NU and Muhammadiyah, last hope against corruption

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.