Eradicating corruption - first crush the oligarchy

Eradicating corruption - first crush the oligarchy

Danang Widoyoko

The new government has vowed to take real action against corrupt
officials in its first 100 days as a form of "shock therapy" in
an effort to gain public trust. But properly enforcing the law
against such a widespread problem, with so many involved, is
nothing short of a monumental task.

The previous presidents of Indonesia have failed to eradicate
corruption, although a lot of regulations have been reviewed and
new laws enacted. However, corruption in this country has not
been reduced, but has spread further -- to every level of the
government and beyond.

Policy and institutional reform

The Anticorruption Law (Law No. 31/1999) defines corruption as
the abuse of power to enrich oneself, creating state financial
losses. By this definition, the corruption eradication strategy
should then be started by reforming the (state) power.

One of the first things that needs to be tackled is to
establish regulations that limit individual power and reduce the
opportunity to abuse that power. Then the strategy can continue
by improving the Anticorruption Law, implementing the
Anticorruption Commission, reforming the judiciary and requiring
good governance programs in every government office. This
strategy is known as policy and institutional reform.

It has been successfully implemented in other countries. One
such success story was carried out by Roland Abaroa, the mayor of
the Bolivian capital of La Paz. Similar successes have also been
achieved by the Hong Kong Anticorruption Commission. That
commission has since become the standard for all anticorruption
commissions elsewhere.

In the Indonesian context, there actually has already been a
successful corruption eradication implemented. It was done not by
the central government, but by Solok Regent Gamawan Fauzi in the
province of West Sumatra. Gamawan has reformed the local
government bureaucracy into a more transparent, efficient and
accountable entity. All government services in the regency have
been made clear and measurable, particularly in terms of time and
cost.

The efficiency measures carried out by Gamawan have greatly
increased the local officials' welfare and thus reduced
corruption in the regency.

But in general, such policy and institutional reforms in
Indonesia have never worked successfully. Dozens and dozens of
serious corruption scandals have never been investigated, let
alone been adjudicated upon in a court of law. The Corruption
Perception Index done each year by Transparency International
consistently shows Indonesia to be one of the most corrupt
countries in the world. So, what is wrong with a policy and
institutional reform strategy?

First, the initiative to combat corruption has not come from
the government. Most of the agendas were driven by international
financial institutions, especially from the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), through the signing of Letters of Intent as
a condition of IMF's support for Indonesia. In this case, the
ownership of the strategy is on the IMF, not the government of
Indonesia.

Secondly, there is not adequate political will to eradicate
corruption. And yet political will is the important factor behind
a successful corruption eradication system.

So, the next important question to be raised is what is an
alternative strategy to combat corruption if government political
is inadequate?

To answer this question, we have to look at another definition
of corruption to fully understand the situation.

Political economy of corruption

Corruption is not only caused by the state's inability to
implement tight monitoring systems, but also because there is not
an integrated system of internal supervision in the public
sector. That is the reason why reforming the bureaucracy and
tightening internal supervision will not automatically reduce
corruption.

Improving law enforcement by reforming the police, the
prosecutors and the courts as is the trend here these days, will
not automatically bring immediate results.

Corruption has its roots in politics and grows in a power-
related environment. General definitions of corruption --
described as an abuse of power for one's personal interests --
clearly shows that corruption is part of the power itself.

It has become an open secret that corruption and money
politics were rife and widespread during the recent general
elections. And in such a corrupt political recruitment system, it
is nearly impossible to produce credible leaders. In fact, such
an election, where candidates essentially "invest" huge sums of
money to people that can get them elected, gives birth to
corrupt leaders who almost have to be involved in corruption to
recoup their "investment".

The systemic corruption here can also be attributed in part to
the strong political and economic oligarchy that continues to
thrive. Paul Johnson defines oligarchy as a tiny clique of elite
leaders that make the public policy to suit their own private
interests, through direct subsidies, and provide facilities or
protection from other business competitors (Hadiz&Robinson,
2004).

This oligarchy roots corruption in politics and spreads to all
of the power dimensions. The oligarchy thus supports the corrupt
political culture as well.

The fall of the New Order government was not followed by the
fall of the oligarchy. The reform movement has only shifted the
top of the oligarchy. Now, the oligarchy has been revived and
adapted to democracy and the pro-market economy.

The failure of law enforcers in huge corruption scandals like
the Central Bank Liquidity Support (BLBI) case, the release of
suspects in big corruption cases and the flourishing corruption
in the privatization program are proof of the continued existence
of the oligarchy.

Therefore, genuine efforts to eradicate corruption in
Indonesia should start with the removal of the roots of the
problem. The oligarchy must be crushed.

Opportunities to eradicate corruption

The new government has some positive momentum that it can use
to eradicate corruption, especially because the president and the
vice president had been elected directly by the people with a
mandate directly from the people. In this antigraft campaign, the
new government will not be able to depend on the legislative
branch for much help.

Yet, obstacles to combating corruption will likely come from
the president's own supporters. To be a president, one does not
only need political support, but money as well. The president is
expected to reimburse those who helped him financially, and that
will make the eradication of corruption more difficult.

So, is there an opportunity to combat corruption in this
situation?

First, the corruption eradication campaign can start with
coordinating the existing law enforcement agencies. It is the
task of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to deal with the
big oligarchy-related corruption scandals.

The KPK should be an independent body and have no political
handicaps that would prevent it from prosecuting high-profile
corruption cases that involve the economic and political
oligarchy. Moreover, the KPK needs extraordinary discretion.

The KPK does not need to get permission from the president to
investigate high-ranking public officials. The government should
only equip the KPK with adequate staff and budget to send the big
corruptors to the jail.

At the same time, the Attorney General's Office, as a part of
the government, should take the small-scale cases that do not
have "supreme" political handicaps to deal with, like corruption
cases found in regional governments. What the Attorney General's
Office has to do is only to monitor and supervise the prosecutors
to guarantee that the investigations are going well.

With the distribution of law enforcement, the President will
not directly challenge the oligarchy of corruption. It is the
task of the KPK to clean up the oligarchy.

The second strategy that can be done by the government is to
establish an integrated system of public services. The government
did not start the campaign for good governance as the initiatives
had come from donors and the public.

The eradication of corruption in public service is a strategic
effort because the impact will directly benefit the people. The
success of eradicating corruption in public services will improve
public trust in the end.

Both of the above strategies are a part of institutional and
policy reform that need strong political will. The next problem
is how to give birth to leaders who have high integrity and
strong political commitment? The answer to this question is
actually the third strategy that has its roots in civil society.

Now is the time for civil society to get deeper into politics
rather than just set up monitoring bodies and become watchdogs.
The presence of civil society is particularly crucial in
supporting officials or leaders, who are committed to combating
corruption, such as Gamawan Fauzi. The movement to tackle rotten
politicians, the establishment of political contracts between
politicians and their constituents must be done and supported by
other stakeholders.

Support from the civil society in combating corruption is
actually in line with the basic idea of good governance. Good
governance assumes the balance between the state, the private
sector and the civil society. In fact, most of the efforts to
eradicate corruption are state-oriented and give lots of support
to the government, although the government does not have enough
of a political will to carry it out.

Deputy Coordinator of the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW)