Combating corruption in democracies

INDONESIA’s efforts to fight government corruption are being corrupted from within Parliament, backed by big business.

At the beginning of the 2000s, Indonesian voters said enough to corruption in politics. The Reform Order (1999) was designed to fight corruption. Then, in 2004, Indone-sians elected Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono largely on his promises to fight graft and corruption.

People demanded reform. Tools were put in place to attack endemic corruption that was holding back development. But the system is failing: Parliament itself, backed by big business interests, has weakened the very system set up to fight corruption.

In the executive arm of government, several Cabinet members have considerable business interests. Indeed, 55% of Indonesia’s MPs have significant business holdings. The marriage between penguasa (the ruler) and pengusaha (business people) is getting stronger in Indonesia’s politics.

The Reform Order in 1999 created institutions that were expected to be able to free Indonesia from corruption. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) had powers to investigate corruption. The Constitutional Court acted as the guardian of the Constitution. The Judicial Commission was intended to ensure proper behaviour from judges. And the Ombuds-man served as the “policeman” of state officials.

But these institutions have failed to meet expectations. The fervour to fight graft from 20 years ago has faded. A 2020 survey by Transparency International Indo-nesia showed that the country fell from 40 to 37 in the Corruption Perception Index. In addition, the People’s Representative body was considered the most corrupt institution in Indonesia. The numbers show why. Between 2004 and 2020, 274 members of local and national Parliament were arrested. Many MPs consider corruption eradication a threat.

The efforts to undo Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework began with efforts to review everything from the Corruption Eradication Commission Law to the Constitu-tional Court, where, according to data, more than 20 requests for review have been submitted. At the end of President Joko Widodo’s first term, Parliament succeeded in pushing for a revision of the law. As a result, the Corruption Eradication Commission was weakened and it is no longer trusted by the public.

It has since become a toothless tiger. The weakening of the anti-corruption body began with its leadership. There are also questions about the recruitment of commissioners whose commitment to eradicating corruption is problematic. Other commissioners have repeatedly violated the code of ethics, one chose to resign to avoid being fired. Legis-lation suspected of being corrupt was successfully passed because it did not receive supervision from the Corruption Eradication Commis-sion.

There is a pattern of laws being drafted in secret and hastily passed which do not serve the interests of the public. The Anti-Corruption body Law, the Mining Law, the Omnibus Law, and the Consti-tutional Court Law are all examples. The result is demonstrations. Any judicial review is usually rejected by the same people who passed the laws in the first place.

Parliament’s efforts to gain control over anti-corruption institutions have become increasingly evident, especially in the process of recruiting the members of those institutions. MPs replaced one Constitu-tional judge because he was seen to be in conflict with Parliament’s agenda after he helped cancel the promulgation of the Omnibus Law.

The way to stop the erosion of Indonesia’s anti-corruption efforts must come from the top. But President Widodo doesn’t seem to be taking any serious steps. People will remember his legacy as one that ignored the Reform Order unless he makes radical moves before leaving office in 2024. – 360info

The writers are researchers at Indonesia’s Center for Constitutional Studies and lecturers at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Andalas Indonesia. This article was originally published under Creative Commons by 360info.