Democracy and Corruption

KOMPAS/PRAYOGI DWI SULISTYO

The Corruption Eradication Commission led by KPK Deputy Chairman Nawawi Pomolango (center) held a press conference on the activities of the arrest of the East Kutai Regent, East Kalimantan, Ismunandar at the KPK Building, Jakarta, Friday (3/7/2020).

The title of Kompas’ editorial on the 18 Nov. 2020 edition was "Corruption Is Still Massive, Continues".

If the editorial is considered as the observation of the newspaper on what has become the concerns of the public or what the public is thinking, its message, of course, should become our concern too.

The editorial review is a response to the results of two surveys conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK): (1) a joint study with the UP4 Anti-Corruption Resources Center found poor supervision in the forestry sector, which resulted in massive corruption in the sector; (2) related to research on regional elections (Pilkada), which showed that 82 percent of the candidates were financed by wealthy people (cukong) or political dealers. It is thought that it can have an effect on policy that threatens the sustainability of development and the environment. It is even said that democracy could become a servant of investors. Therefore, the KPK is expected to do more than just conduct studies and counseling, because "what this nation actually needs is concrete steps to clean up corruption from this country".

Also read: Corruption Cases Become Opportunity for "Reshuffle"

We agree with that. However, if the term is laid on the historical trajectory of corruption eradication, perhaps the problem will be different. The Kompas‘ editorial published 55 years ago, on 14 Sept. 1965, to be precise, illustrated that corruption was entrenched and could not be solved only with advice.

What the people are waiting for now is not just talk, but concrete action: arrest them, investigate, judge, punish, hang, shoot!”

In the editorial entitled "Economic Theft," Kompas wrote: "The issue of economic theft is now being raised again. It is being discussed again, because it has even frequently been the subject of discussions. What the people are waiting for now is not just talk, but concrete action: arrest them, investigate, judge, punish, hang, shoot!”

The aspiration for "concrete steps" to eradicate corruption is embedded in the history of the nation. Therefore, it is likely that the problem being highlighted does not lie in the KPK\'s performance, but in its existence. Does the act of “holding” fall into the category of anticipation, namely responding to what will happen, or to what has happened, whose existence is deemed to have damaged the state administration, and, if it is not eliminated, it will not only endanger what is running now, but also threaten the nation in the future.

To understand this, we can go to an event that occurred 22 years ago, to be precise on 13 Nov. 1998, when the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), in its position as the highest state institution, made an important decision by issuing MPR RI Decree Number XI / MPR / 1998 concerning a clean state administration free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.

Kompas/Heru Sri Kumoro

Former Secretary of the Supreme Court, Nurhadi (vest) left the Corruption Eradication Commission Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (2/6/2020). Nurhadi and Rezky are suspects of bribery or gratification cases related to handling cases in the Supreme Court with a value of around Rp 46 billion. They were arrested after almost four months before they were wanted.

The MPR decree states that: First, in the state administration, there is a centralization of power, authority, and responsibility with the President / Mandatary of the MPR, which results in the dysfunction of the highest state institutions and other high state institutions, as well as the development of public participation in providing social control in the life of society, the nation and the state. As proof, the MPR XI / MPR / 1998 Decree clearly highlighted the concentration of power as a problem in the state administration.

One of the consequences is that, in the administration of the state, there have been business practices that give special treatment to certain groups of entrepreneurs, thus destroying the principles of state administration in various aspects of national life. B. Herry Prijono, in an article titled “What Corruption Spoils", writes: "So what does corruption spoil? It is not only the perpetrators who are destroyed but the entire performance, aims and objectives of institutions”. And "because all institutions are an absolute prerequisite for our life, the extent of the decay that afflicts all these institutions also makes our life rotten".

Second, the decree also states: Demands of the conscience of the people call for the establishment of state administrators capable of carrying out their functions and duties seriously and responsibly, so that development reform can be efficient and effective.

Also read: Give Heavier Punishment during Pandemic

It seems that the MPR\'s vision is not only able to read "what is visible", but also can capture aspirations that are formulated as "demands of the conscience of the people". It should be said that the people want the state organization to be restored, so that its existence no longer deviates from the original purpose it was formed for after the nation declared its independence on 17 Aug. 1945.

To arrive at this goal, the path that must be taken is to restore the people\'s trust in the state through the disclosure of the identity of the state administrators in such a way that the people can ensure that all of them have the capacity to serve all the people, and not to serve themselves, their family or only certain groups.

This brief explanation indicates: First, if the MPR’s decision is the basis for the issuance of the law that serves as the legal basis for the establishment of the KPK, then it is clear that the KPK is the real child of reform.

Second, if reform is a concrete step of the democratic movement to end the corruption, collusion and nepotism of the New Order era, that means that KPK has no functions beyond what it was intended to do, namely carry out concrete steps in the framework of eradicating corruption.

Therefore, the phrase "what this nation actually needs is concrete steps to clean up corruption from this country" feels like finding a red vine with cherry fruit. W

Even if there is an anticipatory nuance, such an understanding is not outside the path of concrete steps, nor can it be said that the KPK\'s anticipatory steps are concrete actions, because by doing so: what is ongoing is eliminated, and what will happen is avoided. Therefore, the phrase "what this nation actually needs is concrete steps to clean up corruption from this country" feels like finding a red vine with cherry fruit. Why?

Democratization of “democracy”

What has happened so that the dream did not come true? Why do fundamental questions regarding state administration and the hopes of citizens, which have contributed to the birth of reforms, appear again in the inner space of the public? Does this mean that the reform agenda is not being realized, or to use a recent public term, have the reforms been corrupted?

