability and participation in the SDG-related policy
cycle (i.e. the identification, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
the SGDs). See Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion of the role of
citizen engagement in implementing the SDGs.

Recommendations

The OECD has developed a number of recommendations based on the
analysis of current civic engagement practices and the strategic
opportunities presented in this chapter. Open government reforms are part of
a larger process; the recommendations below provide broad goals for the

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1473. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

GOI, with specific actions that can be taken to help move the process
forward.

• Develop more structured and consistent whole-of government
policies for open government and for civic engagement. Although
open government and civic engagement priorities are included in the
country’s development strategies, developing such policies will support
open government reforms and streamline civic engagement within
current public-sector reform processes by translating the 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 (potentially based on UK, Finland, and
other examples, see OECD Focus on Citizens) 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. Using IRM guidance
based on the development of the country’s OGP National Action Plans
would be a useful starting point to promote citizen participation.

• Promote a culture of civic engagement by communicating outcomes
and success stories to the public and civil servants. Investing in
outreach and communication capacities – such as providing guidelines
for public communication and training to government officials – is
essential to promoting effective citizen 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.
This is essential to building high-level support and is also useful in
gaining the support of mid-level reformers whose technical expertise is
often required to carry out reforms (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015).

• 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
since the country’s democratisation, there is still room to increase the
role of CSOs. One of the critical drivers of success for multi-stakeholder
initiatives, such as open government reforms, is the participation of
influential and capable representatives who have the access, influence,
and ability to deliver results (Brockmyer and Fox, 2015). To this end,
the GOI can:

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

148 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

− 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.

− Identify opportunities to engage with the public in the co-delivery of
public services.

• Promote public access to information. Despite Indonesia’s strong ATI
guarantees, the government could do more to ensure freedom of
information. For example, the requirements to show personal
identification or organisational registration information, as well as to
provide a rationale for requests for information, could be removed. This
would help ensure the anonymity of information requests and promote
access to information. The Government should also continue to support
the PPID offices and the Information Commission to ensure that there is
an effective and accountable structure for the provision of public
information.

• Build 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, and more consistent data collection on such interactions at
the local level. The national government could also facilitate co-
ordination among the various public engagement tools already in place,
and deepen its analysis of the added value 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 IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016