Anticorruption commission needs support of public
Sofie Arjon Schuette and Agam Fatchurrochman, Partnership for Governance
Reform in Indonesia, Jakarta
Indonesia ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world, an indication that the government has not done much to eradicate corruption since reformasi started. The unholy triad of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) is unfortunately deeply ingrained within the civil service and the state system.
The lack of progress in fighting corruption is among the gloomiest aspects of the current state of governance. What has been achieved so far, however, should not be ignored.
In his article The elections, new government and anticorruption measures (The Jakarta Post, March 15), Patrick Guntensperger is certainly right about the opportunity the upcoming elections offers to make a fresh start and announce a zero-tolerance, anticorruption policy. Like many others, however, he is still ignorant of the newly established anticorruption commission.
Guntensperger's proposal that the next president and legislature should establish a government department with the specific mandate of investigating allegations of corruption demonstrates this popular ignorance.
Such an institution was established in late December 2003: The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), as provided by Law No. 30/2002. The law declares corruption an extraordinary problem that needs to be tackled by extraordinary means and therefore gives the new commission a far-reaching mandate. The KPK's authority goes far beyond that of previous related institutions such as the Joint Investigation Team or the Public Servants' Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN).
Besides prevention, the KPK is tasked with coordination and supervision of police and prosecutors in corruption cases. It is authorized to take over cases from the police and the attorney general and to conduct investigations, inquiries and prosecutions of corruption cases that involve the law enforcement apparatus, cause special concern to the public or involve a loss to the state of at least Rp 1 billion (approximately US$125,000).
To fulfill these responsibilities the KPK has been given legal authority, including the recording and tapping of communications, the investigation of suspects' bank accounts and inquiring into the wealth and taxation of suspects.
To ensure that these extraordinary powers are not abused the five commissioners have already signed a code of ethics. This code, as well as the commission's organizational structure and performance plan, are currently being presented by the commissioners as part of a public consultation process all over Indonesia. It is time for the KPK to garner popular support and use this as the impetus for demonstrating its existence.
As shown in a national survey conducted by Partnership in 2001, public expectations of the KPK are high, and quick results are demanded. However, to build up a solid institution that has integrity takes time. At this point the commission is supported by a temporary staff of 50 only, transferred from various state institutions. The recruitment of permanent staff is scheduled to start in May.
With regard to the recruitment of incorruptible as well as qualified personnel, the commission can benefit from the previous support provided by Partnership's Law and Judicial Reform Program to create a pool of competent and clean prosecutors and judges. Following the training of a "super-team" of judges and prosecutors to handle corruption cases in August through September 2003, and the establishment of the KPK in December 2003, the chief justice requested Partnership to facilitate the selection process of judges for the anticorruption court.
Establishment of the anticorruption court is part of the provisions of Law 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission and is expected to be established by June at the Central Jakarta District Court.
It took some time to get the anticorruption commission established and it will take longer to get it fully working. The provisions are there, however, and what is needed most at present is public support for the commissioners' efforts. The KPK has at least three intricate tasks:
First, gaining support from individual citizens for a wider constituency for reform. This heart-winning obligation seems to be a rather easy task for KPK. The announcement of the elaborate code of ethics was received well by the public. This initial trust should be built upon by establishing its integrity and proving that several big fish can be fried.
Second, forging partnerships with other corruption-concerned organizations such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Muhammadiyah, Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) and Transparency International Indonesia (TII) to work in tandem in combating corruption. Leaving their ideological differences behind, NU and Muhammadiyah have already signaled their willingness to fight corruption in a memorandum of understanding with the Partnership.
Together, the two mass organizations influence more than 80 million people throughout Indonesia. This cooperation cannot be overestimated in its value for popular anticorruption education, one of the KPK's tasks.
Third, getting commitment from candidates who are now running for the legislature and presidency. This task, without doubt, is one of the toughest challenges for the KPK since politicians have proven themselves to be especially vulnerable to corruption. As pointed out at the start, the upcoming elections are an opportunity for leadership and regime change.
Along with a newly installed legislature, the new president and cabinet that are due to be inaugurated in October 2004 share a common interest with the KPK to start over and systematically pursue good governance in all walks of life.
Every presidential candidate should be aware that the public will demand the KPK and the new government prove their sincerity in fighting corruption through several quick wins. A failure of the new government and the new anticorruption commission to address the public's demands will lead to the same distrust toward government currently experienced.
That is why all presidential candidates should seriously consider formulating an action plan for eradicating corruption to prevent any premature loss of public confidence.