Johannes Nugroho – In spite of the state's stated efforts to combat corruption, Indonesia's record on clean governance is invariably dismal. At the heart of the matter is a civil service governed by a system of patronage and outdated regulations that undermine attempts at reform from within.
Indonesian civil service is one of the most archaically feudal in the world. Instead of being a meritocracy, it is based on bribery, collusion and political whim.
The problem is pervasive. Abdullah Hehamahua, adviser to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), claimed that 95 percent of all civil servants practiced some form of corruption.
Promotion for civil servants is often based on good relations with superiors, and perhaps more importantly on bribes.
Personal favors between seniors and juniors determine who fills important posts. It usually comes down to connections – whoever can pull the most strings for the boss will get the job or promotion.
As such, most government employees are not immune to the political fortunes of their respective patrons.
This is especially obvious at regional government level where sudden transfers of civil servants for political purposes are very common.
The central government recently passed a bill that prohibits outgoing regional executives from making structural changes to the civil service.
Because the patronage system is so pervasive, any ambitious junior official would be wise to comply with his or her superiors, even in cases of blatant rule breaking.
Such behavior is indirectly encouraged by senior government officials who seek to prevent jealousy among their staff by making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie.
Under such a collusive system of public service, professional competitiveness is an afterthought. Hard work and diligence hardly pay off.
The civil service is perhaps the only sector of the government so far untouched by Reformasi. Its legal foundation is a piece of legislation adopted under Suharto in 1974. This outdated law is patrician in content as well as spirit, a far cry from the ideals of any democratic system.
Among its articles is the dubious and ambivalent passage stating that "under no circumstances is a civil servant allowed to divulge state secrets unless authorized to do so by his or her superiors or by the authority of the law."
The injunction may sound harmless enough, but it is this article that has been used for decades against potential whistle-blowers. It is an open secret that any wayward civil servant who tries to expose corruption is immediately threatened with the article to ensure silence.
More importantly, the state secret injunction has also been used to keep corruption scandals from seeing the light of day. Uncovered cases of graft are usually hushed up, with the offender being transferred to another department to prevent "loss of face."
This thoroughly Indonesian remedy is often said to be based on compassion because it gives the offender a second chance – but is it really compassion, or does it arise out of the desire to contain the fallout?
After all, any scandal is bound to involve many officials. If "exposed" offenders were disciplined rigorously, they might want to make waves in revenge or turn on their conspirators in exchange for judicial leniency. This piece of anachronistic legislation must be reformed, and, surprisingly, the task is straightforward enough.
The same law stipulates that the president has the power make changes to the structure of the civil service.
Unfortunately, though, no president of the reform era has had either opportunity or guts enough to address the issue. Given President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's excessive tact and indecision, the current problem seems to be a lack of political will.
Why is graft so pervasive in Indonesia? KPK adviser Abdullah has cited low salaries as one of the primary causes of graft.
But I would argue that government officials practice corruption simply because there are loopholes within the system that make it easy. Poor salaries may be a contributing factor in the equation, but not the decisive one.
A professional and meritocratic system, free of political meddling, should be the foundation upon which our reformed civil service is built.
Whether the government likes it or not, the civil service is the body that turns the wheel of the state. As such, it holds a key role in ensuring that all executive, legislative and judicial decisions are carried out in an efficient and thorough manner.
Reforming the system requires qualities of leadership that include strong will, tenacity and endurance enough to weather the storm that will certainly come with any attempt to change the status quo. The current form of the civil service will not go quietly into the night.
The question remains: Is SBY and his administration up to the task?
[Johannes Nugroho is a writer based in Surabaya.]