Good governance through law enforcement

Good governance through law enforcement

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