Corruption of the Republic

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.