The abbreviation 'KKN' is a familiar one to Indonesians. Whenever there are anti-government protests this abbreviation can be heard shouted by the protesters or seen written on banners. The abbreviation stands for corruption (korupsi), collusion (kolusi) and nepotism (nepotisme)
and - much to the dismay of the majority of the Indonesian population -
has been an intrinsic part of Indonesian governments, probably
culminating during president Suharto's New Order regime
(1965-1998). The issue of political corruption in Indonesia continues
to make daily headlines in the Indonesian media and generates much
heated debate and fierce discussion. In academic circles scholars have
continuously searched for answers to the question whether this
corruption has its roots in traditional precolonial societies, the Dutch colonial era,
the relatively short Japanese occupation (1942-1945) or the subsequent
independent Indonesian governments. However, an unequivocal answer is
yet to be found. For the foreseeable future it just has to be accepted
that corruption in Indonesia's political, judicial and corporate domains
ìs (although there are some signs - which are discussed below - that point towards an improvement of the situation).
Historical Framework of corruption in Indonesia
Although there are great examples of
corruption in Indonesia's earlier history, we take as our starting point
president Suharto's authoritarian New Order regime (1965-1998) that
was characterized by impressive rapid and sustained economic growth
(with Gross National Product averaging 6.7 percent annually between
1965 and 1996) but also well-known for its corrupt nature. Suharto
utilized a system of patronage to ensure loyalty of his subordinates,
leading members of the national elite and critics. In exchange for
business opportunities or political positions Suharto could count on
their support. With the Armed Forces (including its intelligence
apparatus) and huge resources (stemming from the oil booms in the
1970s) at his disposal, he became the apex of the national political and
economic system, resembling the patrimonial power of traditional rulers
in the pre-colonial past.
Regarding economic policy-making Suharto
relied on the advice and support from a narrow group of confidants
around him. This group consisted of three categories: USA-trained
technocrats, economic nationalist (who supported the idea of a large
role for the government in the economy) and capitalist cronies
(consisting of his family members and some rich ethnic Chinese
conglomerates). At times all these categories were accused of being
corrupt but most emphasis went to the small circle of capitalist cronies
(particularly Suharto's children) who were - much to the dislike of
national businesses and society at large - the major beneficiaries of
state privatization schemes and often ran large business monopolies that
operated with little oversight or monitoring.
One important characteristic of
corruption during Suharto's New Order was that is was rather centralized
and predictable. Investors and businessmen could more-or-less predict
the amount of money they had to put aside for these 'extra' costs and
knew which people they were expected to bribe. But there was also the
tactic of including a Suharto crony in business activities in order to
reduce uncertainties caused by bureaucratic red tape. This same pattern
existed on a local level where governors and local army commanders
enjoyed the same privileges but were always aware of repercussions from
higher up if they would push it too far. With the new era of Reformasi, that started after the fall of Suharto in 1998, this situation was about to change.
Decentralization of Indonesian Corruption
The situation changed drastically when
after the fall of Suharto in 1998 an ambitious regional decentralization
program was started in 2001 which foresaw the transfer of
administrative autonomy away from Jakarta to the districts (not to the
provinces). This new course was in line with demand of the people but
had negative side effects on the distributional pattern of corruption.
Bribe-taking was no longer 'coordinated' as it had been in the past but
became fragmented and unclear. Decentralization meant that local
governments started to produce new local regulations (often not tightly
designed) which made it possible for more officials from multiple levels
of the government and other agencies to mingle and request for
financial extras.
Realizing the urgent need to tackle
corruption (as it harms investments and generally fosters the existence
of continued injustice in society), a new government agency was
established in 2003. This government agency, the Corruption Eradication
Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, abbreviated KPK), is
envisaged to free Indonesia from corruption by investigating and
prosecuting cases of corruption as well as monitoring the governance of
the state (for which it received extensive powers). However, opinions
regarding its achievements are divided. Critics point out that the KPK
is more focused on tackling lower profile figures, although recently
some high profile cases such as high-ranked police officials, judges and
the party treasurer of president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's
Democratic Party have been covered. This partial success and courage of
the KPK has triggered counteracts - mostly from persons that have been
prosecuted or interrogated - claiming that the KPK itself is a corrupt
agency. In recent years a number of scandals have emerged in which
members of the KPK were - reputedly - framed by senior police officers
and arrested in order to undermine the KPK's authority.
