Indonesian corruption in perspective

W. Scott Thompson, Gianyar, Bali

It is not realistic to put Nigeria and Indonesia in the same league on corruption, as an international NGO has done. There has been much publicity about this country's placement near the bottom of the corruption barrel. There is no question that it is a big problem: I should know, as the victim here of a huge personal scam.

But Indonesia is not Nigeria. Here, there has been substantial economic growth and national and noble attempts to come to terms with corruption. Nigeria went from being a food exporter to an almost total importer, thanks to indolent and corrupt elite attitudes: Virtually the entire oil wealth of the 1970s was skimmed off for houses in London and similar extravagances.

At one recent point a national leader closed down the oil refineries there so that the oil had to go in and out, and thus give him a double cut. Millions lost their jobs; the national income plummeted faster than any known country's in history-- but Gen. Abacha got billions. Only his viagra overdose saved the country from a much worse fate.

One need not praise the Soeharto family for probity, but in the better years -- let us say until the death of Mme Tien -- the per capita income grew by at least ten times. The corruption happened after the economic growth. The useful comparison is with, for example, the Philippines, where Marcos jiggled the system for the family and the cronies,they taking their cuts prior to any growth, so the whole system collapsed. Here the family -- at least until the early 1990s-generated huge growth and then took their cut.

The last time I visited Nigeria it was suggested that my visa wasn't valid (which was not true) but US$100 would help. The immigration officials were laughing as they figured what I was worth. I only once had to pay that much in Indonesia, and the customs inspector, while pocketing the money, told me that it wasn't for him, "it was for the people of Indonesia." At least he felt guilty, which didn't even occur to the Nigerian.

It is also true that the current ratings do not take into account recent progress. The ratings show a substantial lag effect. The last time I left Indonesia I had unintendedly overstayed a day. I was wondering how much I would have to pay. The truly sensational thing is not that the official told me I had only to pay $20 -- but that he then wrote me a receipt on RI paper and put the money in a customs box! That's worth celebrating.

But there is more than anecdotal evidence that people are getting the message -- that corruption keeps a country poor. Corruption is like population growth -- at some stage one outgrows it. As recently as 90 years ago the British government was selling peerages for contributions to the governing party; not much earlier it was selling military commissions.

In America as recently as 1980 a New Orleans official said to me that his state could not contribute to Governor Reagan's presidential election campaign, because they had just spent $50 million on their gubernatorial campaign. I expressed astonishment, to which he replied, "there's one big lot of roads to be build in Louisiana."

In smart states, corruption declines like population growth as the economy expands. It becomes inefficient, counter-productive. The Indonesian press has well publicized the negative effect is has on foreign investment and scholars have attached numbers as high as 3 percent to its harm.

But attitudes have to change along with the economic perspective. Areas have to become off limits for corruption. For example, while everyone tries to cut sharp deals in business all over the world, in the countries in the clean league, it is simply unthinkable to steal from your friends. That encircles a huge area of personal probity and shifts attitudes at the corporate level too.

The single most painful monetary memory of my life is that a "friend" here offered to transmit some American funds for building my house in Bali, and kept eighty million rupiah for himself, 15 percent. That's simply a no-no in countries that want to clean their act up. Honesty starts at home.

If Indonesia wants to worry about indices generated in the West, it should pay more attention to the "failed state" index of the magazine "Foreign Policy," which places this country, along with neighboring Philippines, in the "marginal" category. (Ivory Coast, with 106 negative points, is the worst; Indonesia gets 87, the Philippines 84).

Again, the time lag has harmed Indonesia: One of the twelve categories for that rating was "refugees and displaced persons." Another was "factionalized elites." But the Aceh settlement and more settled political situation since Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's election would, I think in themselves, raise Indonesia out of the "marginal" category, from its 87 to less than the cut-off point of 82 points.

Nonetheless, in the other ten categories, there are things to think about (uneven development, demographic pressures, human rights). It seems to me that Indonesia is on a sharp upward curve: It's taken some courageous acts in its elections, in its decentralization, and in its decisions to deal with the deficit by no longer giving gasoline away to the rich and middle class. I would say, looking at these comparisons with other countries, Indonesia is doing rather well. It deserves higher ratings, and I believe an inspection of the criteria for the ratings would show that the numbers have been overtaken by events. But that is no argument for complacency.

The writer is adjunct professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He resides part time in Bali.