Susilo's war on graft: Lots of talk, little action

Susilo's war on graft: Lots of talk, little action

Merle Ricklefs, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has just
announced a new Coordinating Team for Corruption Eradication
consisting of 51 prosecutors, police and financial officers.

Is this a breakthrough in Indonesia's battle against
corruption? Is this a step taken by a presidency that is
successfully tackling Indonesia's challenges and addressing the
needs of its people? To answer these questions, look back over
Susilo's first six months as Indonesia's first popularly elected
president.

Last September, he won the presidency, along with Jusuf Kalla
as his vice-presidential running mate, with 61 per cent of over
114 million votes. Democracy was in action and hopes were high.

From the start, Susilo said elimination of corruption would be
one of his prime objectives. In his inaugural speech on Oct. 20,
he indicated his priorities as addressing economic growth,
poverty, unemployment, the separatist movements in Aceh and
Papua, health, education and good governance.

"My administration will actively launch an anti-corruption
program which I myself will lead," he said.

But action was slow in coming.

Last November, Attorney-General Abdul Rahman Saleh promised to
complete several hundred pending corruption cases within three
months. Three months later, few cases had been completed.

On Dec. 10, Susilo said he had authorized the investigations
of two provincial governors, six members of national parliament,
four regency heads and two mayors. But activists were asking:
"Where were the arrests and convictions?"

There were, however, signs of action on corruption below the
national level. Across the country, many local parliamentary
members and local government officers were accused of corruption
by activists, police and the judiciary.

Suddenly it was no longer unusual to learn that a governor, a
mayor, a regency head or a member of local parliament was being
interrogated, detained, charged and even found guilty.

So we began to see here a pattern reflected across the nation:
The weak center in Jakarta, with a poorly functioning bureaucracy
riddled with corruption and with many of its resources and much
of its authority devolved to local governments under a regional
autonomy law, was less able to act than the local governments
supported by honest people and civil society movements. Much of
Indonesian politics is now local politics.

The first big fish to be caught at the national level was then
Aceh governor Abdullah Puteh. In early December 2004, he was
accused of taking a large cut from the inflated price of a
Russian helicopter purchased by his government. His trial began
amid much skepticism that so senior a figure would actually be
convicted.

As noted above, the real action on corruption mainly occurs
below the national level. Hundreds of local parliamentarians have
been declared suspects, detained, charged and in some cases
jailed. As of March, out of 35 regencies in Central Java
province, such cases were being pursued in 21. This pattern was
replicated across the archipelago.

But by the beginning of April this year, there was not yet a
single large-scale, national-level crook who had been charged,
found guilty and imprisoned since Susilo's inauguration.

Then what may be a major breakthrough occurred. The special
Anti-Corruption Court -- the target of much cynicism among
activists -- found Aceh governor Abdullah Puteh guilty of
embezzling nearly Rp 4 billion. He was ordered to repay all of
that, was fined another Rp 500 million and jailed for 10 years,
even though prosecutors had asked only for an eight-year term.
There was much surprise and delight among anti-corruption
activists at this outcome.

This was followed by revelations of corruption in the General
Election Commission -- which, with its massive contracts for
making ballot boxes, printing and distributing the hundreds of
millions of ballot papers, supplying ink and such like, was a
rich source of shady deals.

The irony here is that the commission consists largely of
civil society activists, so the revelations constitute a sober
reminder of how very difficult it will be to tackle graft in a
society characterized by poverty and pervasive corruption that
reaches into the very institutions on which reform depends.

On April 28, a week and six months after his inauguration,
Susilo announced -- yet again -- a large-scale anti-corruption
drive that would begin with the offices of the President and
Vice-President themselves. "I want to clean my own house," he
said.

That was what he said six months before. That was what he has
said several times since.

And now he has formed his new 51-person Coordinating Team for
Corruption Eradication. People are already asking how this body
will avoid tripping over the special anti-corruption bodies
already created.

Susilo knows that corruption pervades every part of the
government, so if there is to be reform, he must lead it himself.

But as president he cannot be out there counting the dollars
and checking the contracts in government agencies across the
nation. He must rely on his officials, of whom there are few he
can trust. There are some outstanding, honest opponents of
corruption available to him, but he has yet to show that he can
empower and support them fully.

We must accept that official fraud will never be eliminated in
Indonesia any more than criminality can ever be 100 percent
eliminated in any country. But the situation in Indonesia is so
extreme that it represents a core problem for the nation.

Indonesia illustrates a dilemma of those who seek "good
governance" in such nations. If official salaries are so low that
some people can only feed their families by tapping unofficial
sources of income, if senior figures have opportunities to make
vast amounts of money, and if the very arms of government on
which good governance must depend are riddled with corruption,
how does one implement reform?

So far, there are grounds for hope that local-level police and
justice officials will continue to act against corrupt local
politicians and their cronies. The national picture, however,
remains mixed.

We need to bear in mind an important thing about the
presidency in Indonesia. After many years of a strong presidency
under Soeharto, both Indonesians and foreign observers tend to
look to Jakarta for national solutions.

But in this age of regional autonomy, after two presidents who
either did nothing or created chaos, the presidency is much
weakened. Its powers in domestic affairs are now in large measure
symbolic.

Susilo's repeated announcements of an anti-corruption campaign
that he would lead symbolize something important. If his gestures
are supported by real action from the Anti-Corruption Court,
progress is possible. But Susilo cannot simply order a ban on
corruption and then watch it take effect across his vast nation.

One should not give in to pessimism about Indonesia. There are
many creative, honest, hopeful people there and many positive
things going on. But until the rule of law is strengthened and
corruption significantly ameliorated, many other positive
developments could prove to be in vain.

Prof. Merle Ricklefs will take up a visiting professorship at
the National University of Singapore in August. He is also an
honorary professor at Monash University and an adjunct professor
at the Australian National University. He may be contacted at
profricklefs@hotmail.com
---------