Legal Literacy - Every time the drums of democracy are beaten, our public space is filled with a sacred mantra called "neutrality." Circulars are issued massively, integrity pacts are signed, and alert roll calls are held from Sabang to Merauke. However, behind that magnificent legal ceremonial, reality works with its own logic. In the corridors of government offices, the fate of a bureaucrat's career is often not determined by public service performance, but by the agility to read the direction of the wind of power. This phenomenon is no longer a secret, but a reflection of the distortion of institutionalized legal design. This paper does not merely criticize the failure of practice, but proposes a theoretical proposition that the neutrality of the state apparatus has now mutated into a legal fiction politics (political legal fiction), a juridical construction that is consciously designed not to create impartiality, but to cover up the power relations that grip the bureaucracy.
Distortion of Legal Design and Conceptual Confusion of ASN Neutrality
We are often lulled into the assumption that if the rules are written, the problem is solved. In fact, our positive law tries to build a dividing wall between administration and politics, but structurally hands over the keys to politicians. In the framework of institutional theory, this condition is a concrete manifestation of bureaucratic capture. In Indonesia, this theory is not just a concept in an ivory tower, but a living practice: from mobilization of ASN for covert campaigns to the politicization of social assistance. If left unchecked, this evolves into state capture (Hellman et al., 2003), where the state apparatus, including regulations, is fully controlled by oligarchies for private gain. At this point, legal design meets the reality of power, producing a bureaucratic architecture that systematically functions as if designed to fail in stemming intervention.
It is important to address this matter clearly in order to avoid getting caught in terminological confusion. Neutrality is essentially a normative legal claim that requires impartiality. However, this claim requires independence, which is an institutional structural condition that frees bureaucrats from dependence on politicians. Without structural independence, professionalism is merely a paralyzed ethical-operational mechanism. The problem is that our law demands neutrality (norm) and professionalism (ethics), but consciously refuses to grant independence (structure). As a result, we are forcing bureaucrats to run with their feet tied.
Politicization of ASN Careers: PPK Authority and Historical Legacy of Bureaucracy
This design inequality is starkly visible in Law Number 20 of 2023 concerning State Civil Apparatus. Although the spirit of transformation is echoed, the normative construction of the authority of the Personnel Supervisor (PPK) still retains the old inherent defect: placing the Regional Head as the highest authority in the career of the State Civil Apparatus. Merilee Grindle (2012) refers to this politicization as a survival strategy for politicians. In Indonesia, this strategy manifests in the practice of job trading or buying and selling positions, which has been confirmed in various sting operations. Strategic positions are filled not based on meritocracy, but on partisan loyalty. This proves that bureaucratic independence is impossible to establish as long as the fate of bureaucrats' careers lies at the tip of a politician's pen.
The root of this problem can be traced to the "DNA" of our bureaucracy. History records that the Indonesian bureaucracy was not born from the womb of public service, but from the womb of colonial power created to perpetuate power. This character was reinforced in the New Order era through the doctrine of monoloyalty. B. Guy Peters (2001) reminds us that politicization is difficult to eliminate without radical changes to the "political bargain." This confirms the historical proposition: changes in regulations without changes in power relations only produce continuity in a new form. The relationship between bureaucrats and politicians is still strongly colored by patron-client relations, where formal law changes, but the sociology of our bureaucracy is still trapped in the past.
ASN Neutrality as Political Legal Fiction and Impunity Mechanism
Furthermore, I challenge the conventional view by stating that neutrality in our regulations actually works as a structural impunity mechanism. This is the essence of the political legal fiction I am referring to. Different from classical legal fictions that aim for technical efficiency, this fiction works as a depoliticization tool that obscures accountability. When the bureaucracy is politicized, the law argues that it is a "deviation by individuals," even though it is an inevitable consequence of systemic design. This concept of neutrality becomes a veil that allows political actors to enjoy electoral benefits from the bureaucratic machine without having to bear their political sins openly. This is the most sophisticated form of legal manipulation: using the law of neutrality to perpetuate non-neutrality.
Political Co-optation Strategies that Undermine ASN Neutrality
The modus operandi is becoming increasingly blatant. The rampant use of "Acting Officer" (Plt) status leading up to the political year is not merely an administrative phenomenon, but a tactic of conquest. An Acting Officer whose position is weak is easily replaced at any time, forcing them to be absolutely obedient to political orders. Coupled with the uncertainty of the position of external oversight bodies in the latest regulatory dynamics, our institutional firewall is collapsing. Without strong oversight, the phenomenon of Shadow Bureaucracy, where the success team controls departments from behind the scenes, becomes increasingly unrestrained. At this point, neutrality ceases to be a principle and becomes a mere rhetorical tool.
Reconstruction of ASN Neutrality: From Passive Neutrality to Accountable Professionalism
So, will we continue to persist with this outdated rhetoric? It is time for us to offer a radical reconstruction. The solution is no longer moral appeals, but a paradigm shift from "passive neutrality" to "accountable professionalism" through revisions of authority. The concrete step is to revoke the authority of human resource management from the hands of the Regional Head (PPK) and hand it over to an independent national talent management institution or a Regional Secretary based on central meritocracy.
Risks of ASN Neutrality Reform and the Danger of Rule of Law Decay
This approach certainly carries the risk of excessive technocratization and centralization. However, these administrative risks are far more controllable and measurable than the danger of the decay of the rule of law due to partisan political co-optation that is currently occurring. This step is a constitutional imperative of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which requires the bureaucracy to work based on law and rationality, not momentary political preferences. Leaving the authority of PPK in the hands of politicians is tantamount to allowing systematic violations of the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB).
Failure to Guarantee ASN Neutrality and the Future of Bureaucratic Independence
In the end, we must dare to admit that the current legal design has failed to protect the bureaucracy from political co-optation. Maintaining sterile rules is the same as allowing the state to be managed with double standards. The law must be present not as cosmetic imagery, but as a sword of justice that breaks the chain of bureaucratic feudalism. Because a bureaucracy that is forced to be neutral without independence is not being protected, but is being used as a tool of power.
Comment (0)
Write a comment