Making progress in corruption fight<\/p>\n
W. Scott Thompson, Sukawati, Bali<\/p>\n
The problem about corruption is that it is a moving target.
\nWhat is \"corrupt\" today was permissible yesterday. Standards
\nchange. My own country is sanctimonious today but some of
\nhistory's greatest corruption took place on the road to
\nindustrialization there -- in the U.S.<\/p>\n
A great senator once stood up in the Capitol and demanded that
\nhis coffers be \"replenished.\"<\/p>\n
Some people argue that once countries are rich, corruption
\nwill go away. True -- but the rate at which national wealth is
\nobtained depends mightily on the amount of corruption. It's like
\npopulation growth: Family size comes down when countries become
\nrich, but absence of family planning ensures that wealth comes
\nlate. You can explain why Thailand is twice as rich as the
\nPhilippines by population programs alone.<\/p>\n
There are, arguably, four levels of corruption, and it bears
\nconsideration whether a country can concentrate on all four at
\nonce. At the bottom and top the answers are easy. \"Tea money\" or
\nsmall scale corruption is present everywhere in poor societies
\nand no one has ever found a way to prevent it, beyond getting
\nrich.<\/p>\n
At the other end of the scale is the macro-corruption where
\nleaderships change the whole national economic rules to enrich
\nthemselves and their families. Inevitably, the country becomes
\nimpoverished. Indonesians know all too well about this one. The
\nminute you distort the macro-economic rules for your personal
\nbenefit you have introduced the highest form of inefficiency and
\nthe greatest market distortion possible.<\/p>\n
But there are two kinds, or levels, of corruption that bear
\nsome thought, where perhaps middle-income or lower middle income
\ncountries can put emphasis. The second level is political
\ncorruption, and it is present everywhere and probably always will
\nbe: Rich people subsidize election campaigns in hopes of
\nfavorable treatment, companies give generously to politicians who
\ncan pass beneficial tax laws benefiting them. But it makes a
\ngreat deal of difference how much they can give, and whether it
\nis transparent.<\/p>\n
At the very least, parliaments can pass laws imposing stiff
\npenalties for non-transparent political contributions. They can
\nlimit the amount anyone can give. Of course there are ways to get
\naround this: Get all your children to support your candidate. But
\nit becomes more difficult.<\/p>\n
The third level is the one where perhaps the greatest good can
\ncome from real reform, in a rapidly growing society like
\nIndonesia's. Here we have the kind of dirty deeds everyone hears
\nabout: Generals taking a percentage from military purchases,
\npoliticians getting a cut from NGOs or AID-giving organizations.
\nBig sums change hands.<\/p>\n
In Thailand the phrase \"unusually rich\" was devised to
\ndescribe what was an inappropriate amount of new wealth to have
\ngarnered from service in government -- and the amount was about
\nRp300 billion. Anything below that in the 1990s was tolerated.
\nNow the lines have been drawn at lower levels. The moving target
\nagain.<\/p>\n
This kind of corruption doesn't wholly distort the economy and
\nsubvert it in itself. But it hardly aids civic spirit for hard-
\nworking citizens to see political leaders getting rich. So
\ncynicism about politics spreads. And who any longer wants to
\ninvest in a country where the deals are done under the table
\nrather than on top? You don't know where you stand with the
\nformer and you are always under threat -- that greedy hands will
\nreach out as soon as you have demonstrated the ability to
\ngenerate economic growth.<\/p>\n
And this form of corruption destroys personal virtue. It seems
\nokay because \"everyone is doing it\". A \"friend\" pocketed about
\neighty million rupiah from me, out of a simple financial
\ntransaction in which he was supposedly helping me. Nothing so
\nawful had ever happened in my experience, but people hearing of
\nit hardly grew in their respect for the country. Every time a
\npalm goes out at customs, the country's reputation takes a hit.
\nSomeone should take down names and send them in. Heads should
\nroll.<\/p>\n
Why should the future hold anything different for Indonesia?
\nIf elected will Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono fall prey to the same
\ntemptations? Maybe -- but maybe not. In the Philippines a man of
\nsimilar background, Fidel V. Ramos, became president in 1992 and
\nushered in the cleanest period of his country's politics ever.
\nAnd mirabile dictu, investment poured in and economic growth
\nsoared. Ramos is held in an awe that corrupt money can't even
\nbegin to buy. Susilo can do the same and the results would no
\ndoubt be the same.<\/p>\n
There is the additional point that the public clamor for a
\nclean-up is powerful today. The moving target is moving upwards.
\nPressure to end corruption comes from all sources. A new -- or
\nreelected -- president could find sources of power in clean
\npolitics that would astonish and galvanize.<\/p>\n
The enormously successful, and largely clean, elections give a
\nhuge impulse to continue the reform -- and catapult Indonesia
\nfrom near the bottom of the list of the world's countries at
\nleast to middle levels within a very short time indeed. The
\nmakings are there, the incentives are there, and the country
\ndeserves nothing less.<\/p>\n
Dr. W. Scott Thompson, D. Phil. is Adjunct Professor of
\nInternational Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,
\nTufts University, Medford, MA. The views expressed are personal.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/making-progress-in-corruption-fight-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}