Regional Head Corruption Persists, UGM Anti-Corruption Centre Urges Political System Reform
Zaenur Rohman, a researcher at the University of Gadjability Mada’s Anti-Corruption Study Centre (Pukat), assesses that the high cost of politics in regional head elections remains the main factor driving recurring corruption.
“The primary problem is high-cost politics. These high political costs are dominated by illicit expenses, namely candidacy buying and vote buying. Corruption is then committed to recoup political capital and to accumulate funds for subsequent contests,” Zaenur told Media Indonesia.
He explained that candidacy buying involves the practice of purchasing nomination tickets by providing funds to the nominating political parties. Meanwhile, vote buying is conducted through monetary politics directed at voters, such as ‘dawn raids’ (money distribution before voting) and various other forms of giving ahead of the polls.
According to Zaenur, as long as this high-cost political system is not repaired, the practice of corruption among regional heads will continue to recur. “They commit corruption not only to recover political capital but also to gather funds so they can run again in the next regional election or ascend to higher political levels. Therefore, the current political system is what causes regional head corruption to persist,” he stated.
In addition to political costs, Zaenur believes that the weak oversight function in regions further increases the opportunity for the abuse of authority. He noted that oversight by Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) members often fails to function effectively, while Government Internal Supervisory Apparatus (APIP) is also unable to detect violations at an early stage.
“Oversight of regional heads is almost non-existent. Oversight by the DPRD is not functioning, and internal oversight is unable to tackle violations. As a result, deviations are only discovered when they reach the enforcement stage by law enforcement agencies,” he said.
This condition, he continued, is further exacerbated in regions with local politics characterised by oligarchic tendencies or dominated by political dynasties, where checks and balances mechanisms fail to operate. Consequently, regional heads do not receive adequate oversight from political elites or the DPRD.
To break the chain of regional head corruption, Zaenur proposed several reform steps. First, reducing political costs through strict law enforcement against money politics, both in the form of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions such as candidate disqualification. “So far, these rules are almost never enforced. Even when they exist, they are very rare, and disqualification is almost never carried out,” he said.
Secondly, Zaenur stated that the government needs to strengthen the oversight system by revitalising the function of the DPRD and improving the independence of the APIP. One idea he offered is to place district/city inspectorates under the authority of the governor to prevent easy intervention by regional heads.
“The Inspectorate should have a more independent position so that regional heads cannot intervene. So far, the APIP has failed to serve as an effective oversight function, especially when the alleged corruption is actually committed by the regional head,” said Zaenur.
Furthermore, he believes that the deterrent effect on corrupt perpetrators must be strengthened through maximum sentencing, the seizure of criminal assets, and the revocation of political rights so that perpetrators cannot return to public office. “They must be prosecuted to the maximum extent, their criminal assets must be seized, and their political rights revoked so they cannot return to the political arena. On the other hand, political education for the public is also important because, ultimately, it is the people who determine the quality of leaders through their political choices,” he concluded.