Corruption of the Republic

B. Herry-Priyono Driyarkara School of Philosophy Jakarta

The herd of that social vice called corruption rumbles on unabated. The year 2002 has seen a rapid escalation of this contagion, even though the chorus of criticism grows louder. As the vicious herd and virtuous criticism take their opposing course, most of us may expect that they would soon collide in a most dramatic manner. If only life were a Hollywood film, of course!

The endemic nature of corruption in Indonesia always makes us feel aghast and uncomprehending. Instead of receding, many observers say it is increasingly spreading. Instead of being confined to some pockets, it has spread horizontally and vertically, rotting out the heart of the legislature. Some call it "the democratization of corruption", others "the decentralization of corruption". The admission of Indira Damayanti and Meilono Soewondo - members of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle - in October 2002 that they had returned a bribe of US$1,000 each from the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency during the sale of Bank Niaga is an exception.

The good news is, more whistle blowers are coming out. The bad news is, justice remains elusive. No doubt, surveys regularly published by watchdogs like Transparency International or Political and Economic Risk Inc. are invaluable. However, they mostly show "perception" rather than the "facts" of corruption. Since perception is very much prone to beliefs, there seems to be an urgent need for caution.

The story of corruption usually goes like this. A group of state bureaucrats have stolen billions or trillions of rupiah through juicy fraud, cheating, embezzlement or epic miscalculations. Corruption, in the words of the IMF and World Bank mandarins, is "the abuse of public office for private gain" that arises from the "arbitrary and capricious state action". This, of course, ranges from corrupt practices by state executives to that done by people's representatives in the legislature. The year 2002 has witnessed this malpractice go unchecked.

The problem with this notion is not that it is false, but, rather, that it is only half of the story. At the global level, no recent period has given a better guide to what happens to the other half than the year 2002. When the scandals of Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, ImClone, Merck, Vivendi and many other business giants began to emerge at the end of 2001, we came clearly face to face with that concealed half. Aside from the stories of corrupt bureaucrats, these scandals show that private businesses are highly capable of committing massive corruption without government help.

Examples from home abound. By what name should we call the looting of over Rp 138 trillion of Bank Indonesia Liquidity (BLBI) funds by some unscrupulous business tycoons? Further, how should we define the Rp 8.4 trillion tax evasion by big businesses, "or about 60 percent of the total tax arrears of 14.5 trillion", as revealed by Director of the Large Taxpayers Office in July 2002?

What is happening here is large-scale corruption by non- government parties. I have tried to think of another name for it, but there simply isn't one. Many scandals in the year 2002 have forced us to revise the existing definitions of corruption. A more republican conception is needed. Otherwise, even in understanding, let alone solving, one of the most fundamental problems of this country, is that we are deceived by our own myopia.

Even incremental solutions have yet to be started. How? As most of us understand, there needs to be more concentration on non-corrupt law enforcement. Only those with vested interests would disagree. The problem is, talking about law enforcement in Indonesia is opening a giant pandora's box. It is not that law enforcement is unimportant, but that law enforcement has long been captive to the power of the purse. How often we are confronted by the unpalatable fact that money, in this country, controls the noble law!

Indeed, the nature of corruption seems to be less a reflection of weak law than that of the political economy. The higher the level of corruption on the socio-economic ladder, the harder is to punish the perpetrator. In matters of power, history seems to stand still: those who have the gold control the rules. That is why white-collar corruption hardly results in prison.

We hope more noble souls blow the whistle in the coming years. But, without breaking the above political-economic taboo, cleaning up the mess of corruption remains an illusion. So, perhaps it is time for us, citizens of this Republic, to press one clear suggestion. See that justice is done in at least three cases of white-collar corruption in the year 2003. That would be a good starting point. The means, of course, must be legitimate, but legitimacy should not be confused with the existing legal procedures. It is for this reason that an extraordinary process to deal with the crime of corruption has never been more urgent.

The word corrupt comes from Latin corrumpere: to destroy, bribe, taint, rot. Originally, it was used to describe things, chemical elements, personal character, as well as action. From the verb comes the noun corruption, rotten condition and action. How did it enter into the social, political, economic and legal world?

The answer lies in the "republican" conception that sees our welfare and lack thereof as a matter of common affairs (res: thing/interest/affair; publica: public/common; whence the term 'republic' comes). It is a mistake, therefore, to define corruption simply in financial terms. In the final calculus, corruption is an act of the rotting of the fabric of our Republic.