Breakthrough to Combat Corruption

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

Activists of the Anti-Corruption Civil Society Coalition stage a placard demonstration at the headquarters of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Jakarta on Tuesday. They are demanding that the case involving the acid attack on senior KPK investigator Novel Baswedan should be thoroughly investigated and solved.

The first presidential election debate takes place on Thursday and one of the things the public want to know is what steps the candidates will take to eradicate corruption.

The results of a Kompas R&D poll, which took place on Jan. 9 and 10 in 17 cities, show that 51.8 percent of respondents hope that the Joko Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin pair will solve large-scale corruption cases. For the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno pair, 46.1 percent hope that the settlement of corruption cases will become the pair’s priority.

Corruption, protection of human rights and the resolution of past human rights violations are issues that the public want to hear. Why corruption? It is a well-known fact that it is undermining Indonesia. Presidential candidate Prabowo said in Singapore recently that corruption in Indonesia, like cancer, had reached stage four.

No one has denied Prabowo\'s synopsis about widespread corruption. However, identifying it is not enough. There need to be a recipe to minimize it in Indonesia. The recipe for strengthening the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) like synergy among law enforcement officials to prioritize prevention, for example, is too normative, too clichéd, and will not have any impact on eradicating corruption.

It is a political fact that there have always been attempts to weaken the KPK’s power in its fight against corruption. These steps are not being taken by the President as head of the government and state but by the political elite in the House of Representatives.

Looking at KPK data from 2001 to 2008, the majority of corruption cases (62 percent) involved bribery. Speaking about bribery, of course there is a giver and taker. If attempts to eradicate corruption is focused on bribes -- which are related to bureaucratic behavior in licensing such as officials asking for a commission or kickbacks -- a strategy must be formulated that will focus on bribes (corporations) and the recipients of bribes (bureaucracy).

Based on existing data, the amount of state losses due to corruption from 2001 to 2008 was not comparable to financial penalties. State losses reached Rp 67.55 trillion but the financial penalties decided by judges were only Rp 2.64 trillion [Korupsi Mengorupsi Indonesia (Corruption Corrupts Indonesia), 2009].

In terms of punishment, there is a gap between maximum punishment and the verdict being handed down. The average prison sentence is two to three years, even though the anticorruption law calls for a sentence of 20 years to life.

Do not say that verdicts are the domain of the judiciary. The elected president can use his power to make laws. However, the question that the presidential candidates must answer is this: Is the nation serious about eradicating corruption?

If it is, then the public can look forward to the elected president\'s "executive order" to eradicate corruption and prevent collusion or cronyism. Corruption cannot be overcome by clichéd rhetoric.