Besides KPK, other quasi-state institutions have also been not spared from the “domestication” agenda. MK, for example. Apart from ethical issue (MK Chief Justice Anwar Usman is President Jokowi’s brother-in-law), MK is also being scrutinized by the public due to its raft of controversial rulings which tend to be in favor of the government, for example in the judicial review against KPK Law and Job Creation Law. In addition, KY, Prosecutors Commission (Komjak), National Police Commission (Kompolnas), Central Information Commission (KIP), Ombudsman and so on cannot play an effective role due to their limited powers and their being mired in a number of serious ethical issues, including the holding of concurrent positions by members of those commissions in state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
Meanwhile, the early detection function within government organizations is barely functioning. Even though the government has repeatedly emphasized the importance of strengthening internal control, the matter has received minimal attention. Finance Minister Sri Mulyani even acknowledged that a third of Kemenkeu’s Internal Supervisory Unit members only hold Diploma I degree. They did not even attain Diploma III, let alone Diploma IV (Bachelor’s Degree) whereas they are tasked with overseeing tens of thousands of Kemenkeu staff in various positions, including top officials, who are prone to corruption due to their authority as tax collectors or investigators. And this despite Kemenkeu’s internal supervisors being touted as one of the best vis-à-vis other ministries/ agencies.
Dying vertical accountability
The cases in Indonesia confirm that corruption has a correlation with weak democracy, because good governance requires a strong and active civil society. By contrast, corruption will become prevalent if there is lack of control from civil society. Various maneuvers by the political elites to weaken the power of civil society, including the press, have become more intense especially in the past five years. Criminalization, cyberattacks, hacking, countersuits using the “rubber clauses” of the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law, restrictions on access to information, intimidation, and even murder have haunted various civil society groups in Indonesia. Likewise, intimidation against journalists and the lack of protection for those who report on corruption cases have discouraged public participation.
At the same time, the government and the House often crafted various pieces of legislation that do not adhere to the precept and principle that guarantee public participation in the decision-making process. Various national regulations were rushed through, under the pretext that they are crucial to enhance ease of doing business and attract much-needed investments to boost national economic development. Economic interests are seen as paramount within the framework of national policies, while values, norms and accountability within the framework of a democracy are seen as something that interferes with economic performance.
It is thus no wonder that a raft of hastily passed regulations have opened the door for political corruption dubbed “state capture.” Most stemmed from relaxation of regulations, due diligence checks, procedures and mechanisms that serve as guardrails for good governance. Without clear rules, there is no firewall to prevent corruption by political and business elites. This will create situations ripe for business-government collusion using their authority to formulate policies that ultimately will undermine Indonesia’s anticorruption system, one which has been painstakingly built since the dawn of Reformasi. If public officials, ASN, and the private sector start to trivialize corruption again, as we have frequently seen today, Indonesia’s anticorruption drive will be bogged down, running in circles. (Adnan Topan Husodo)