Public hearings
Public hearings
This is in reference to "Public hearings need to be taken seriously" (The Jakarta Post, March 2, 1996). Arief Budiman admits that many House of Representatives members care about society's problems, but is saddened by the many damaging policies that remain, despite public awareness. Unfortunately, the life of a politician, with elections to win and problems to solve, is not easy. When a politician admits an issue he becomes powerless; when doesn't, he becomes dishonest. A government has its own short-term and long-term interests and its own pressures.
He suggests holding a public hearing on building a nuclear plant in Jepara. This is welcome. But a public hearing on corruption at all levels of public office? What would that achieve? It doesn't require the wisdom of a scholar to realize that corruption exists. In the absence of a strong legal framework and effective law enforcement, corruption cannot be controlled, regardless of political will.
Under the circumstances, a public hearing on corruption could backfire unless it has a safe audience and takes place in a carefully chosen setting. After all, the misuse of public office is hardly new.
Ancient culture preaches that one cannot visit a king's court with empty hands. Politically, there is an obvious tension between having high economic growth and lending support to democratic movements exposing corruption, nepotism, favoritism, etc.
Corruption is just one element in a complete pattern of events. Even when corruption is isolated and its impact is identified, this impact must be weighed against other risks, such as lost economic growth and jobs. If corruption came up at a public hearing, politicians and administrators could lose credibility in the eyes of the people for their inability to control.
Intellectuals who profess a constructive political consciousness would agree that this loss of credibility could lead to a stirring of emotions and violence used for no comprehensible rhyme or reason, especially in this era of consumerism, shrinking moral values, and vast income differentials. Both the honest and those who haven't shared in the corruption proceeds could strike back with vengeance. I am afraid that the net result could be more corruption, not less.
The solution might be to marginalize the corruption. Research could be done to identify the corrupt practices that are the most harmful to the nation. If those who benefit from corruption are using the benefits to help build the nation, this could be tolerated for the time being. All harmful practices, identified and agreed upon, could then be placed under a separate schedule to the Constitution or under a separate enactment of the House. This would provide a precedent, which could be developed into legal cases. The objective should be to gradually cover all corruption cases over a period of time.
Arief Budiman should have focused on a public debate of legal awareness and better jurisprudence in the country. Research scholars like him could contribute to a healthy nation by helping the politicians identify the right and pragmatic priorities.
D. PRABHAKAR
Jakarta