Skeptically hopeful
It all sounds too familiar.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono vowed to make fighting corruption one of the top priorities of his government, declaring in his inauguration speech last week that he was personally leading the campaign. He also promised to appoint someone tough as attorney general: His choice was Abdul Rahman Saleh, a respected judge who had been cleaning up the Supreme Court.
Sure, there were plenty of calls for the new President to take the campaign more seriously than his predecessors ever did -- and there is no shortage of suggestions on what he should do.
But we have been down that road time and again; we have heard or seen it all before. And until we see some real results, we simply won't be impressed by mere words.
Three presidents have come and gone since the collapse of the corrupt Soeharto regime in 1998, and every one of them promised exactly the same thing. They said they were going to go after big-time corruptors, repossess all stolen assets to shore up the ailing economy and send them to jail. For good measure, they all vowed to establish a clean government, one free of corruption.
What have those three presidents achieved in six years?
Court convictions for corruptors have been few and far between. Very little money or assets have been reclaimed. Most high-profile corruption investigations fell apart on the way, if not in the police's hands, then in those of government prosecutors or judges somewhere along the tiers of the judicial system. Some corruption suspects even slipped through the cracks in the middle of an investigation and fled abroad.
Rather than putting them in jail, we have allowed them to roam free, not only to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth, but also to steal some more by default. Rather than repossessing what rightfully belongs to the state -- and thus taxpayers -- the government -- and again, taxpayers -- have become ever more indebted. Rather than wiping out corruption, we have let it multiply; and rather than evolving into a cleaner government, we have devolved into a dirtier one.
B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri all promised to wage a war against corruption, but this was just empty rhetoric. So why would anyone think that Susilo would be any more successful or sincere in his efforts?
The new President does have some things going for him, though.
Since he is the only president thus far to have been directly elected by the people, he commands a strong political mandate. His landslide victory in the Sept. 20 election runoff has endowed him with an unprecedented political capital to do whatever it takes to fix the nation's problems, including the rampant corruption.
He also has at his disposal a number of legal instruments that have been established only recently to combat corruption: There is the Corruption Eradication Commission with its vast legal powers; the newly established Corruption Court to try big-time corruptors; and a clause in the Anticorruption Law that allows the burden of proof to be shifted from prosecutors to suspects.
He also has some things going against him.
The inclusion of one or two figures with poor track records in accountability has fueled public skepticism about his ability to wage an effective campaign. Their presence will haunt the government and could even undermine the campaign altogether.
That corruption is a serious problem is a matter of which everyone is aware. Susilo was elected president partly, if not largely, because many people in this country hoped that he would, for once and all, address this problem more seriously than his predecessors.
The country has tolerated corruption far too long under many pretexts -- and excuses. A classic argument is that some corruption is necessary to grease the economic wheels and the bureaucracy. Another is that some corruption in government is acceptable so that civil servants may supplement their meager incomes.
It is this tolerance that has allowed corruption to spin out of control, consequently leading to Indonesia's near state of bankruptcy in 1998. We have recovered -- though only just -- thanks to massive international support.
But we seem not to have learned our lesson.
Corruption is again in vogue, because past leaders have allowed it to regenerate with impunity. Not surprisingly, these leaders -- or their close associates -- were themselves implicated in corruption scandals.
The chief lesson of the 1990s is clear: We must adopt an attitude of zero tolerance when it comes to corruption.
President Susilo's gradualist approach suggests that some corruption might be tolerated, but this is a sure recipe for another bankruptcy.
Hope amid skepticism is thus the public's take on Susilo's anticorruption campaign.
We know he has the political capital, and we know that all he needs to do is to turn this into political will. What we are not so sure about is whether he has the guts to do what needs to be done.