Why should bad guys always win?

Why should bad guys always win?

Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): A Hong Kong based business
research institution recently released findings that pinpointed
Indonesia as the third most corrupt country in the world, after
China and Vietnam.

Although I would say that the statement is too dramatic, and
we don't know what the criteria and data used to support the
statement are, it is difficult to deny that corruption has become
a serious problem, which affects the country's development.

As early as the beginning of the New Order in the late 1960s,
the elder statesman of Indonesia, Mohammad Hatta, was warning
that corruption had become part of the Indonesian culture. What
he meant was that corruption had spread everywhere, and existed
among top and lower level bureaucrats, and in all sectors
involving both private and public institutions.

In more technical terms, corruption is a "rent seeking
system", in which state officials and private enterprises work
together for mutual benefit at the expense of the public
interest. These state officials who hold bureaucratic power are
"renting" their power to those who are willing to pay. In return,
they provide special services and facilities to their
"customers". As a result, collusion between the public sector
(state officials) and the private sector (businesspeople) occurs.

The case of Judge Adi Andojo of the Supreme Court is a good
example. This case is interesting because it shows us that this
rent seeking system affects even high level state institutions,
such as the Supreme Court. Clearly, what Hatta was saying three
decades ago is valid even today.

Another interesting case is the dramatic escape of Eddy
Tansil. Just like two years ago, when he was found colluding with
high ranking state officials in securing Rp 1.3 billion (US$ 620
million) in financing, he is in the spotlight again. As we all
know, Tansil was sentenced to 20 years in prison for fraud.

As a result, five bankers at state-owned Bapindo, were
dismissed from their posts. They were also put on trial, found
guilty and sentenced to several years. One recently died in
prison. Two high state officials, Admiral (ret) Sudomo and a
former minister of finance Dr. Sumarlin, who were alleged to have
helped Tansil to get the bank credit, were discredited.

The heading of an article in The Jakarta Post on May 9, 1996,
announcing that "Edy Tansil rarely travels alone" states the crux
of the current situation. Now, the chief warden of the Cipinang
prison in which Tansil spent a year, is another victim. He was
dismissed immediately by the minister of justice, when it was
known that Tansil had escaped. Sixteen others from Cipinang
prison are being interrogated. The many victims of the Eddy
Tansil saga prove that collusion is a group crime, it is not the
responsibility of one individual. It constitutes cooperation
between the "bad" and the "good" guys, working together within
the rent seeking system. Yes, Eddy Tansil never travels alone, he
travels within a system.

Many people were quite cynical about the Tansil trial. The
public view was that Eddy Tansil is only one, among many others,
who do this bank manipulation thing, using close connections with
high level state officials. In the minds of corrupt people, the
only mistake Tansil made was to get caught at it. There are many
others still getting away with such maneuvering. Businesspeople
in Jakarta know that what Tansil did is a common practice, it is
a system that people cannot avoid. Most businesspeople would tell
you that either you play within the system, or you will always
stay at the bottom.

This rent seeking system was not born with the New Order in
the mid 1960s. It had existed under former president Sukarno.
Administrations may change, but this system survives, sound and
prosperous.

It is true that from time to time there have been efforts to
put an end to this rent seeking. During the Sukarno era, the
Budhi Operation led by Gen. Nasution was launched to fight
corruption within the state bureaucracy.

Under the New Order, Commission Four was established by
President Soeharto to investigate corruption during the 1970s.
Students have also been active in fighting rent seeking
practices. In the 1970s, student demonstrations against
corruption were reported extensively by the media. However, all
these efforts ended up going nowhere. The rent seeking system has
proved to be much stronger than any resistance to it.

Coming back to the Tansil case, it is clear that he got rich
by using this system. His getting caught does not mean that the
system has been destroyed. It is still there, sound and
prosperous. The people involved in collusion may be a little bit
timid now because of the massive press coverage, but the system
has yet to die.

Eddy Tansil's escape is proof enough of this. Without the rent
seeking bureaucrats, it is very unlikely that Tansil could have
escaped.

The irony is that just a month before the escape, the minister
of justice had visited the prison and determined that press
reports about Tansil getting special facilities and treatment
were true. He then ordered stepped up security for Tansil. In
spite of this, Tansil managed to escape. This means, the system
is more powerful than the minister.

"If the prison guard had not been corrupt, Eddy Tansil could
have not escaped," said a friend. Another friend, Ariel Heryanto,
quickly responded: "If the prison guards were not corrupt, and
the many civil servants were not rent seekers, there would not
have been an Eddy Tansil case at all."

Eddy Tansil is a product of the system, and he is clever
enough to make the system work to his advantage. So, why are we
all so angry at him?

Maybe, the more important thing to focus on is how to get rid
of the system itself. Many people are beginning to relate the
extensiveness of the rent seeking system with democracy, or the
power of the people to control the government. At the moment, the
government is more powerful than the civil society. It is
difficult to get rid of rent seeking practices when the people
lack the power to control the actions of the government. So, many
businesspeople think, "If you can't beat them, join them." This
makes the system even stronger.

However, some other people think that we don't have to wait
for democracy to have a good governance. Although the instances
are rare, history shows that clean government can exist even
under authoritarian regimes.

Singapore is surely a case in point. Everybody knows that
Singapore is not a democratic country politically. However,
everybody has to admit that its state bureaucrats are relatively
honest. I remember that a Singaporean cabinet minister, who was
allegedly involved in collusion, committed suicide just as his
trial was to begin. He had to face charges even though he had
been a good friend of prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

The writer is a researcher and sociologist based in Salatiga.