Rotten from the Inside

The readiness of prevention and mitigation systems to face the dry season remains a question. Five district heads in Central Java have been arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in quick succession. They are the Regents of Pati, Pekalongan, Cilacap, Sukoharjo, and Pemalang. All of this occurred within 191 days, from the first arrest of the Pati Regent on 19 January 2026 to the fifth, the Pemalang Regent, on 28 July 2026. On average, every 38.2 days, one regent elected by the people in Central Java was imprisoned for corruption. Viewed from their party origins, corruption is a pathology of power that does not discriminate. The Pati Regent is a Gerindra cadre. The Pekalongan Regent is a Golkar cadre. The Cilacap Regent is a PKB cadre. The Sukoharjo Regent is a PDIP cadre. The Pemalang Regent is a professional, a former director of a state-owned enterprise. Those four parties are top-tier parties, whilst the professional holds a master’s degree in management. Whatever their party, whatever their education, all of them stole. It is common knowledge that corruption is rampant because the cost of winning local elections is extremely expensive. In a small district, it costs Rp30 billion to Rp50 billion. In a medium district, Rp50 billion to Rp100 billion. In a large district, Rp100 billion to Rp150 billion. The chance of winning is very slim if the capital is below Rp20 billion to Rp40 billion. If the measure of a large district is a population of over 500,000, these five districts are large districts. If the measure is a regional budget of more than Rp1.5 trillion and more than 6,000 employees, these five districts also qualify as large districts. This means that to become a regent there, one must have at least Rp100 billion. These figures might be too high, or ‘crazy’ if they are too low. To obtain precision, the KPK could presumably be relied upon to dig this information out of the regents who are now suspects. How much total money was spent? How much for the party dowry? What is the price of support from one seat in the Regional People’s Representative Council? How much for the success team? And how much money to ‘persuade’ the people who have votes? The KPK should not only wrestle in the legal domain for court purposes but also make these ‘rogue regents’ into ‘research respondents’ on money politics. As a result, the KPK could speak with more weight than merely quoting figures from Ministry of Home Affairs studies. A regent’s basic salary is very small. Regulated in Government Regulation No. 7 of 2000, the basic salary is the same for all regents and mayors. The amount is Rp2.1 million per month. What does that amount of money mean for the five districts whose regents were arrested by the KPK? A relevant and contextual answer compares it to the fate of the people they lead, namely the size of the district minimum wage. Pati Regency: Rp2,485,000. Pekalongan Regency: Rp2,633,700. Cilacap Regency: Rp2,773,184. Sukoharjo Regency: Rp2,500,000. Pemalang Regency: Rp2,433,254. That is the ‘mathematical’ reality: the basic salaries of the five regents are all below the district minimum wage. It is mathematical because the minimum wage is set using a mathematical formula by adding a new wage adjustment value to the current year’s minimum wage. The minimum wage always rises, whereas the ‘mathematics’ of a regent’s basic salary has stagnated for 26 years. It stopped in place after the Government Regulation was issued in 2000. In reality, there is neglect or indifference towards the regent’s basic salary. This is one of the factors causing corruption, rotten from the inside. When viewed through the lens of the minimum wage, which averages Rp2,565,027.6 per month or a minimum of Rp85,500 per day in these five districts, ‘money politics’ is quite tempting. If a household earning only the minimum wage has four voters and is given Rp120,000 (Rp30,000 per vote, according to one source), it is understandable that the money is accepted gladly. If two pairs of candidates compete in the local election, that household could receive Rp240,000, or almost three days’ minimum wage. Quite tempting. The low income of the people is linked to money politics. At this point, it is important to revisit the view of former Vice President Boediono, who in his professorial inauguration speech at Gadjah Mada University in 2007 stated that the sustainability of a country’s democratic system is linearly correlated with the per capita income of its people. If per capita income is low, below US$1,500, the democratic system is very fragile and has a very high probability of failure. The transition zone is a per capita income of US$4,000. The safe limit, where democratic success is high, is a per capita income of US$6,000. Based on the latest data from the Central Statistics Agency released on 5 February 2026, Indonesia’s per capita income is Rp83.7 million per year, equivalent to US$5,083.4. Indonesia’s democracy is still in the transition zone. If per capita income does not rise higher to reach US$6,000, whilst money politics becomes increasingly entrenched and corruption increasingly pervasive, democracy will likely not reach the safe zone. Eroded from within, rotten from the inside, democracy has the potential to fail. Indonesia could even return to an authoritarian era. State officials, including regents, are required to report their wealth to the KPK. Are they honest? That is a matter between them and God. Based on these reports, the wealth of the rogue Pati regent is Rp31.52 billion. The wealth of the rogue Pekalongan regent is Rp85.6 billion. The wealth of the rogue Cilacap regent is Rp12.03 billion. The wealth of the rogue Sukoharjo regent is Rp9.11 billion. The wealth of the rogue Pemalang regent is Rp21.31 billion. If they had risked it all for the local election, their wealth would not have been enough to win. The question is, where did they get the loan capital? From political loan sharks, who are paid back after they become regents. Because a regent’s salary is small, they can only pay it back through corruption. Rotten from the inside. Among the populace, there is a view that improving salaries does not affect corruption. That view is correct. Research conducted by Leslie Palmier on bureaucratic corruption in Hong Kong, India, and Indonesia concluded…