Leadership
slows antigraft move
Ahmad Khoirul Umam, A LECTURER OF ANTICORRUPTION
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
PARAMADINA, JAKARTA
Sumber
: JAKARTA POST, 1 Maret 2012
In his recent speech at the Foreign Ministry
before 128 foreign diplomats, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono asserted his
claim to have waged a successful antigraft campaign, which he said was “the
most aggressive in this country’s history”.
The President was trying to assure international audiences that his leadership had a zero tolerance of corruption.
It is true that under Yudhoyono’s leadership, many corrupt officials have been sent to jail. During his first term, law enforcement agencies such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the National Police, the Financial and Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) have been active in combating crime. But the situation has changed gradually.
In Yudhoyono’s second term, when his Democratic Party leads the ruling bloc, people are witnessing a fight against graft that has been driven by political objectives, compromises and negotiations. Coordination among anticorruption agencies also is weakening and is ineffective, as is evident by the conflicts between them.
Simply put, the contemporary anticorruption movement is ineffective. The “gecko vs crocodile” drama at the beginning of Yudhoyono’s second term proved the nature of corruption in this country is controlled by personal and political interests. The Bank Century case is another example of how the fight against corruption is directed by political competitions in the circles of the powerful.
Despite its reform agenda, Indonesia’s movement to root out corruption has been shaped by political favoritism, judicial manipulation and compromises that have helped neo-patrimonial politicians hijack anti-graft instruments for political gains.
Elite politicians have freely bullied pro-reform actors — and have kicked them out of their posts if necessary — and trapped anticorruption movements in a political quagmire by criminalizing reform policies and discrediting pro-reform actors.
The House of Representatives has changed itself from a democratic institution that uses mechanisms of political accountability for public interests into a corrupt syndicate that has strengthened the foundation of “democratic kleptocracy”.
In response to the situation, the Yudhoyono administration is incapable of exercising its power to support the anticorruption movements. He tends to be too cautious in facing political maneuvering that weakens his government. He reacted slowly to the criminalization of the KPK’s deputies and opted to maintain an inexplicable silence rather than defend his ministers’ pro-reform policies.
As a result, this unassertive style of leadership has not only damaged the coalition but also cost the government its public confidence. Yudhoyono’s face-saving strategies only lead the government’s programs and policies to run ineffectively.
Yudhoyono is the main figure in our neo-patrimonial presidential system of government. As the nation’s top political leader, the President plays a crucial role in creating a favorable climate for drives against corruption. Anticorruption agencies in Singapore and Hong Kong work effectively because they are supported by strong leaders.
As stated by Quah, “the leader’s political will is the most important prerequisite as a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy and will fail if it is not supported by the political leadership in a country”.
A strong commitment will empower anti-corruption agencies to implement zero-tolerance policies towards corruption without fear and favor. Political will or the determination of the top political leaders to curb corruption is fundamental to eliminate corruption as they have authority to provide the resources, budget, powers, accountability mechanisms and the effective strategies required.
When the anticorruption actions are politically supported by political leaders, the independence of anticorruption agency in conducting investigation, prosecution, and punishment will be maintained. Conversely, when leaders are unassertive, anticorruption agencies are vulnerable to intervention and manipulation.
In Indonesia, Yudhoyono won 60 percent of the vote in the 2009 presidential election and was backed by 75 percent of parties in the House, but his administration remains unable to trigger massive anticorruption movements. On the contrary, his leadership seems to weaken the anticorruption movement when his interests are threatened. His response to the current corruption cases involving the elites of Democratic Party is the glaring example.
In his remaining two years in office, Yudhoyono should act more aggressively to trigger an all-out anti-corruption movement rather than to distance himself from political turbulence.
Yudhoyono must realize that leadership includes having the guts and sensitivity to take tough decisions for everyone’s well being. People cannot wait for the fight against graft to catch big fish.
What has been happening to the Yudhoyono administration must give the nation a valuable lesson to determine ideal leadership for Indonesia through the 2014 presidential election. Next, Indonesia needs an assertive, brave, visionary and intelligent leader to push an effective anticorruption.