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for the 2019-2023 period Firli Bahuri (from left to right), KPK deputy chairman Alexander Marwata, KPK deputy chairperson Lili Pintauli Siregar, KPK deputy chairman Nawawi Pomolango and KPK deputy chairman Nurul Ghfron read out the integrity pact during the office handover from KPK 2019-2023 leaders at the KPK building, Jakarta, Friday (20/12/2019). The KPK supervisory council, led by Tumpak Hatorangan and KPK chairman Firli Bahuri, has officially begun serving for the 2019-2023 period.

If we adopt the definition of corruption from Transparency International, namely corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, then when corruption (continues to) take place, even on a larger scale, it can be said that the "denial of the mandate" of public office is taking place. That is the situation that has become the basis for the issuance of MPR Decree No XI / MPR / 1998. That is, on the one hand, the wave of democracy has achieved corrections through reforms which then made people\'s aspirations (eradicating corruption, collusion and nepotism) a new mandate for the state, and on the other hand, democracy seems like it is not enough energy to ensure that the agenda runs concretely, so that what is being rejected continues to exist.

Also read: Punish Harshly, Involve the Public

Is democracy so easily knocked down? Why can the communal living system produced through a democratic process produce decisions that do not strengthen democratic practices and instead abolish democracy itself? Why do those who enter through elections not automatically embrace the spirit of democracy? Perhaps, the answer is hidden behind the notion of democracy. There are many events of democracy, but careful placement of positions on the route of democratization will help explain why a process called democratic does not produce democratic fruits.

Ignas Kleden\'s insight (Kompas.com, 10/4/2015) about the relationship between political parties and democracy is an interesting idea to be used for a comparison. Ignas said: "More specifically, political parties in Indonesia have no role in the production of democracy in Indonesia, but only become the main consumers of democracy produced by other social forces, such as the media, civil society groups, the student movement and academics, the labor and fishermen movement, the women movement and various pressure groups that have appeared one after another in political developments. "

Also read: Turning Point for Anticorruption

With this line of thought, it can be said that the social forces of society have worked to produce democracy, and then, the "fruit of democracy" is consumed by forces that are not inherently democratic by nature. This means that the product of a democratic process, which is pursued by the democratic forces, will only become the fruit of democracy if it is "consumed" by the process entirely carried out or driven by democratic forces. This is the democratization of "democracy". The question is, will the process appear as a result of the internal awareness of the institution, or will it still require public pressure and control? What should be done?

End corruption with democracy

Is democratic democratization sufficient as a step to end corruption? We are of the view that steps to democratize democracy, which means democracy in all processes, need to be complemented by democratization in all fields, namely (1) the state; (2) market; (3) civil society and (4) the relationships among all fields.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

An activist holds a black-and-white photograph on 23 Jan. 2020 at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Jakarta. A group of anticorruption activists reported Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly to the KPK for allegedly obstructing the investigation into a bribery case that has implicated Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician Harun Masuki, accusing Yasonna of issuing a false statement that Harun was overseas.

First, the democratization in all institutions "administering state power", including political parties (as public institutions). Democratization means: (i) recruitment takes place in a democratic manner, so that the "golden door" to enter the public space can only be opened by a "sacred key": a spirit of devotion to the nation, moral integrity and capacity.

Also read: President ‘will not Protect’ State Officials Involved in Graft

Burhanuddin Muhtadi\'s dissertation, which was published as a book entitled Power of Money, Politics in Post-New Order Elections (2020), is academically able to reveal the real challenges of the nation, in which the power of money in practice can break through the "golden door" without the need of the "sacred key"; (ii) a democratic process, meaning that all the decisions should be based on the public interest and should be made in a democratic process; and (iii) democratic results should be in the form of decisions that respond to public problems and can be guaranteed to be carried out as intended.

Second, the market democratization. This view is based on the fact that a market operates in a socio-economic-political space”, which will, thus, influence public policy. This democratization is intended more to ensure that the market performance supports the democratization of the public sector and avoids the risk of the market actually providing opportunities for the opposite practice. The market certainly needs a more flexible space, but the desire to create convenience for the market should be based on the spirit of strengthening democracy, because only that way can high economic costs be suppressed.

Third, the democratization of civil society. Although civil society is the main element that produces democracy, the process of democratization is absolutely necessary, especially in civil society institutions, so that their performance can support (a) increasing public awareness, so that all practices contrary to democracy, including vote-buying, become "the common enemy” of civil society; (b) increasing public awareness to ensure that the sociopolitical and socioeconomic conditions are conducive and civilized and that the public is not easily divided, such as through hoaxes and their derivatives; (c) as well as promoting public awareness that can be established only with public consciousness, healthy and dignified politics.

Fourth, the democratization of relations. All kinds of relations that do not show principles of equality must be changed and replaced with equal relations. This kind of relationship will make all fields work hand in hand to strengthen the nation\'s performance in achieving common goals. For future steps, a legal framework is needed to ensure the implementation of such a form of relationship. And, as is well known, the issuance of policies is not the end, but the beginning. This means that public control is consistently needed.

Kompas

Sudirman Said ke Kejagung

This process is what we would like to call the democratization spiral, a historical movement that, from time to time, makes continual improvements, so that what is taking place is a progressive improvement. If this process can be carried out, corruption will eventually become a thing of the past.

Sudirman Said, Chairman of the Jakarta-based think thank Institut Harkat Negeri.