Ending corruption needs access to information

Ending corruption needs access to information

Bambang Widjojanto, Lawyer, Consultant, Partnership for Governance Reform, Jakarta

A survey by the Partnership for Governance Reform sought the
perceptions of households, business people and civil servants
regarding causes of corruption. Three reasons were mentioned in
the results, published in February.

The main reason was low pay, followed by weak law enforcement
as well as lack of supervision and responsibility, and the third
was a low level of morals.

But when public perceptions were broken down further to
include, among other things, individual characteristics such as
income brackets, age, education, gender and length of service,
different results were obtained.

The main cause of corruption then involved the characteristics
of government institutions -- weak supervision in various areas,
including budgeting, entering into contracts and less than
specific policy regulations coupled with loose implementation.

In addition, the public perception that corruption has spread
across all provinces of the public service indicates that
important prerequisites and principles like participation,
transparency, accountability, legal supremacy, responsiveness,
equality, effectiveness and efficiency have not been adhered to
in our system of governance.

Based on a formula on corruption advanced by Robert Klitgaard,
corruption takes place due to the existence of a monopoly of
power plus discretion, in the absence of accountability.

This theory assumes that corruption can be controlled if the
monopoly of power is eliminated. Discretion is tightly regulated
and limited, and the process of accountability is required each
time power and discretion are wielded.

Further analysis reveals the need for a number of requisites:
First, a checks and balances system and other control mechanisms
to ensure the focus of power to its appropriate function, duty
and authority; second, a system that informs the mandate of
authority of that power; third, a system that enables reporting
to account for the use of authority; fourth, a system that
provides access to public participation in order to control the
use of power.

Public participation in controlling various forms of authority
and power can eliminate the potential for corruption. An
important precondition to this end is access to public
information.

In public policy making, the people should be informed of how
the process is undertaken, how far the policy affects the
majority's livelihood, and how it is to be accounted for.

Information from the poor about the public services they
receive indicates the presence of a fundamental problem --
intricate and complicated procedures where the costs are unclear.
Regulations often contradict reality in the provision of public
services. The poor become vulnerable to extortion and
discrimination, and corruption is prevalent.

These facts show not only the linkage between access to public
information and corruption, but also the close relation between
the prevalence of corruption and the absence of a guarantee of
access to public information -- as the absence of access to
public information can hamper public empowerment and public
participation in controlling the use of power.

The above illustration indicates that corruption has become
massive, and can no longer be controlled by mere legal
approaches. An antigraft social movement is necessary. Every
strategic step to eradicate corruption must involve the public,
supported systematically and comprehensively by freedom to get
public information.

Freedom of public information comprises first, the provision
of clear information about various procedures, the cost of
services and the scope of public officials' authority and
responsibility.

Second, the formulation of a simple report mechanism in the
event of people knowing of cases of violations of regulations,
extortion or bribery involving public officials or other
officials; and third, the guarantee of follow-up steps in
response to every report.

Several important steps must be taken to ensure that access to
information can be utilized effectively in fighting corruption.

First, information should be used to examine the factors
causing corruption in public institutions and to identify a
method of controlling corruption.

All information about the causes of corruption and the
formulation of the method should be communicated to society. The
pattern and structure of corruption and the procedure for
reporting corruption cases must be made public.

Second, the capacity of law enforcement institutions should be
increased by providing information on all law enforcement
processes so that investigation into corruption cases is exposed
not merely as news, but also as part of the case monitoring
process and the empowerment of public knowledge.

Third, anticorruption education must be introduced by
exploring and utilizing various kinds of public information to
foster the emergence of non-governmental organizations focusing
on fighting corruption in various areas.

They are expected to be able to seek and use public
information so that they can participate in controlling a policy
more systematically and comprehensively, and side with the public
interest.

Fourth, the capacity of public service institutions should be
increased by communicating the procedures, functions, prime tasks
and authority of those institutions. It is necessary to create a
condition that helps to curb deviations from rules and abuse of
power, which contradict public information presented by those
public service institutions.

For that purpose, the public should be encouraged to question
all forms of abuse of power.

The article is an excerpt from the writer's presentation given
at the international conference on free access to information,
held by the Coalition for Free Access to Information, the
National Information Agency and the legislature in Jakarta on
April 22.