Strong leadership needs strong political support in the House to create a stable government, which requires a strong coalition in the executive and legislative branches of power to avoid prolonged political turbulence. Development can be achieved only when the government’s stability is maintained. ●
The President was trying to assure international audiences that his leadership had a zero tolerance of corruption.
It is true that under Yudhoyono’s leadership, many corrupt officials have been sent to jail. During his first term, law enforcement agencies such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), the National Police, the Financial and Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) have been active in combating crime. But the situation has changed gradually.
In Yudhoyono’s second term, when his Democratic Party leads the ruling bloc, people are witnessing a fight against graft that has been driven by political objectives, compromises and negotiations. Coordination among anticorruption agencies also is weakening and is ineffective, as is evident by the conflicts between them.
Simply put, the contemporary anticorruption movement is ineffective. The “gecko vs crocodile” drama at the beginning of Yudhoyono’s second term proved the nature of corruption in this country is controlled by personal and political interests. The Bank Century case is another example of how the fight against corruption is directed by political competitions in the circles of the powerful.
Despite its reform agenda, Indonesia’s movement to root out corruption has been shaped by political favoritism, judicial manipulation and compromises that have helped neo-patrimonial politicians hijack anti-graft instruments for political gains.
Elite politicians have freely bullied pro-reform actors — and have kicked them out of their posts if necessary — and trapped anticorruption movements in a political quagmire by criminalizing reform policies and discrediting pro-reform actors.
The House of Representatives has changed itself from a democratic institution that uses mechanisms of political accountability for public interests into a corrupt syndicate that has strengthened the foundation of “democratic kleptocracy”.
In response to the situation, the Yudhoyono administration is incapable of exercising its power to support the anticorruption movements. He tends to be too cautious in facing political maneuvering that weakens his government. He reacted slowly to the criminalization of the KPK’s deputies and opted to maintain an inexplicable silence rather than defend his ministers’ pro-reform policies.
As a result, this unassertive style of leadership has not only damaged the coalition but also cost the government its public confidence. Yudhoyono’s face-saving strategies only lead the government’s programs and policies to run ineffectively.
Yudhoyono is the main figure in our neo-patrimonial presidential system of government. As the nation’s top political leader, the President plays a crucial role in creating a favorable climate for drives against corruption. Anticorruption agencies in Singapore and Hong Kong work effectively because they are supported by strong leaders.
As stated by Quah, “the leader’s political will is the most important prerequisite as a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy and will fail if it is not supported by the political leadership in a country”.
A strong commitment will empower anti-corruption agencies to implement zero-tolerance policies towards corruption without fear and favor. Political will or the determination of the top political leaders to curb corruption is fundamental to eliminate corruption as they have authority to provide the resources, budget, powers, accountability mechanisms and the effective strategies required.
When the anticorruption actions are politically supported by political leaders, the independence of anticorruption agency in conducting investigation, prosecution, and punishment will be maintained. Conversely, when leaders are unassertive, anticorruption agencies are vulnerable to intervention and manipulation.
In Indonesia, Yudhoyono won 60 percent of the vote in the 2009 presidential election and was backed by 75 percent of parties in the House, but his administration remains unable to trigger massive anticorruption movements. On the contrary, his leadership seems to weaken the anticorruption movement when his interests are threatened. His response to the current corruption cases involving the elites of Democratic Party is the glaring example.
In his remaining two years in office, Yudhoyono should act more aggressively to trigger an all-out anti-corruption movement rather than to distance himself from political turbulence.
Yudhoyono must realize that leadership includes having the guts and sensitivity to take tough decisions for everyone’s well being. People cannot wait for the fight against graft to catch big fish.
What has been happening to the Yudhoyono administration must give the nation a valuable lesson to determine ideal leadership for Indonesia through the 2014 presidential election. Next, Indonesia needs an assertive, brave, visionary and intelligent leader to push an effective anticorruption.
Strong leadership needs strong political support in the House to create a stable government, which requires a strong coalition in the executive and legislative branches of power to avoid prolonged political turbulence. Development can be achieved only when the government’s stability is maintained. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar