Political Communication specialist and Executive Director of Era Politik (Erapol) Indonesia Khafidlul Ulum expresses the opinion that the DPR RI ought not to increase the number of commissions, even with the escalation in ministries under President-Elect Prabowo Subianto and Vice President-Elect Gibran Rakabuming Raka. The suggestion is to raise the number of commissions in the DPR from 11 to 13.
Referring to the revelation of the commission counts in the DPR alongside the ministries that are proposed to collaborate, he argues that
many ministries possess functions that significantly overlap with others.
“The formation of additional commissions is evidently wasteful from a financial perspective. A new commission would necessitate a considerable budget, covering expenses like the secretariat, meetings, provisions, and various other costs,” stated Khafidlul in a statement received in Jakarta on Saturday (12/10).
He illustrated that, based on his observations, the aforementioned ministries and agencies engage in areas connected to law, thereby negating the need for a separate commission within the DPR. He indicated that it would suffice for Commission III to work alongside these ministries and agencies.
Moreover, he asserts that merely increasing the commissions does not guarantee enhanced effectiveness in the DPR’s future actions. He contends that efficacy is not measured by the count of commissions but rather by how well council members carry out their responsibilities across legislative, budgeting, and oversight roles.
“The DPR ought to reconsider its plan to expand commissions as well as the intention to establish a new Aspiration Body. After all, shouldn’t the DPR’s duties encompass listening to and advocating for the people’s aspirations?” he remarked.
Deputy Chairman of the DPR RI, Cucun Ahmad Syamsurijal, indicated that the DPR RI has agreed to enhance the council’s equipment (AKD) to align with upcoming government ministries, resulting in a total of 13 commissions alongside the formation of a new body. (Ant/D-3)
Analyzing the Debate on Expanding the DPR Commissions: A Matter of Efficiency versus Proliferation
In the evolving landscape of Indonesian politics, a recent discussion initiated by political communication expert Khafidlul Ulum underscores a pivotal concern regarding the structure of the People’s Consultative Assembly, or DPR. With the new administration led by President-Elect Prabowo Subianto and Vice President-Elect Gibran Rakabuming Raka ushering in an era marked by an increase in ministries, the recommendation to expand the DPR’s committees necessitates a critical examination.
Ulum’s argument against the augmentation of commissions reflects a prudent approach, advocating for efficiency over unnecessary proliferation in the legislative process. His stance underscores a vital consideration: the ability of the DPR to effectively oversee and engage with the increasing number of ministries without further complicating the legislative framework. The underlying notion is that a streamlined legislative approach could foster more focused dialogues and decisions, enhancing accountability and governance without the added bureaucracy that comes with additional commissions.
This debate pivots on the delicate balance legislators must maintain between being adequately represented and avoiding an overextended bureaucracy that can often lead to inefficacy. An increase in the number of commissions could create a diluted focus where crucial issues may get lost in the shuffle, resulting in fragmented oversight and ultimately less coherent policy-making. The concern is not merely theoretical; it relates directly to the mechanisms of governance that have a tangible impact on the daily lives of Indonesian citizens.
Moreover, Ulum’s perspective raises an important question: how can the DPR leverage its existing capacity to engage meaningfully with the growing array of ministries? Rather than merely adding more layers to the political structure, the DPR might find advantage in reevaluating its current operational efficiency, possibly through enhanced collaboration among existing commissions, improved communication strategies, and the strategic allocation of resources.
Ultimately, this discussion reflects broader themes in Indonesian governance — the balance between adapting to emerging political realities and maintaining functional integrity within institutions. As political winds shift and the administration prepares to face a complex array of challenges, the DPR’s leadership must take a step back and assess whether more truly is better or if refining their existing frameworks could yield a more effective governance model.
In a world where political efficiency is paramount, even small structural changes can have widespread implications on how policies are formulated and implemented. As Indonesia moves forward, these conversations will remain critical not just to political insiders but to every citizen eager to witness a competent and transparent government.
The crucial balance between adequate representation and operational effectiveness within the DPR. Ulum’s assertion that many ministries share overlapping functions raises valid concerns about the potential for redundancies that could arise from increasing the number of commissions. This point speaks to a larger issue within legislative bodies, where the risk of creating a labyrinth of committees can lead to inefficiencies and diluted accountability.
Furthermore, Ulum’s argument highlights an often-overlooked aspect of governance—the real impact of legislative structures on public engagement and responsiveness. A committee’s success should not solely be quantified by its sheer number or presence, but by the substantive actions taken to address the citizens’ needs and aspirations. By maintaining the current structure and fostering greater collaboration within existing commissions, the DPR might better serve its constituents without fragmenting its focus.
The concern about budgetary implications also cannot be understated. As Ulum points out, each new commission entails significant financial commitments—costs that could be diverted toward more pressing issues or public programs. In an era where fiscal responsibility is paramount, particularly in developing nations like Indonesia, it’s essential for the DPR to justify any increase in expenditure with tangible benefits for the public.
Deputy Chairman Cucun Ahmad Syamsurijal’s counterpoint indicates a willingness to adapt the DPR’s structure to align with the governmental landscape that the new administration presents. However, this response may risk overextending the DPR’s capabilities, leading to strategic fragmentation rather than cohesion.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in discerning the optimal structure that allows the DPR to function effectively while remaining responsive to the people it represents. This discussion is not merely academic; it has immediate implications for governance in Indonesia, where the voices of the electorate should resonate within the corridors of power.
the current debate casts a spotlight on essential principles of governance—efficiency, accountability, and stewardship of public resources. As Indonesia navigates this political transition, it will be imperative for the DPR to critically evaluate its own structure, ensuring that it is equipped to meet the needs of its populace without succumbing to the pitfall of bureaucratic expansion. This conversation must prioritize the efficacy of governance over the proliferation of committees, ultimately striving for a legislative landscape that best serves the people of Indonesia.
