A Note on Anticorruption Logic
At the end of 2020, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) surprisingly launched successful stings against two ministers of the government of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin.
At the end of 2020, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) surprisingly launched successful stings against two ministers of the government of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin.
The KPK’s success closed the year of intense challenges to the corruption eradication drive arising from so much friction between anticorruption activists on one side and the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) on the other, followed by large-scale protests against the revision of the KPK Law.
In early 2021, Transparency International Indonesia (TII) reported that the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Indonesia in 2020 had significantly declined. This is interpreted by activists as proof of the ambiguous legal policy of the Jokowi administration in the enforcement of the Corruption Law due to government support for the revised KPK Law.
Also read: Corruption Emergency
The public is now certainly faced with the fact of the KPK’s achievement and the declining perception of corruption eradication efforts. The question arises, is it true that the government adopts an ambiguous legal policy on anticorruption law enforcement as stated by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW)?
Between commitment and anticorruption doubt
President Jokowi’s message in commemorating World Anticorruption Day on 16 December 2020 emphasized the government’s anticorruption commitment by describing three bases of the corruption eradication policy. The three are fostering the culture of corruption embarrassment, encouraging anticorruption education for the future anticorruption generation and building the anticorruption system.
With these policy bases, the strategies of the corruption eradication policy include tightening licensing, the trade system, state financial management and the bureaucracy, promoting the role and function of public control agencies such as nongovernmental organizations and mass media, increasing contract transparency, ensuring citizens’ participation in public spaces and guaranteeing access to public data.
Also read: Investors May Lose Confidence
On the other hand, anticorruption activists, including the ICW, doubt the government’s commitment in view of the weakening public perceptions of the government policy on anticorruption law enforcement as a result of the government support for the revised KPK Law, let alone the granting of pardons by the president and the remission of court penalties for corruption convicts.
Former Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Edhy Prabowo left the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Building in Kuningan, Jakarta, after undergoing an examination, Tuesday (2/3/2021). Edhy is suspected of receiving bribes related to the lobster seed export permit worth Rp. 3.4 billion.
According to the ICW, the TII report of the Indonesian IPK in 2020 strengthens the suspicion of the weak anticorruption law enforcement. Even the ICW has firmly stated that such a condition proves the ambiguous legal policy of the government regarding corruption eradication.
Meanwhile, there was the fact that the KPK at the end of 2020 managed to arrest two ministers of the Jokowi government almost at the same time, which had never happened in previous government periods. It was quite a heartening achievement for the KPK, whose new leadership had been considerably doubted, especially with the implementation of the new KPK Law.
Also read: Score in Corruption Index Falls, Alarm bells ring for Corruption Eradication
However, this fact is regarded by anticorruption activists like the ICW as something normal, not proportional to the number of arrests of corruption suspects during the outgoing KPK leadership.
Whatever the view of the anticorruption activists, the public so far always believing the dominant anticorruption perceptions certainly wavers. It turned out that the KPK, although its leadership’s credibility is doubted under the newly revised KPK Law, could still execute its duties quite well, including the sting operations against the two ministers of the Jokowi government.
Interestingly, one of the ministers captured came from the ruling party, which can be considered untouchable in view of its power in the legislative institution. Objectively, it should be understood by the public that the performance of the KPK cannot be seen from the extent of the government’s and DPR’s commitment to corruption eradication efforts.
Also read: ”New Normal” KPK
The same thing occurred in the previous government period in which the arrest of embezzlers seen as close to the president didn’t mean that the government at the time was corrupt or its anticorruption commitment decreased, but the reverse could just be the case.
The Regent of Banggai Laut is inactive, Wenny Bukamo after an investigation at the KPK Building, Jakarta, Wednesday (3/3/2021). Wenny was examined as a suspect in the case of alleged money requests from a number of contractors for the purposes of the 2020 regional head nomination.
The difference of opinion between the government and anticorruption activists again opens the basic issue of what is referred to as the anticorruption logic so far built up. The global anticorruption logic including Indonesia turns out to be articulated as the aggregation of overlapping social, legal, political and power problems.
Not infrequently, as indicated by Mahfud MD, the strengthening of democracy sometimes just weakens law enforcement as a result of power and political interventions. Similarly, social and economic issues frequently downgrade the performance of the legal apparatus and institution.
Contextual anticorruption logic
We are aware that the anticorruption logic of the world and Indonesia has so far been formed by our understanding of corruption as extraordinary offenses beyond the reach of the law because it involves criminal perpetrators of economic power and public power that disrupt social life so that it requires extraordinary enforcement.
This anticorruption logic considerably affects public perceptions of corruption so that it becomes an anticorruption jargon that is protected from criticism or counter-criticism. Consequently, the anticorruption movement of the last decade has been massively launched without any critical attitude as a movement aimed at social values and the state management system regarded as corrupt. As a result, the anticorruption spirit is just directed at attempts to discriminate against and criminalize behaviors that do not sufficiently meet the criteria to be categorized as acts of corruption.
Since the new KPK Law came into force, some experts and observers have assumed that corruption in Indonesia is meant as a legal case of violation of state rules so that the corruption crime is no longer an extraordinary crime because every act that violates the law or the positive law can be promptly alleged as an act of corruption.
Also read: Democracy and Corruption
This happens because corruption pursuant to our law is an act that meets the element of legal violation, which generally is meant as a violation of the written law or legislation. Accordingly, the corruption crime in Indonesia is very easily reached by the law. Let alone unimportant persons, even somebody in the ministerial position can be easily held for alleged involvement in a corruption crime.
Therefore, we need to reconstruct the term corruption whether it is an ordinary crime against the state law or a humanity crime that requires extraordinary handling.
We still remember when the Law on Corruption Crimes (Tipikor) was revised, anticorruption activists protested because it was seen as an attempt to weaken the KPK, as their basic thought had no compromise with corruption. It’s because corruption is an extraordinary crime, while those in the legislative institution unknowingly have built a construction of corruption as a crime against the state law so that any legal violation has to undergo a due process based on the law.
It can thus be understood when the revision of the KPK Law later allowed the investigation termination warrant (SP3), the supervisory judge and the court permission, which are considered contradictory to the prevailing anticorruption logic.
It seems unfair and there is no reason for us to doubt the government’s commitment to anticorruption law enforcement before we can evaluate the success of its performance in the coming year
In this way, the anticorruption logic should in the future be given a more contextual meaning. The success of anticorruption law enforcement is not measured by the number of corruption suspects captured or the punishments imposed on corruption convicts, but rather by the indications how far the government and the law enforcement institution have succeeded in realizing their law enforcement programs.
In addition: the extent to which the KPK and other law enforcement agencies can prevent corruption; and how far the programs for promoting the corruption embarrassment culture and anticorruption education as well as improving the anticorruption system have been successfully carried out by the government and law enforcement institutions.
Finally, we all agree to support the government in executing the major programs of its legal policy on anticorruption law enforcement toward promoting the corruption embarrassment culture, anticorruption education and improving the anticorruption system. The government’s commitment to anticorruption law enforcement seems to be quite clear.
Amir Syamsudin
We hope the synergy between the government and law enforcement institutions in fighting corruption can make smooth progress, without power intervention and political interests. It seems unfair and there is no reason for us to doubt the government’s commitment to anticorruption law enforcement before we can evaluate the success of its performance in the coming year.
Amir Syamsudin, Former Minister of Law and Human Rights
This article was translated by Aris Prawira
