Govt fails to tackle corruption

Govt fails to tackle corruption

By Meuthia Ganie-Rochman

JAKARTA (JP): Pessimism is increasing regarding the
capabilities and intentions of the government in solving the
country's problems.

Measures taken to overcome these problems are often
unconvincing. Bank restructuring, a pillar for economic recovery,
lacks transparency and seems full of compromises. The political
handling of past rulers seems unfocused, confusing and also
dangerous. The handling of regional dissatisfactions also lacks
seriousness in institutionalization and vision.

Can these failures be considered a scandal? Shameful, maybe,
but not necessary a political scandal. It may be only an example
of incompetence and ignorance.

Within the context of transformation, it is more difficult
(compared to times of normalcy) to distinguish between failure
and scandal. This is because so many regulations and mechanisms
are changing, including the very basic ones pertaining to state
authority, power-sharing between the government and legislature,
and relationships between the state and its citizens.

The definition of political scandal should thus go beyond the
violation of regulations and conventions, and encompass violation
of the main goals and institutions in politics.

Institutions here are the government, which has been given a
mandate to curb corruption and alleviate nepotism, and the
legislature, which was expected to be an extension of the people.

People are beginning to see ambiguous signs from both
institutions in pressing ahead toward the main goals of
reformasi. On the part of the executive, we are witnessing
questionable special treatment for certain conglomerates in the
bank restructuring program.

The government is also far from serious in curbing corruption.
The latest report from the corruption watchdog Transparency
International showed that corruption here is not lessening. The
issue is not the presence of corruption itself, but the fact that
the government has been judged to have taken only 1 percent of
necessary measures against corruption compared to the governments
of Hong Kong and Singapore; and this for a country said to be 100
times more complex regarding this issue.

At the level of local legislatures, people worry about "money
politics", while politicians are seen to be too busy quarreling
among themselves. One indication of this is the absence of a
strong manifesto at the conclusion of political party congresses.

Meanwhile, legislators feel they are in a legitimate position
as they have passed through an election.

The problem is the absence of mechanisms necessary to provide
rationale in a democracy. One such mechanism is the quality of
interaction between the constituents and the parties.

It has been observed that many voted in last year's elections
based on cultural affinity, sentiments and a baseless conviction
that their party would struggle for the people.

The largely new political parties have lacked cohesion and
have shown themselves to be poor in vision as well as in
programs, and often display bad management.

All of this reflects the poor quality of relationships between
the parties and the people.

Another mechanism concerns the transparency and accountability
expected from the political elite.

We still need additional means to control the conduct of the
political elite. Nowadays, the public sphere is very much open,
and the media is playing an increasingly important role. Civic
activism is on the rise as many private organizations are being
set up to assert public control.

Yet reports of scandals continue. The direction of reformasi
is blurred -- because of the lack of a relationship between
political parties and their constituents, and the lack of
transparency and accountability from the political elite. These
are known as the "backward" and "upward" mechanisms.

The political elite want to strengthen the discourse of formal
democracy. The political rights of citizens, a strong legislature
and rule of law are parts of this discourse. But the elite tend
to think of themselves as the vanguard of democratization and
thus ignore other potential elements.

Activists also lack vision, with their energy too focused on
controlling the implementation side of policy. They have
established legislature watch and corruption watch bodies.

More help is needed from civic organizations to help
institutionalize communication between the elite and the social
organizations, using state-level, formal instruments such as
laws.

There must also be efforts to seek ways to control
legislators, to ensure they are consistent with the calls for
good governance that they advocate. Recently a new body called
the Forum for Democratic Reform drew up recommendations for
supervising and controlling members of the executive and
legislature.

The recommendations were made in the context of constitutional
amendments. One was a code of ethics for legislators. Other
organizations could take up the discourse on political ethics as
a tool to evaluate legitimacy, which should aim for regulations.

The media should support such processes to enhance political
education. In the next election, this hopefully would help reduce
the tendency to vote based on mere sentiment.

The writer teaches sociology at the University of Indonesia.