Legal Literacy - Why is the "I built" claim by public officials dangerous to the state system? Understand the risk of blurring institutional responsibility from the perspective of Administrative Law.
Introduction
The phenomenon of personal communication by public officials in the digital space is increasingly widespread. Their social media timelines are now commonly filled with narratives that highlight the role of the individual, such as "I have built," "We personally have completed this," or "Thank you to those who have cared for the people."
At first glance, these sentences sound familiar and pro-people. However, when examined from the perspective of administrative law and public communication ethics, this approach contains a fundamental flaw. We live in a legal system that places power not in the individual, but in the position (office). When an official claims a state program as the result of his personal work, he is obscuring the main principle in good governance.
Authority Is Vested in the Position, Not the Individual
In State Administrative Law (Administrative Law), a fundamental principle is known that all government actions must be based on legitimate authority (rechtmatige bevoegdheid) inherent in the position. This principle is manifested in the concept of attributive authority, namely the authority granted directly by laws and regulations to a position.
Thus, when a regent inaugurates a new road or a minister launches a social program, it is actually the state institution acting through the official as its legal representation. It is the office of the regent or the office of the minister that is at work, not individual "A" or "B" personally. The narrative "I personally built this" is inconsistent with the principle of formal legality in every administrative action.
The risk is very clear: accountability becomes blurred. If disputes or legal violations related to the project arise later, who is institutionally responsible? The personalization of power blurs the line between personal and public responsibility.
The Trap of Populist Communication: Effective, But Obscures the Facts
Undeniably, communication with a personal touch is indeed easier to touch the public's emotions. This style is effective in building an image of leadership that is present and caring. However, this effectiveness is what makes it potentially dangerous when not balanced with the strengthening of institutional narratives.
The effects of overly personal communication can be cascading. First, the public slowly ceases to see the state as a system, but rather as an extension of a popular figure. As a result, public loyalty can shift from adherence to laws and institutions to loyalty to a particular figure. Ultimately, this can hinder bureaucratic reform, as the system seems to only work if there is a dominant populist figure.
This type of communication often obscures the essential fact that a program is the result of collective work, funded by the state budget (APBN) or regional budget (APBD) which is the people's money, and implemented by various technical units through a long procedural process.
Political Branding vs. Administrative Ethics: Where is the Line?
Building an image and personal connection is certainly part of a political communication strategy. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it does not sacrifice the structure and ethics of public accountability.
That boundary is crossed when narratives such as "I built this road" or "We personally donated that facility" are used in the context of programs that are fully funded by the state. At this point, public policy, which is a systematic product of the state, is seemingly reduced to a kind of gift or personal generosity. This is in direct contradiction with the principle of impersonality of the state—that the state must work impartially and systematically, not based on the preferences or personal image of whoever is in office.
The Biggest Risk: When State Institutions Are Submerged by Personal Figures
The most obvious impact on society is the emergence of mentions such as, "That's Mr. X's program," or "That road was built by Mrs. Y." In fact, the program was designed by an institution, approved through institutional mechanisms, and executed by the government structure. The dominant personal narrative effectively absorbs and obscures all of that institutional contribution. The public is not educated about how their country works.
If this phenomenon is allowed to continue, the legitimacy of public institutions will continue to erode. Governance becomes highly dependent on the personal power of a figure, rather than on the stability and resilience of the system. And when that figure steps down, the state and its programs risk losing direction.
Conclusion: Returning the State to the System, Not Figures
Public officials need to realize that healthy state communication requires not only personal closeness, but more importantly, strengthening public awareness that the state is present through systems and laws. What needs to be highlighted is not who is giving, but which institution is responsible. Not who who is building, but how the state carries out its constitutional mandate.
This country is too complex to be summarized in a single individual's narrative. To build a healthy and sustainable bureaucracy, public officials must return to speaking as representatives of institutions. Because in essence, this country belongs to the law, not to anyone.
Comments (0)
Write a comment