Not too long ago, two former presidents, Brazil’s Luis Inácio Lula da Silva and South Korea’sPark Geun-hye, were convicted of corruption and sentenced to long prison sentences. President Lula is now serving a 12-year sentence in a prison he opened when he held office. Meanwhile former Park Geun-hye is serving a 24-year prison sentence for abuse of power and corruption, exposing a widely-suspected web of collusion between political leaders and conglomerates in South Korea.
Could all this happen in Indonesia? Should it?
In Indonesia, it is not in the public interest to attack the president. He is not the source of corruption but the hope in the battle against corruption. In the post-Suharto times since the reform era was launched, successive governments have dealt with corruption with varying degrees of success. In the 20 years of being governed by five presidents, it is clear that the problem of corruption in Indonesia does not lie with the office of the president but spread throughout the political system. That includes members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Presidents are pivotal in the fight against corruption.
So, who should be made accountable? Should presidents be made accountable and their governments brought down? In Indonesia, this does not seem to be the top priority. Instead, the focus should be on energizing law enforcement.
While Brazil and South Korea punished their former heads of government for their culpability, corruption in Indonesia is not seen to involve the top. The fight against corruption in Indonesia has been led by the KPK, with support from other government agencies such as the Center for the Reporting and Analysis of Financial Transactions (PPATK) to monitor money laundering activities and the Supreme Audit Board (BPK).
Since its founding in 2002, the KPK has been quite effective in bringing corrupt officials to court. They can be officials at the local, provincial and national levels. They include governors, cabinet ministers and even a speaker of the House of Representatives. Not surprisingly, the KPK has become the corruptors number one enemy and all their efforts have been solely to disempower this anti-corruption body. But so far, the KPK is fully supported by public and by the president.
In the run-up towards the 2018 and 2019 elections, corruption can be particularly damaging and disruptive, particularly as the political environment becomes murkier by the day. There is an unhealthy mix of identity politics, a distinct lack of clear ideology and the liberal use of money as political contenders prepare to campaign. Given that officials of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches may have been compromised, the hope that corruption can be at least mitigated – if not entirely eradicated – lies with our head of state and head of government. Without support from the top, the KPK lacks the power to gain maximum effectiveness.
So, in Indonesia for the time being, unlike in Brazil and South Korea, the president is the best protection against corruption. Of all kinds.