During the past two elections president
Yudhoyono has profiled himself as being devoted and determined to tackle
corruption in Indonesia, in particular regarding corruption within
government circles. This made him very popular around the time of the
elections of 2009. However, the ongoing persistence of political
corruption and several high-profile graft cases within the government
have caused his approval ratings to free fall after 2010. Another blow
to Yudhoyono's prestige was the departure of Sri Mulyani Indrawati,
Indonesia's Finance Minister from 2005 to 2010. Sri Mulyani, who enjoys a
reputation of integrity (although slightly sullied by the Bank Century
scandal), was tasked to reform Indonesia's corrupt tax and customs
office. She had considerable success and could count on the support of
many Indonesians. But her performance also created enemies. In May 2010
she left Indonesian politics to become a managing director at the World
Bank Group. Widespread speculation, however, was that her resignation
was due to political pressure from businesses with high political
connections. In particular, the Bakrie Group was often mentioned in
Indonesian media in connection herewith (Aburizal Bakrie being chairman
of the Golkar party; a coalition member of Yudhoyono's government).
Critics say that Yudhoyono should have supported her.
Moreover, several corruption cases -
involving members of Yudhoyono's party - have emerged in recent years
and have seriously damaged the allure of both his Democratic Party and
Yudhoyono himself (who is regarded by some as being a weak leader
because of the emergence of these corruption scandals in his party).
Positive Developments in Indonesia's Fight against Corruption
Despite this mostly negative overview,
there are some positive signs. First of all it needs to be mentioned
that there is a big urge from the Indonesian people to eradicate
corruption in Indonesia and the free media provide ample room to deliver
their voices on a national scale (although some media institutions -
owned by politicians or businessmen - have their own agenda for doing
this). But the popular urge to tackle corruption means that being
anti-corrupt is actually an important vote-gainer for aspiring
politicians. Being involved or mentioned in a graft case can seriously
damage a career as popular support declines. A negative side effect (for
the country's economy) of this public scrutiny is that government
officials are currently very prudent and hesitant to disburse their
government budget allocation, being afraid to become a victim in a graft
scandal. This careful behaviour can be called the success of the
influence of the KPK that is watching the money flow, but also causes
slow government spending.
Berlin based politically non-partisan
Transparency International publishes an annual Corruption Perceptions
Index (based on polls) which assesses "the degree to which corruption is
perceived to exist among public officials and politicians" in all
countries around the world. It uses a scale from one up to ten. The
higher the outcome, the less (perceived) corruption there is. In their
latest list (2014) Indonesia occupied the 107th place (out of a total of
175 countries). However, it needs to be stressed that there is not a
100 percent accurate method to measure corruption because of the nature
of corruption (often hidden to the public). The numbers below,
therefore, only show the perceived degree of corruption by the
participating voters in the poll of that particular country. But because
a population usually has a good sense of what is happening in the
country, these numbers do indicate something interesting.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2014:
| 1. | Denmark | 9.2 |
| 2. | New Zealand | 9.1 |
| 3. | Finland | 8.9 |
| 4. | Sweden | 8.7 |
| 5. | Norway | 8.6 |
| - | Switzerland | 8.6 |
| 107. | Indonesia | 3.4 |
These numbers indicate that - in
accordance with the text above - there is a rather negative public view
of the degree of political corruption in Indonesia. However, when we
take previous results in account the index shows a more positive trend:
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
| Indonesia | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.4 |
Indonesia is actually one of the few
countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index that shows a steady and
marked improvement, coinciding with the Yudhoyono administration which
started in 2004. But it needs to be stressed that - although
representing an actual development - these numbers should be handled
carefully as the methodology used in the polls changes from year to
year.
Regarding corruption there is still a
long reform road ahead for Indonesia. Corruption hinders the country
from realizing its economic potential and causes significant injustice
in Indonesia's society as some people are disproportionally benefiting
from a corrupt society. But credit have to be given to Indonesia's free
media and the KPK as both play a vital role in the reduction of
corruption.
source : indonesia-investments.com
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar