Skeptically hopeful
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.