Corruption and bureaucracy

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.