Making progress in corruption fight

W. Scott Thompson, Sukawati, Bali

The problem about corruption is that it is a moving target. What is "corrupt" today was permissible yesterday. Standards change. My own country is sanctimonious today but some of history's greatest corruption took place on the road to industrialization there -- in the U.S.

A great senator once stood up in the Capitol and demanded that his coffers be "replenished."

Some people argue that once countries are rich, corruption will go away. True -- but the rate at which national wealth is obtained depends mightily on the amount of corruption. It's like population growth: Family size comes down when countries become rich, but absence of family planning ensures that wealth comes late. You can explain why Thailand is twice as rich as the Philippines by population programs alone.

There are, arguably, four levels of corruption, and it bears consideration whether a country can concentrate on all four at once. At the bottom and top the answers are easy. "Tea money" or small scale corruption is present everywhere in poor societies and no one has ever found a way to prevent it, beyond getting rich.

At the other end of the scale is the macro-corruption where leaderships change the whole national economic rules to enrich themselves and their families. Inevitably, the country becomes impoverished. Indonesians know all too well about this one. The minute you distort the macro-economic rules for your personal benefit you have introduced the highest form of inefficiency and the greatest market distortion possible.

But there are two kinds, or levels, of corruption that bear some thought, where perhaps middle-income or lower middle income countries can put emphasis. The second level is political corruption, and it is present everywhere and probably always will be: Rich people subsidize election campaigns in hopes of favorable treatment, companies give generously to politicians who can pass beneficial tax laws benefiting them. But it makes a great deal of difference how much they can give, and whether it is transparent.

At the very least, parliaments can pass laws imposing stiff penalties for non-transparent political contributions. They can limit the amount anyone can give. Of course there are ways to get around this: Get all your children to support your candidate. But it becomes more difficult.

The third level is the one where perhaps the greatest good can come from real reform, in a rapidly growing society like Indonesia's. Here we have the kind of dirty deeds everyone hears about: Generals taking a percentage from military purchases, politicians getting a cut from NGOs or AID-giving organizations. Big sums change hands.

In Thailand the phrase "unusually rich" was devised to describe what was an inappropriate amount of new wealth to have garnered from service in government -- and the amount was about Rp300 billion. Anything below that in the 1990s was tolerated. Now the lines have been drawn at lower levels. The moving target again.

This kind of corruption doesn't wholly distort the economy and subvert it in itself. But it hardly aids civic spirit for hard- working citizens to see political leaders getting rich. So cynicism about politics spreads. And who any longer wants to invest in a country where the deals are done under the table rather than on top? You don't know where you stand with the former and you are always under threat -- that greedy hands will reach out as soon as you have demonstrated the ability to generate economic growth.

And this form of corruption destroys personal virtue. It seems okay because "everyone is doing it". A "friend" pocketed about eighty million rupiah from me, out of a simple financial transaction in which he was supposedly helping me. Nothing so awful had ever happened in my experience, but people hearing of it hardly grew in their respect for the country. Every time a palm goes out at customs, the country's reputation takes a hit. Someone should take down names and send them in. Heads should roll.

Why should the future hold anything different for Indonesia? If elected will Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono fall prey to the same temptations? Maybe -- but maybe not. In the Philippines a man of similar background, Fidel V. Ramos, became president in 1992 and ushered in the cleanest period of his country's politics ever. And mirabile dictu, investment poured in and economic growth soared. Ramos is held in an awe that corrupt money can't even begin to buy. Susilo can do the same and the results would no doubt be the same.

There is the additional point that the public clamor for a clean-up is powerful today. The moving target is moving upwards. Pressure to end corruption comes from all sources. A new -- or reelected -- president could find sources of power in clean politics that would astonish and galvanize.

The enormously successful, and largely clean, elections give a huge impulse to continue the reform -- and catapult Indonesia from near the bottom of the list of the world's countries at least to middle levels within a very short time indeed. The makings are there, the incentives are there, and the country deserves nothing less.

Dr. W. Scott Thompson, D. Phil. is Adjunct Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA. The views expressed are personal.