Mar 19 2009
Political Corruptions in Indonesia
In the Global Corupption Barometer Surveys, released by TI Indonesia from 2005 to 2007, voters have invariably ranked political parties among the most corrupt institutions in Indonesia, and a large number of corruption cases brought against party politicians both confirm and reinforce this trend.
“Money politics” has become a household phrase in Indonesia to depict the moral decadence of party politicians, describing their dual practice of accepting bribes from patrons and distributing money to gain or maintain office.
In general, two different approaches have been used to analyse the political corupption problem in Indonesia. To begin with, proponents of the neo-Marxist paradigm have argued that political parties and their leaders are agents of global and local capitalist interests, with the “predatory” behaviour of Indonesia’s parties reflecting developments in other parts of the world (Robison and Hadiz 2004). In this model, parties are corrupt because they are by definition part of the struggle of oligarchic elites to hijack democratic institutions and perpetuate the capitalist system.
The other interpretation uses a more anthropological approach, and is based on what Jonathan Hopkin (2004, p. 629) has called the “assumption of self-interested utility”: politicians are, like all other human beings, largely interested in maximizing their own benefit, with political parties only constituting vehicles for increasing their wealth, influence and social status. The latter interpretation has been the most popular one in Indonesia, where a certain measure of corruption is often viewed as an integral feature of human nature.
According to the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), a simple thesis of political corruption happens because the position of political actors or politician becomes a tool for business groups to maintain and develop their own profit. In fact, the interest contradiction between political parties, business men, and capital owners makes this country failed to deliver well function as the public servant.
In the law enforcement area, the well known term has been used is “Court Mafia”. Besides money, another tool that has been used is political intervention. The two leaders of the Indonesia judiciary authority implicitly admit that the court system in Indonesia is very prone of political intervention. This happens to ensure that the court decisions will not endanger the actors and cadres of political parties.
The record file from ICW about the decision of corruption cases in the general court from 2005 to 2008 will give better explanation : from 1.421 defendants , court releases 659 defendants and most of them are politicians from political party who have position in local or central house representative.
