This is the war on corruption, Mr. President!

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.