Assessing the Integrity and Morality of Civil Servants

Every ASN undergoes an oath when appointed through to being sworn in as a public official. In the presence of God, the state, and the people, they pledge fidelity to the constitution, to administer regulations flawlessly, to uphold the ethics of office, to maintain integrity, not to misuse power, and to avoid dishonourable acts. The oath contains a sacred book placed beside the head. Yet at that point the irony of bureaucracy becomes bitter. The sacred oath often ends up as a ceremony, while some officials remain entangled in corruption.

KPK notes show very serious figures. From 2004 to January 2022, 22 governors and 148 regents/mayors were arrested by the KPK, while data from the KPK up to April 2025 show cases involving ASNs reaching 1,385. The figure does not yet specify how many staff, agency officials, contractors, intermediaries, family members, and political networks were drawn into the orbit around power. Therefore, the question is not merely why officials who have taken the oath still commit corruption. The more fundamental question is: what kind of environment makes the oath of office lose its moral binding power?

Integrity and Morality of ASNs

Integrity among ASNs means alignment between values, speech, decisions, and actions. An ASN who is integral does not only know the rules, but also dares to obey them when there is an opportunity to deviate. Integrity is evident when a person rejects gratuities, does not manipulate reports, does not game services, and does not use the office for personal, family, group, or political-supporters’ interests.

Meanwhile, the morality of an ASN relates to the ability to distinguish right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate, trustworthy from treacherous. Morality makes a civil servant not only afraid of punishment, but also ashamed before the conscience and before God. In bureaucracy, morality acts as an inner brake so that authority does not become a tool to enrich oneself or to repay favours to certain groups.

This value aligns with the BerAKHLAK core values for ASNs: service-orientation, accountability, competence, harmony, loyalty, adaptability, and collaboration. Accountability requires ASNs to be responsible for the use of authority and budgets. Loyalty does not mean fidelity to a wrong supervisor, but fidelity to the country, the constitution, and public interests. Harmony does not mean turning a blind eye to deviations to preserve good relations, but building healthy working relationships without sacrificing truth.

Why can integrity collapse? Albert Bandura, through the theory of reciprocal determinism, explains that human behaviour is mutually influenced by factors of the individual, the environment, and repeated behaviour. Corruption does not arise from a single cause. It can stem from a fragile personal character, a permissive environment, and long-standing deviant habits that gradually become normal.

From the individual side, an ASN can be tempted by economic needs, an extravagant lifestyle, the desire to get rich quickly, ambition for a post, low self-control, or weak moral shame. People begin to rationalise: “everyone does it,” “this is merely gratitude money,” or “if I don’t join, I will be sidelined.” Small rationalisations become entry points for major violations.

However, environmental factors are no less decisive. A poor leadership style can erode subordinates’ integrity. If leaders provide manipulative examples, play projects, shield close associates, or treat official facilities as personal property, the organisation reads the same message: safety matters, not rightness. A permissive organisational culture allows minor violations to pass. Weak oversight makes people feel opportunities to cheat are greater than the risk of being caught.

There is also political-social pressure rarely discussed. Many officials and ASNs, especially in regional areas, face requests for help from individuals, institutions, organisations, communities, or supporter groups. They ask for donations, facilities, consumables, transportation, or support for activities, while not all such requests are covered in the regional budget (APBD) or the national budget (APBN). Not all can be accounted for through SPJ (spending accountability documents). The problem becomes more complex when the requests come from parties who feel they have supported, helped, or served.

This is where the social psychology concept of the norm of reciprocity operates: people feel obliged to repay kindness from those who have helped before. In local politics, this norm can mutate into a culture of indebtedness. Officials fear rejection for fear of appearing self-important, losing support, or becoming enemies. The aid that seems social and humane can gradually turn into an administrative-budget irregularity. At this point integrity is tested: can an official distinguish social concern from administrative and moral violations?

Therefore, maintaining ASN integrity is not enough with lectures, integrity-zone banners, or integrity pacts. First, selection and development of ASNs must strengthen character, self-control, moral courage, and awareness of entrusted responsibilities. Second, leaders must set an example. It is not possible to demand honesty from subordinates if the superior sets a contrary example. Third, organisational culture must protect staff who dare to refuse wrongful orders and report irregularities.

Fourth, oversight must touch on risk points: procurement, promotions, licensing, social assistance, grants, official travel, and public services. Fifth, clear boundaries are needed in handling requests from the public and supporters. What can be assisted must fall within an official budgeting mechanism. What cannot be budgeted must be explained openly. Democracy must not be used as a reason to justify backdoor methods. Political support must not become a moral bill forcing ASNs to break the rules.