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.