Can we stop corruption in Indonesia?

By Ajit Joy

IT'S DECEMBER 9, [2010], the International Day against Corruption. Time to take stock of the developments in the corruption front in the last one year. Needless to say, it was a tumultuous year as far as the corruption scenario in Indonesia was concerned. Corruption dominated the headlines almost everyday.

The year saw several new cases of corruption that rocked the nation. The country witnessed the helplessness and lethargy combined with demoralization of government agencies tasked to fight corruption. People were also shocked by the complicity of the law enforcers in corruption scandals.

Nevertheless, on the positive side, there is a very interesting development. The civil society and media seem to be edging out the state as leaders in the fight against corruption.

They have never before been as vocal and outspoken as this. The loss for the state has been a gain for them and they have not shied from taking up this challenging initiative.

There is also clear indication that space in the fight against corruption is slowly being seized by people in general. Through Facebook protests and blogs and Internet campaigns and fund collections, ordinary public are slowly coming out to the forefront of Indonesia’s fight against corruption.

The country seems to be graduating into a mature stage wherein fighting corruption is truly becoming, and as it should be — everyone’s business.

A “Formula” to Describe Social Accountability

By Gladys Honey Selosa

SOMETIMES THE BETTER way of explaining a difficult concept is to frame it as a pseudo mathematical formula—a metaphorical equation, if you like, that breaks down the core elements of the concept and shows how they relate with each other.

I thought I would try this with social accountability through the following formula:

SAc Formula

 

G       =       Quality of Governance (G>1, good governance, low or no corruption; G<1=bad governance, high corruption)

T       =       Transparency

A       =       Accountability

P       =       Participation

SAc   =       Social Accountability

C       =       Corruption (corruption ≥ 1)

Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods, A Social Accountability Perspective

By Marie Bismonte

In February 2010, the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP) and Oxfam Great Britain in East Asia (OGB) organized a roundtable discussion on the social accountability dimensions of gender equality and sustainable livelihoods.


The roundtable was part of the runoff to a Forum on Gender and Livelihoods that OGB held in Bangkok. This discussion paper was prepared for the roundtable.

SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS a process of constructive engagement between citizens and government, in order to hold government answerable for its decision and actions.  Through this, citizens are connected to the government, thereby giving them a concrete handle for sustaining meaningful participation in meeting their most immediate needs.  It contributes to advancing people’s welfare and security.

Two forces drive social accountability: informed citizen groups who are direct beneficiaries of public services and government, which provides the space for citizen participation in governance such as monitoring public programs.  Its approach is premised upon the following: that government keeps the door open for people’s participation and that citizens are willing to engage the government.

Finding Social Accountability in a Cloud of Carbon

By Joanne C. Dulce

CLIMATE CHANGE IS no longer avoidable, scientists say.  Decades of greenhouse gas (GHG) has accumulated making the planet 0.74 degrees Celsius warmer than the recorded average temperature in pre-industrial times.

There is much cause for concern.  One, signs of climate change are already observable in all parts of the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that “there have been widespread changes in extreme temperatures, droughts have become longer and more intense, the frequency of heavy precipitation has increased over most land areas, and arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade.” (East Asia Monitor, 2007)

Unfortunately, these changes have cascading effects, which will vary from region to region.  In the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region, the World Bank categorized the major impacts into three distinct but highly interrelated categories: (East Asia Monitor, 2007)

Environmental.  This involves changes in coastal and marine systems, forest cover and biodiversity;

Economic.  Threat to water security, impacts on agriculture and fisheries, disruption of tourism, reduced energy security, which may have negative impacts on GDP; and

Social.  Population displacement, loss of livelihood and increased health problems.

Whose Fault Is It Anyway?

By Antonette Palma-Angeles, PhD.

PUBLIC GOVERNANCE IS “the process and institutions by which authority is exercised in a country.” It includes “capacity of governments to manage resources efficiently and to formulate, implement, and enforce sound policies and regulations.” We are told that governance in the Philippines has been plagued by corruption since the time of the Spaniards, when civil servants were underpaid and given many opportunities for corruption. Interestingly, it started at approximately the same time in nearby Thailand, in the 16th century when the king’s revenue collectors did not receive any salary and were allowed to retain part of what they collected. (Corruption in Sea Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, 4).

Throughout history, as the role of governments in national development steadily expanded, opportunities for corruption proportionally increased. Corruption can be simply defined as the “abuse of public office for private gain” (Coronel and Tirol, 3). Public office includes the civil service, elective and appointive posts. Corruption involves monetary and non-monetary rewards and happens not only in the public but in the private sector as well.

