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.