Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia held a focused discussion titled “Strengthening Open Government Principles in National Development Governance” and presented progress on a draft study on the same topic to gather input from stakeholders in both government and civil society organization. The activity took place on 4 August 2026 and was supported by the European Union and the Open Government Partnership.
The discussion and study start from the problem that government openness is still often treated as a standalone agenda and has not been fully linked to the achievement of national development goals. A study is therefore needed to explain the relationship between open government and Indonesia’s national development agenda, with the hope of showing that open government principles make a real contribution to achieving national development targets, while also identifying opportunities to strengthen the integration of open government into development policy and systems in Indonesia.
Two government representatives attended as reviewer of the draft, Agih Galuh Purwa, Assistant Deputy for the Formulation of Government Digital Transformation Strategy and Policy of Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB), and Maharani Putri Samsu Wibowo, Chair of the Open Government Indonesia Implementation Team and Director of Foreign Relations at the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas. Several CSOs implementing RAN OGI also took part as participant, including IJRS, Penabulu, INFID, PATTIRO, KAKI, and other OGI CSOs.
Open Government and Development Indicators
The discussion opened with a presentation of findings from the draft study developed by the PWYP Indonesia writing team. Represented by Made Ananda Putri, the team explained that the three open government principles—transparency, participation, and accountability—are already embedded as components measured in development indices, even though the term open government is never stated explicitly.
The study identifies seven reference indexes, six of which are indicators of the targets in the 2025–2029 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN). The Public Information Disclosure Index (IKIP), meanwhile, has the status of a national priority program and is also included in the RPJMN, although it is not yet a target indicator with its own numerical target.
The data presented showed mixed results. The Corruption Perceptions Index stood at 34 out of 100 in 2025, down from 37 the previous year and below the RPJMN target of 38 points, placing Indonesia 109th out of 182 countries. The Indonesian Democracy Index stood at 78.19, also down from 79.81, with the freedom aspect the lowest.
On the other hand, the Public Service Index and the Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) Index exceeded the RPJMN targets. However, the IKIP fell sharply from 75.65 to 66.43, breaking an upward trend that had continued since 2021.
“Development achievements are in fact lagging in the areas that depend most on openness, namely civil liberties and openness itself,” Made said.
These findings form the basis for several recommendations in the study. One is to make information disclosure an independent indicator in the evaluation of bureaucratic reform, with the IKIP as one source of assessment and the Central Information Commission (KIP) as the evaluator. This recommendation is based on the assessment that transparency still has weaker representation than accountability and participation, which are relatively reflected through instruments such as the Integrity Assessment Survey, SAKIP, and follow-up on complaints through LAPOR!.
Other recommendations include strengthening public engagement indicators in the Digital Government Index, expanding the assessment of participation in public service evaluation, and gradually strengthening the institutional coordination role of Open Government Indonesia. Strengthening the legal basis to the level of a Presidential Regulation is positioned as a subsequent option, once stronger evidence is available on the contribution of open government to development.
From Many Indexes to Impact Felt by the Public
Responding to the presentation, Agih Galuh Purwa expressed the support of the Ministry of PANRB for the initiative, noting that the ministry is vice chair of the OGP Steering Committee. He acknowledged that the large number of indices currently in use can create problems of administrative burden, overlap, and a compliance-based tendency. In his view, a high index score does not necessarily reflect the quality of services actually felt by the public.
“What matters is services that are truly felt by the public. If services are good, the index score will follow on its own,” he said.
Agih also shared the experience of the Ministry of PANRB in improving and transitioning from the SPBE Index to the Digital Government Index starting in 2026. In that process, the number of indicators was cut from 47 to around 20, while public satisfaction was placed as one of the main components of the assessment.
Maharani, meanwhile, considered the urgency paper already fairly comprehensive, but noted that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not yet captured in the paper, even though open government intersects with a number of targets, from women’s participation in decision-making to government–public partnerships under Goal 17.
She also linked the study to Indonesia’s OECD accession process, in which Bappenas is preparing an assessment through a survey of the Working Party on Open Government. In her view, the most crucial and most overlooked point is the absence of a strategic vision for government openness.
“The National Action Plans that have been running so far are still project-based and lack sustainability,” she said.
Clarifying Targets and Advocacy Strategy
The discussion moved to participants feedback and get several important notes. Bona of INFID highlighted the need for a deeper explanation of the OECD and for synchronizing the paper with the academic draft of the Presidential Regulation that has already entered the 2027 Government Work Plan (RKP).
Desi of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Coalition (KAKI) reminded participants that foreign investors also highlight transparency issues in Indonesia. For that reason, she argued, the study’s recommendations and targets need to be formulated more specifically by actor so that they are not too general.
Marcel of IJRS reminded participants that open government should not be reduced to a matter of indexes and data openness alone. In his view, open government must continue to be understood as a space for building co-creation processes with civil society.
Several participants, including a representative of the Ministry of State Secretariat, also highlighted the importance of clarifying the paper’s targets within ministries and agencies.
Responding to the various inputs, Meliana Lumbantoruan, Deputy Director of PWYP Indonesia, said that all comments would be used to refine the study. She also emphasized that the study’s targets are not intended to be narrowed too much, because it is hoped that the study can reach a range of stakeholders while also increasing the chances of buy-in for the recommendations offered.
On the other hand, according to Meliana, the OECD accession process can serve as one entry point for advocacy. That momentum can also be used to show that open government in Indonesia is not merely a project-based agenda, but has been integrated into national development systems and indicators.
Using Momentum to Strengthen Open Government
Closing the discussion, Giri Ahmad Taufik, as moderator, underlined that the main message from all participants was the need to clarify the paper’s targets, because the construction of subsequent recommendations will follow from that. He considered that current political and economic conditions have left civil society circles somewhat pessimistic, so the momentum of OECD accession has the potential to become a space for seeking support at a higher level.
The urgency paper will next be refined by taking into account the various inputs from government and civil society before it is brought to a high-level dialogue. This effort is expected to strengthen the position of open government as an integral part of national development governance, not merely a standalone reform agenda.