Corruption studies have repeatedly highlighted the alarming economic costs of corruption in Asia (how much it is costing our governments, how it has held back our economic development and the influx of foreign investors, how it has kept our businesses small and still family-controlled and therefore globally uncompetitive, etc.). The reforms suggested and introduced have concentrated on the administrative, structural and legal weaknesses and gaps that cause corruption. Anti-corruption measures have included higher salaries for civil servants, strictly enforced punitive action, strong independent regulatory bodies, an anti-corruption agency, clear and simple processes in the delivery of services.

In short, anti-corruption efforts have focused on institutional reforms.

The Media, Government Accountability, and Citizen Engagement

By Katrin Voltmer

Forthcoming in Pippa Norris (ed.): Public Sentinel: New Media and the Governance Agenda, Washington DC: The World Bank, 137-159. This paper was first presented during a Harvard-World Bank Workshop on "The Role of the News Media in the Governance Reform Agenda", held May 2008.

This paper explores the notion of accountability and how it can be applied to the relationship between governments, citizens, and the media in transitional democracies. In it, Katrin Voltmer explores the normative expectations underlying government accountability, social accountability, and media accountability - contrasting them with professional journalistic practices that generate a kind of news coverage that often falls short of these ideals. Because the media are not assimilated by viewers and readers at face value, Voltmer goes on to explore research that has been conducted to better understand the media's influence on citizens' politics.

Voltmer's argument is premised on the claim that democratic accountability encompasses not only political power holders but also the citizens and the media that link governments and citizens. She observes that the ability and willingness of the citizens to engage in political life, in addition to the quality of public communication, play an important part in strengthening the link between those in power and the citizenry. Voltmer suggests that collective accountability means civic engagement that goes far beyond voting: "if citizens are ignorant about political issues, do not make an effort to have a say, despise their representatives, and do not believe in democratic values, then the viability of that democracy might be seriously at risk - even if the institutions are perfectly designed."

Islam and Social Accountability

By Abdel Jamal R. Disangcopan

THE CONCEPT OF social accountability is an emerging phenomenon in Asia. The concept began when most government mechanisms and market forces failed to promote the public good, especially in eliminating corruption and reducing poverty. It produced a movement toward making direct citizen involvement a prominent aspect of governance.

There are several frameworks of accountability to ensure good governance. But what sets apart social accountability from others is that it refers to “actions initiated by citizen groups to hold public officials, politicians, and service providers to account for their conduct and performance in terms of delivering services, improving people's welfare and protecting people's rights.”(Info Sheet: Putting Social Accountability on the Mainstream, ANSA-EAP.)

Simply put, this approach calls for citizens to remain watchful, vigilant, and proactive in making elected leaders and bureaucrats accountable for their performance even and especially after the election period.

Given this framework of social accountability, it is necessary then to explore Islam and find sufficient basis to say whether Islam supports this concept. More specifically, social accountability finds acceptance in Muslim communities only if it is contextually appropriate.

Victim or Partner? The Private Sector’s Response to Anti-Corruption Efforts

By J. Ibarra A. Angeles

IN MANY COUNTRIES, the private sector is both victim and willing accomplice of government corruption.

According to a 2008 study by the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), acts of corruption—such as bribery, illegal deals, and conflicts of interest—drag down national economies, warp development policies, and reduce public confidence in government institutions.

Harming business and nation

In its study, CIPE said corruption harms business, and ultimately, the larger society, by diverting resources that could have been put to productive uses. Officials make decisions that benefit themselves and not the people.  It’s taxpayers who foot the bill.

Corruption makes it riskier for foreign and local investors to put money into the country. The message they get is that the rule of law, and thus property rights, are not always respected, making investments a risky proposition. Corruption in government reduces competition and efficiency. The losers? Consumers who must pay more for lower quality and limited product offerings.

Fewer jobs are created because of corruption. By making it more expensive to operate, business companies are less likely to grow, and less likely to generate more employment. Inevitably, this means adding to what could very well be already high poverty levels because corruption lowers the income potential of the poor. They are deprived of more opportunities in the private sector. It also constricts their access to good healthcare and education services

The private sector that is either based or operating in developing countries is particularly vulnerable because these countries tend to have weaker regulations and inconsistent enforcement of anti-corruption laws. Moreover, because it can be very profitable, a culture of corruption remains entrenched within the private sector and government institutions in these countries.