IMPLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR'S ELECTION ON THE AUTHORIZATION OF REGIONAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION IN REALIZING GOOD GOVERNANCE

Abstract

This research aims 1) to carry out legal reform regarding the election of the Governor in relation to the Governor's authority in structuring regional personnel; 2) to produce a theory about the implications of gubernatorial election on the Governor's authority in structuring regional personnel in realizing good governance. The problem of appointing Civil Servants to structural positions is a very complex problem considering that these arrangements are regulated sporadically in Indonesian Legislation. For this reason, central and regional governments need to interpret these regulations appropriately and consistently. The research method used is the normative juridical research method and the approaches used are the statutory approach, conceptual approach and case approach. Analysis of the legal materials used in this research was carried out by interpreting, evaluating and assessing all statutory regulations and assessing relevant legal materials. The results of the research show that 1) Regulation of the authority of regional heads in personnel management means that there are regulations relating to the implementation of personnel management/ASN, the implementation of which is not further elaborated, but still refers to and is guided by old regulations, so that these changes have implications for the authority of regional heads in staffing management of the State Civil Apparatus (Regional Civil Servants); 2) The legal implications for the election of regional heads with the authority of the Governor in staffing arrangements are that appointments and transfers to Echelon II (JPT) are carried out effectively starting from correct planning based on analysis of employee needs as a result of proper workload analysis. and 3) Ideally, in staffing at the time of regional head elections to realize good governance as legal reform, the Indonesian system in every field of civil servant management lacks democracy, diversity and effectiveness than the Korean civil servant management system. For example, in the performance appraisal process there are no regulations for complaints of other opinions by civil servants, in terms of effectiveness, Indonesia lacks a system to guarantee effectiveness such as evaluation during work on JPT, salary limits, pensions and promotions for civil servants who are punished by discipline, and sanctions against civil servants who violate the wealth reporting obligations in Korea. Management arrangements for civil servants in practice are determined by the norms that underlie the regulations/laws of a country. The Korean case emphasizes legal certainty, accountability and efficiency, while the Indonesian case shows the weaknesses of these dimensions. Indonesia's emphasis on ethics that does not have implications for legal certainty can be explained by the inclusion of political considerations in the administrative realm