Good governance about issues of transparancy, accountability

Good governance about issues of transparancy, accountability

Frans Hendra Winarta

All over the world, people demand good governance for political as well as for economic reasons. Politically, good governance is an issue of democracy, public accountability, transparency and fairness.

In democracy, those in power are accountable to those who have put them in power. It is also an issue of ensuring that the governed have the appropriate means to control and check the activities of those governing, to ensure that the rights and freedom of the people are respected and protected, that peace and security are maintained, and also to ensure that governance is conducted in accordance with the law.

Problems with good governance may manifest in very different ways in different countries. Some countries may have good policies but do not have strong institutions to carry them out, others have competent institutions but poor policies, while some lack both policymaking and institutional capabilities.

The biggest obstacle to good governance is the lack of both policymaking and institutional capabilities, a condition conducive to corruption.

And corruption, from the New Order era to the present day, has been the main problem faced by Indonesia. Although the government is currently committed to corruption eradication through various legal means, it has not been successful in dealing with this acute problem, and the results of the government's campaign against corruption are still far from the people's expectations.

Corruption has penetrated even the legislative branch of the government. Some corruption cases in regional legislative councils (DPRD) revealed the low morality of the council members. Corruption, collusion and nepotism (popularly known by the acronym KKN) occur whenever bureaucrats abuse their power for their personal gain and politics.

It is so contagious that almost all aspects of life have been contaminated by corruption practices. Illegal levies in obtaining ID cards, the recruitment of public servants and obtaining a driver's license, up to the tender processes of huge projects are concrete examples of how Indonesia is facing the most serious criminal activity in its history since independence from the Dutch colonialists.

Not to mention the rampant corruption in the judicial system, which has been deeply rooted for over three decades and has crippled law enforcement in Indonesia. Judges, police officers, prosecutors and lawyers are not serious in upholding the law and human rights.

The lack of political will to enforce the law on the government's side only makes the situation worse. Instead of enforcing the law, law enforcement agencies are even involved in bribery, corruption, conflicts of interest, manipulation, falsification and the disappearance of evidence, as well as the misuse of public utilities.

Corrupt practices can be observed in interrogations and investigations by the police, the establishment of indictments and charges by the prosecutors and court rulings. Civil cases can be manipulated to become criminal cases and vice versa. Interrogations are conducted without the presence of legal counsel, indictments are produced on the basis of negotiations with the suspect or defendant, while court verdicts can be bought.

With all the crimes committed by law enforcement agencies, it has become virtually impossible to enforce the law. And without law enforcement, one cannot expect good governance applied in the bureaucracy, state institutions, legal institutions, political parties, and in other elements of society.

The extravagant lifestyles of high-ranking bureaucrats and their families -- which are far from the simple life they have promoted time and again to the people of Indonesia -- are perceived by most with skepticism. The fact that their salaries do not match the lifestyles they have developed is further evidence that corruption is widespread here.

The lack of social control and poor law enforcement are also elements that make corruption difficult to cope with. The absence of built-in control and external control mechanisms is also a condition that encourages corruption in the bureaucracy and other state institutions, such as the legislative branch and the judiciary.

When the administration of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono introduced a built-in control mechanism by requiring all Cabinet members to report their wealth prior to and after their terms in office, only three ministers complied with the system, while the rest were either hesitant or reluctant to meet the deadline. Perhaps the one-week deadline required too much of them.

The campaign to use domestic products to stimulate the economy, which was introduced about a decade ago under the motto: Aku cinta buatan Indonesia (I love Indonesian products) failed miserably. Meanwhile, foreign branded products are prospering well in Indonesia. Handbags, cosmetics, designer clothes and cars are prospering in a country that has been severely hit by the monetary crisis and is unable to pay back its huge foreign debts. Indeed, to purchase a Mercedes or Jaguar requires queuing for months.

In short, foreign commodities flourish in the midst of rampant poverty and huge unemployment.

According to the World Bank's 2003 survey, 38.4 million people or 18.2 percent of the Indonesian population live below the poverty line, and 42.0 million people are unemployed or underemployed. This is evidence of an unbalanced sense of social justice that could provoke social turbulence and upheaval.

Meanwhile, the principles of hedonism have long been adopted in the country, despite the five major religions that also flourish here. Moral decadence is another huge obstacle to combating corruption. This is naturally a bad example for lower and middle class Indonesians to follow.

Good governance can be achieved if law enforcement agencies are clean, efficient and effective.

It is true what Prof. Taverne says about law enforcement: "Give me good judges, good supervisory judges, good prosecutors and good police officers, I can have good law enforcement, although with a poor criminal code."

A comprehensive and clear legal reform agenda is therefore required. Reform in legal institutions, such as the police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers is imperative to cope with the rampant corruption in the bureaucracy.

If law enforcement prevails, good governance will survive. Law enforcement must be applied consistently and indiscriminately to any law abuser. The law can only be enforced in the presence of a law-abiding society.

To achieve this, a firm and indiscriminative system of law enforcement is needed. If the law cannot be imposed on unlawful conglomerates, governors, members of parliament, ex-bureaucrats, ex-presidents, ex-attorney generals and other dignitaries than Indonesia will have a problem with the application of good governance.

Corruptors must be sentenced with heavy prison terms and the wealth or money obtained from corruption must be returned to the state. Then a deterrent effect shall prevail.

Suspects in criminal cases must quit their political or bureaucratic positions for the duration of the investigation, but their status must also be returned to them should they be declared not guilty.

The current government should be committed and seriously combat corruption through a massive campaign. The program requires an extensive budget, so as to produce and distribute pamphlets, stickers, and to educate people as to why corruption is a threat to the survival of the Indonesian state and people.

Indonesia can never be a dignified nation standing on equal footing with other civilized nations if it cannot cope with the corruption in its midst. If Indonesia was free of corruption, it would be considered a civilized nation, and foreign investment would pour into the country. This would stimulate the economy and probably solve the unemployment problem.

The government must resolve present and past corruption cases. A breakthrough, to bring those responsible to justice, would encourage the people to contribute and participate in the anticorruption campaign, and the law enforcement agencies would gain credibility.

State leaders also have to set good examples of living decently and honestly. Such a good example would be better than promoting empty slogans to the people, while the people know full well that their leaders are corrupt.

To achieve good governance, the government must collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and anticorruption watchdogs, such as the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) in dealing with corruption cases. The media also plays an important role in identifying corrupt practices.

Above all, corruption eradication campaigns will be successful only when law enforcement agencies are clean and free from corrupt practices. As the old adage says, you cannot clean the floor with a dirty broom.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is expected to be on the front line in dealing with corruption cases. This would encourage other law enforcement agencies, such as the police, prosecutors and judges.

Through true law enforcement, we may expect good governance to materialize in the future. Those who are committed to crime should be held administratively and legally accountable. The accountability of the perpetrator of a crime should be held open to public scrutiny, and any sanction or punishment should be announced publicly. This would have a deterrent effect, to prevent the repetition of a crime and the contagious nature of corruption.

Punishment should not be considered as a form of revenge.

As earlier stated, good governance cannot be achieved without law enforcement. In short, Indonesia cannot survive the global competition without the rule of law. In the absence of the rule of law, Indonesia cannot attract the foreign investment it needs so badly, to boost the economy and solve the problem of unemployment.

An advocate based in Jakarta and member of the Governing Board of the National Law Commission