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 ---------