How Long Will Corruption Remain Unconquerable?
The positive performance of non-oil and gas commodity trade continues to serve as a pillar of the economy.
The title of this article does not aim to legitimise corrupt practices. Rather, the questions and conclusions presented serve as a reminder that corruption can become embedded in society if corrupt practices are widely accepted and viewed as normal. This involves a complex and lengthy social process.
In its simplest form, this article suggests that several key factors possess the potential to foster a culture of corruption. These factors include social norms, patronage relationships, weaknesses in law enforcement, and wide economic and social status disparities. However, corruption as a culture is not an absolute, unchangeable reality. Aspects of life related to education, ideas for reforming government institutions, and the shifting of social values by a clean new generation will serve as cultural forces resistant to corrupt intentions and habits.
FACTORS SUPPORTING A CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
Among the factors supporting a strong culture of corruption is, undoubtedly, social norms that are increasingly tolerant or even permissive towards corruption itself. When society tends to judge success based on wealth or power, there is no longer room to question the source of that wealth, nor concern for its impact on future generations. Consequently, corrupt behaviour in all aspects becomes smoother and more easily accepted.
JS Nye (1967), in ‘Corruption and Political Development’, argues that societal culture can determine the boundaries of corruption. This occurs when there is a clash between traditional family obligations and modern legal norms. Nye explains that corruption is a product of the mismatch between traditional norms and the functions of a modern state. Thus, it can be understood that corrupt behaviour is essentially a reflection of traditional-primitive behaviour that opposes the norms of modern society. A permissive attitude towards corruption that strengthens a culture of corruption is highly uneducated.
Furthermore, some writings take a sharper view of corruption through a social lens. Kubbe et al. (2024), in ‘Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver’, explore how corruption is embedded in daily life through shared expectations and how to shift those expectations. Kubbe assesses that a social lens on corruption is vital for meaningful behavioural reform efforts.
This issue is critical because even with anti-corruption laws in place, efforts to combat it will fail if most people continue to act corruptly based on what they believe others will also do. An interesting point in that study is that the risk of being punished is often less frightening than the risk of being ostracised from social or professional circles if one does not participate in the prevailing practices. We cannot ignore this, as in some societies, practices such as bribery, nepotism, or embezzlement are not only tolerated but expected.
KEY DRIVERS OF CORRUPTION
Theoretical ‘keys’ to corruption include dependence on patron-client networks. In societies relying on patron-client relationships, bribes or gifts are often viewed as a moral obligation. A study of Southern Italian society demonstrates how patronage and personal relationships drive corruption (Edward C. Banfield, ‘The Moral Basis of a Backward Society’).
Another ‘key’ is the weakness of legal systems and anti-corruption institutions, such as the KPK. Unjust or weak legal systems create space for corruptors to make corrupt practices acceptable because the public feels there is no other way to resolve issues. Therefore, weak law enforcement is highly potential for the growth of a culture of corruption (Transparency International, Global Corruption Report).
Similarly, an unjust economic structure acts as a ‘key’ to corruption. Economic inequality can ultimately force society to accept corruption as a means of survival. This relates to the assumption that poverty and economic inequality create conditions that allow corruption to thrive (Ameltya Sen, ‘Development as Freedom’).
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF A CULTURE OF CORRUPTION
It is incomplete to assume that corruption only impacts the validity and enforcement of the law. While not incorrect, the negative impact of corruption is multidimensional, including the erosion of moral values, as embedded corruption weakens the values of honesty, integrity, and justice within society.
Furthermore, public trust in the government will weaken. The public loses faith in public institutions, which exacerbates the cycle of corruption. It also impacts the spirit of development, as systemic corruption automatically diverts public resources into the hands of a few, harming society at large. Johnston, M. (2005), in ‘Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy’, has explained the syndromes of persistent corruption in certain societies.
CULTURE OF CORRUPTION IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
It is necessary to reflect on global information regarding corruption. There are numerous scientific analyses and reports on the reality of corruption developments. In Indonesia, according to Vedi R. Hadiz in ‘Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia’, corruption that has been institutionalised since the New Order era continues to persist…