This is the war on corruption, Mr. President!

Nadirsyah Hosen, Jakarta

Corruption is closely linked to the way in which governments conduct their affairs, and, therefore, also to the growth of governments' economic activities. It is unlikely that corruption can be substantially reduced without modifying the way in which governments operate. The fight against corruption is, thus, intimately linked with the reform of the state.

Reform becomes the top priority of our new president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. It is worth considering that reform does not mean simply change; reform is change for the better. This suggests that the Indonesian people expect the government, not only to build a government free of the practices of collusion, corruption and nepotism, but also to bring an end to these problems.

In other words, this is a war against corruption.

At the start of this war, President Susilo visited the Attorney General's Office (AGO) early last week, to show his commitment to the fight against corruption, collusion and nepotism. Although this is a good start, the President should be aware of the systemic and systematic corruption in the AGO itself. For instance, it is notable that the AGO has never applied the burden of proof -- or Article 2 (2) of Law No. 31 of 1999 -- to suspects or defendants.

I asked an AGO official why.

He replied: "Have you visited the AGO car park? When you see luxurious cars there, you might understand why we never use the provision on the burden of proof. Since it is impossible to buy such luxurious cars based on our salaries, the first victims of the enforcement of this burden of proof article would be ourselves."

It is also interesting to consider a story from Prof. Bruce Markell of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas: "At one point, during my first travels to Indonesia, I was having a meal with several prominent attorneys. The discussion drifted toward nepotism, which I would classify as a form of corruption. They did not see it that way, however.

When I demurred that power should not be used to promote one's friends and relatives, I was met with a puzzled silence. Finally, one attorney, in complete sincerity, said 'Well, what else is power good for?'".

These conversations suggest that the unwillingness of the attorneys to eradicate systemic and systematic corruption is the biggest obstacle to combating corruption. This explains why Transparency International (TI), and the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) have consistently indicated an increase in corruption in Indonesia, in terms of both quantity and quality. To date, there is no significant improvement in combating corruption.

Under this circumstance, what should the President do? First, all decision-makers in government should be accountable to the public. This means that any program must be audited. Furthermore, processes, institutions and information must be directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information provided to understand and monitor them.

It is well known that rules are often confusing, documents specifying them are not publicly available, and, at times, the rules are changed without adequately publicized announcements. Unclear information can be used as an opportunity to ask for "fees", "rewards" or "a commission".

Second, since the probability of detecting corruption decreases as the corruption becomes increasingly systemic, the traditional methods of detection and enforcement become less effective. Under these circumstances, Buscaglia and Ratliff (2000) argue, such preventative measures as organizational change (the reform of the civil service by, for example, reducing procedural complexities in the provision of public services) and salary increases are more effective.

Third, effective anticorruption strategies should be based on good governance and the rule of law. This means that anticorruption reform should promote transparency, accountability, effective decision making, both preventative measures (including the audit and disclosure of public servant's wealth), and repressive measures (including "frying the big fish"), strong political will to combat corruption, and the strengthening of law-enforcement agencies, including the AGO.

Law-enforcement institutions are crucial in the struggle against public and private corruption and, at the same time, the integrity of these institutions is essential for the credibility of that struggle.

Fourth, the Susilo government should also encourage public participation in order to combat corruption, through the establishment of a witness-protection scheme. Witness-protection legislation would encourage testimony, by protecting material witnesses and improving the prosecution and conviction of corrupt people. The failure to provide witness protection has seriously hampered the effective implementation of the anticorruption drive.

Last, the President should be reminded that the failure of his government in fighting corruption would undermine his political legitimacy.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Shari'a and Law, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta and can be reached at nhosen@gmail.com.