Corruption and bureaucracy
By Aleksius Jemadu
JAKARTA (JP): It can be argued that combating corruption within government bureaucracies has become a desperate need in our society. As our economy prospers, illegal appropriation of public funds also tends to increase. During the election campaign period, the United Development Party (PPP), Golkar, and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) made an explicit promise to combat corruption. Now that the election results are known to the public, the people eagerly want such promises fulfilled.
If we really want to eradicate corruption we have to critically reassess some practices which are common in government bureaucracies. Such an argument is based on an assumption that corruption has much to do with our bureaucratic culture. The concept of bureaucratic culture refers to the values, ideological orientations and habits held by government bureaucrats in dealing with their job, superiors, subordinates, and the public.
It is concerned with the question of how the government actually works. For instance, it is often argued that Indonesian bureaucratic decision-making is influenced by the use of informal relationships to the effect that in many cases there is a big gap between what is written on paper and what is practiced in reality. Of particular importance in determining bureaucratic decisions are family connections and loyalties to friends.
The historical background of Indonesian bureaucracy is an important aspect in understanding its function. Its history dates back to the Dutch colonial period. Under Dutch rule, civil servants were conditioned to be loyal to their colonial masters. As such, they became instruments to be used at the disposal of their colonial masters. But being a civil servant could improve their social standing, characterized by a social and cultural distance in the sense that the former did not think that they had to serve the people. It was the people who were supposed to serve the government officials. When Indonesia gained its independence in 1945, the basic government bureaucracy structures did not change significantly.
The second aspect of Indonesian government bureaucracy which is believed to be a colonial legacy is a typical bureaucratic attitude of making no separation between government, administrative and political matters. This tradition has led to a political arrangement by which civil servants are obliged to give their political support to the dominant Golkar.
This aspect of government bureaucracy is closely related to bureaucratic centralization. Dutch colonial rule wanted to make sure that it could control the function of its bureaucracies throughout the country so that its political and economic objectives might be achieved. Therefore, Dutch colonial rule created a bureaucratic system which was highly centralized.
The influence of patrimonial culture in Indonesian bureaucracy is also paramount. In this type of culture, people are supposed to keep harmony above anything else in human relationships. The best way to deal with social conflict is to deny its existence. Open debate and direct criticism are considered impolite behavior and indicate low social status. It is culturally more preferable to hide any disagreement with superiors so that the continuity of social harmony can be ensured. In such a cultural atmosphere, government bureaucrats tend to remain silent when confronted with infractions and irregularities. Indeed, they tacitly follow the same practices for their own benefits. This is precisely the reason why internal control is seldom effective within government bureaucracies.
This cultural explanation may not necessarily mean that overcoming bad practices in government bureaucracies is impossible. There are several suggestions for improvement. First, corruption can never be eradicated if top government officials fail to give good examples to their subordinates. In other words, high-level government officials should take the initiative to improve the quality of bureaucratic performance. On top of this, lower level civil servants would respect superiors who practice what they preach. Infractions are often sustained because a bureaucratic leader has no moral force to supervise his or her subordinates.
Second, meritocracy should be enacted more consistently in recruiting new civil servants. The use of a merit system is a conditio sine qua non in building bureaucratic professionalism. There should be a political will to give more promotion opportunities to those who can demonstrate real achievement in accomplishing their tasks. There are two inseparable aspects of professionalism. These include intellectual or technical capability and ethical responsibility. The integration of the two aspects in the personality of a bureaucrat is essential in building a clean and responsible bureaucracy. Professionalism has to become a new element of the bureaucratic culture.
Third, we have to be more consistent in implementing the rules and regulations regarding the eradication of corruption in the public sector. Equality before the law may not become just an empty slogan. Thus, whoever violates the rules and commits corruption should be punished according to the existing laws in line with the principle of justice and fairness. Unfortunately, we tend to be strict only when dealing with corruption conducted by lower level government officials. Consequently, the public has little respect to the authority of our judicial system. There is a common perception that the judicial power can easily be manipulated by the ruling elite for their own interests. It is in connection with this phenomenon that there is an increasing demand for a more independent judicial system.
Fourth, eradicating corruption is not only the responsibility of the government, but all of society. The role of three important social institutions such as family, formal education and religion need to be underscored. The cultivation of good moral values should start in early age through the practice of love among family members. Family education contributes to the creation of a responsible society. Formal education institutions are mainly responsible for an integration of intellectual capabilities and moral maturity of graduates. Religious institutions are responsible for increasing moral decay in society. In order to substantiate our claim as a religious nation, it has been suggested that we place greater emphasis on religious teachings than the formal aspects of religion.
Last but not least is the constructive role of the press in social control. In western democracies, the free press can function effectively in preventing irregularities and infractions conducted by government officials. But in a situation where formal political institutions such as parliament and political parties cannot function effectively, members of society would rely on the press to impose pressure on government officials so they might think twice before they commit illegal acts such as corruption. We may then conclude that a simultaneous collective action is all that we need to combat corruption.
The writer is Director of the Parahyangan Center for International Studies (PACIS), Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.
Window A: Corruption can never be eradicated if top government officials fail to give good examples to their subordinates.
Window B: Meritocracy should be enacted more consistently in recruiting new civil servants.