Lecturer, STIE YPUP Makassar
Keywords: Governance Sovereignty, Outcome-Based Accountability, Performative Accountability, Participatory Feedback.
WIN Media, Opinion – “Sensation-Based Governance” depicts the government as a stage actor who shines only under the spotlight of a viral case, yet neglects the routine performances untouched by that glare. In fact, institutional responses to viral issues are often spectacular, yet public service satisfaction surveys show stagnant numbers. So, what kind of accountability do we truly expect from public institutions?
This gap marks the failure of accountability oriented solely toward reactive image management. Therefore, breaking the chain of sensational governance requires a fundamental reorientation toward outcome-based accountability and consistency, as argued by Margetts (2021) regarding the need for a new governance logic in the digital era. It is a framework that demands government institutions—akin to what the Ombudsman’s Complaint Service with its online tracking has begun to attempt—be measured by tangible impact and routine reliability, not by the speed of extinguishing “fires” on the timeline.
Dissecting the Anatomy of “Sensation-Based Governance” and Its Impacts
Operationally, “Sensation-Based Governance” is a governance pattern driven by media sensation, with key characteristics: reactive (moving only after an uproar), fragmented (focusing on viral hotspots), and oriented toward damage control and short-term image-building. This model, as identified by Christensen et al. (2020), prioritizes symbolic responses that appear quick on the surface to calm heated public opinion.
Its cycle is damaging and futile. Bureaucratic energy is drained merely putting out one public “fire” after another, while fundamental, recurring root causes are never fully resolved. The result is fragile, conditional public trust, granted only when the government is seen to “take action.” Contrast this with the outcome-based approach being implemented in programs like e-RKAK for budget transparency, which aims to ensure every rupiah achieves a measurable impact, not just budget spending.
Its heaviest impact is the degradation of the very meaning of accountability. Accountability becomes performative—merely a show of responsibility in front of an “audience” (an angry public), not an intrinsic and sustainable internal work principle. The fundamental question is: shouldn’t true accountability work hardest when no one is watching?
Eroded Pillars of Accountability: From Procedural to Publicistic
In this context, we must sharply distinguish between substantive procedural accountability—measured by regulatory compliance and real outcome achievement—and publicistic accountability that is for show, meaning responsibility displayed in the media to meet momentary public perception demands. According to Bovens (2020), legitimate accountability must involve a clear relationship between the task executor and stakeholders, not merely a relationship between actor and audience on the media stage.
Erosion occurs when the internal pillars of accountability—such as performance audits, periodic program evaluations, and direct supervisory oversight—become blunt because leadership resources and attention are disproportionately drawn to managing hot, viral issues. This system, which should work automatically and routinely, is disrupted, as explained by Margetts (2021) regarding the disturbance of administrative capacity due to recurring perception crises. This contrast is evident when compared to the Government Agency Performance Report approach, which ideally focuses on outcome indicators, though in practice is often sidelined by singular viral success narratives.
Consequently, a wide disconnect occurs between the accountability reported on social media (regarding a viral case) and the accountability experienced by citizens in the queues of daily service. The critical question is: which better reflects an institution’s integrity—spectacular performance once under the spotlight, or reliable, consistent service in obscurity?
A Re-engineering Blueprint: Toward Outcome-Based and Participatory Accountability
The first step in this reorientation is a paradigm shift from measuring output (such as the number of press releases or media responses) to evaluating outcome (tangible impact and change felt by the public). This principle, as emphasized in the outcome-based governance framework by Talbot (2022), demands that institutions like the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas), when composing the Government Work Plan (RKP), include not only development targets but also clear, measurable impact indicators for each program.
The concrete strategy begins with building a Transparent & Real-Time Performance Reporting System. An open platform publishing each institution’s quarterly targets, achievements, and performance obstacles must be publicly accessible, similar to the ideal One Service portal. Such an open data model, according to Linders (2022), creates a sustainable mechanism for horizontal accountability, where citizens and CSOs can become active oversight partners.
The second strategy is creating Binding Feedback and Participation Mechanisms. Citizen participation must no longer be ceremonial but systematically designed—through periodic survey panels or deliberative forums—where the results formally become part of the institution’s annual performance evaluation. As argued by Bovens et al. (2020), accountability requires a forum where explanations can be demanded and evaluated, not just delivered unilaterally.
Finally, Incentives for Proactive Accountability are needed. Reward systems, performance allowances, and career paths must be designed to incentivize bureaucrats and work units demonstrating high service consistency and initiative in preventing problems. A reflective question: isn’t rewarding fire prevention more sensible than only praising viral firefighters? This change in bureaucratic culture, as suggested by Dwiyanto (2021), is key to achieving intrinsic and autonomous accountability.
Governance Sovereignty
Breaking the chain of Sensation-Based Governance is a political and technical choice determining the maturity of a nation’s institutions. This choice demands the courage to allocate resources and political attention to systemic improvements that may not be spectacular—such as strengthening internal audit mechanisms and outcome-based evaluation—rather than merely responding to the media social frenzy. As reminded by Margetts (2021), governance in the digital era requires a solid foundation of administrative capacity, unshaken by trend fluctuations.
In other words, re-engineered accountability must function as an intrinsic driving system that makes every government institution feel “obligated” to perform well to maintain its own institutional integrity and dignity, not because it fears negative chatter. This system, as explained by Bovens et al. (2020), must create accountability embedded in the work culture, where responsibility is part of the professional ethos, not a tool for image-building. Isn’t the highest standard of accountability upheld precisely when no one is watching, like the ideal transparency in Government Performance Reports?
Therefore, the final call is to expand the meaning of sovereignty. State sovereignty is measured not only in diplomatic spaces but also—and perhaps primarily—in governance sovereignty: the consistent ability to administer reliable, procedural, and accountable governance, in both silence and the spotlight. This is the true foundation of sustainable public trust.