NU and Muhammadiyah, last hope against corruption

A historic agreement was reached Wednesday between the country's largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, on eradicating corruption in a nation that continues to rank among the most corrupt countries in the world. Indonesian Corruption Watch coordinator Teten Masduki shared his views with The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti on the issue.

Question: How do you view the new partnership by NU and Muhammadiyah to wipe out corruption?

Answer: The cultural approach that they are undertaking is very important, given the highly permissive attitude here towards corruption. NU and Muhammadiyah have great potential as religious-based organizations. But it is dangerous if the move is only symbolic without clear actions.

NU and Muhammadiyah are our last hope, they're the biggest organizations (they claim to have a combined total of 70 million members). So if they fail I fear it would lead to nationwide frustration, the feeling that corruption cannot be eradicated here.

The permissiveness seems to be encouraged by justifications like 'Even the Prophet never rejected fortune (rezeki)' ...

That is a manipulation of values, even when we find coins on the street we should ask who they belong to. Such justifications contribute to the thriving of corruption. In the eyes of many religious teachers and leaders, the punishment for thieves are quite clear compared to alleged corruptors, who are said to have only "slipped" in their misuse of wealth.

Corruption is much more dangerous than theft! Corruption in the banking system could bring down a nation's economy. It is far worse than a bank robbery.

The kyai (religious teachers) must start (to seriously address corruption), we must straighten the interpretation of corruption (from an acceptable act) because we're supposed to be a religious society.

In secular countries like Scandinavia where the country is clean, people are aware that bribes lead to the collapse of the law enforcement system. In Indonesia there is a combination of rationality, a strong sense of religion and patrimonialism (including the religious leaders that people look up to). Therefore religious leaders must be firm on corruption. They could start by rejecting any contributions to their boarding schools (pesantren) which sources are unclear. Earlier the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce or Kadin also launched an antibribe drive. Your comment?

This was in line with the common platform on antibribery of the International Chamber of Commerce. One part of the business community here comprises those who grew up under the facilities of the Soeharto regime, which saw the start of cronyism. This led to them being trapped in that culture; without it operating a business was difficult.

Another part of the business community is the independent businesses which are mainly exporters and whose capital did not depend on the state facilities. They also engage in paying levies to smooth business operation. But they are a smaller part of the business community.

What an antibribery pact needs to be effective is a healthy independent organization which metes out penalties, in this case business sanctions, to members who violate the pact. So as Kadin does not issue penalties, a more effective framework for an antibribe drive would be the specific associations (textiles etc).

Now the government, the political elite and the business community are all weak while power is fragmented. Bribing used to be clear, you paid a bribe with a guarantee of getting what you need; now its getting to be irrelevant as one pays bribes to more parties with no guarantee of getting anything in return. Your organization also joined in the initial maiden announcement of the Bung Hatta Anti Corruption Award. There are all these private initiatives while people seem apathetic towards the planned set up of the new Anticorruption Commission. Your comment?

It is planned to have strong authorities so its strength will depend on the people (selected to sit on it). An anticorruption drive must indeed start from the legal approach to show that things have changed, to sow trust in the anticorruption drive. The legal approach is not enough but it's a start, look at China and South Korea; the punishments make the heart tremble.

With such an approach, then you could engage in the preventive approach, which is cultural. Here, we find that exposing big cases no longer works. The cultural approach is very important. The constraint is that we've seen that those in NU and Muhammadiyah have been very permissive, including their young politicians.