In its 2022 study, anti-graft watchdog Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) uncovered 579 corruption cases in Indonesia, involving 1,396 suspects, as well as state losses reaching tens of trillions of Rupiah from bribery, kickbacks, markups, embezzlement, illegal levies, fictitious projects, money laundering and whatnot. (FIGURE-2) (FIGURE-3)
It is an undeniable fact that the public sector is rife with corruption. The modus operandi varies, ranging from the classic/conventional, as in the allowance deductions at the ESDM Ministry to more sophisticated ones, using gatekeepers, shell companies, multiple bank accounts and multi-layered financial transactions with the purpose of obscuring the origin of the assets owned, as evidenced by the Trisambodo affair.
In fact, corruption can be viewed from two perspectives, namely, corruption as a disease and symptom. The former regards abuse of power as the cause of various problems faced by society. Dealing with this type of corruption calls for stricter law enforcement. Here, corruption can be analogized as fire while law enforcement the freighter.
The latter views corruption as a symptom of a more serious problem, especially in the public sector. Here, corruption is seen as the result of a flawed system of governance by the government and state apparatus which opens up opportunities for malfeasance. The ESDM Ministry case should not have occurred in a modern bureaucracy, because the detection and monitoring system within the Ministry is considered adequate. However, the facts suggest otherwise: the system that was put in place and supposedly capable of detecting various irregularities was not strengthened. As a result, corruption becomes a latent scourge.
In the broader context of governance, corruption becomes prevalent due to the weakness and ineffectiveness of the accountability system – both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal accountability requires a system of checks and balances, oversight, audit, monitoring, review, evaluation, investigation, etc. by agencies given the mandate to carry out such functions. Horizontal accountability includes external, independent state organs, such as KPK, Constitutional Court (MK), Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and Judicial Commission (KY).
Meanwhile, vertical accountability requires a strong oversight from the public/civil society, which encompass community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professional associations, labor unions, as well as the academia and the press (including citizen journalists empowered by social media). In short, it is equally important to maintain and strengthen the two accountability mechanisms, to ensure that corruption eradication efforts can be optimized, not weakened.
Weakened horizontal accountability
One of the root causes of Indonesia’s declining anticorruption performance was the government’s political decision to revise KPK Law in 2019. Even though it was very unpopular, marked by legal challenge and public demonstrations, the government was steadfast and pushed the agenda forward. The implication is clear: the public’s trust of the KPK started to diminish after the revision. The KPK is also rapidly losing its respect and credibility in eradicating corruption, because the corruption cases it handled were no longer of the “big fish” category. KPK fell into a crisis of integrity and legitimacy, especially its leaders, who were deemed problematic and suspected of being involved in corruption and serious ethical violations themselves. The poor selection of incumbent KPK commissioners by the government and the House raised serious concerns in many quarters whether the graft busting agency is beholden to certain political interests. The KPK’s handling of Formula E corruption allegation in Jakarta, which many suspected was forced to incriminate then Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan (as stated by ex-KPK deputy chairman Bambang Widjojanto himself) further damaged KPK’s reputation.