Every nation has a unique experience in establishing a political system and promoting a good model of government. Noticeably, the two political systems - democracy and authoritarianism - which are contrary to one another have both been applied in Indonesia. Authoritarianism was founded by the Soeharto regime, resulting in repressive power and oppressive government for more than three decades.

As the authoritarian regime ended, the country has been consolidating democracy for about a decade, since it is believed to be the best way of reaching social prosperity and of accelerating economic well-being.

Ironically, democracy is as bitter as authoritarianism in the sense that both systems have resulted in a great deal of difficulties for the people. The two models of government system have created a similar product: massive corruption and a despotic political elite.

Within the authoritarian Soeharto regime, corruption was concentrated in quite limited areas - Soeharto's family and his cronies - which formed a strong web of relations among cronies who shared economic, political, and business interests.

Meanwhile after we adopted a fully democratic system, corruption grew greatly, spreading to many branches of state bodies in parallel with the alteration of power structures. Massive corruption is now easily found in public offices both at central and local levels.

Many state officials - governors, mayors, regents, legislators - have been jailed for corruption. Indeed, both democracy and authoritarianism have produced a kleptocratic regime: Rulers who steal public funds by misusing power for private gain.

Here we can raise a question. The authoritarian system resulted in a despotic ruler; why has the democratic system also produced corrupt elite groups?

Actually, there is no single explanation on this case, but people may come to an agreement that Indonesia's democracy is primarily based on money.

Not surprisingly, unscrupulous politicians are willing to take any possible means in order to get power; and there is no moral consideration if they have to commit corruption for the sake of power.

Corruption closely intertwines with political power since it relates with the allocation and distribution of public resources. Here corruption takes place in complicated power relations among three parties.

First, state officials and bureaucrats who are responsible for public policy-making and proposing the budget for development projects.

Second, parliament members who have political rights to approve or reject the proposed budget for public expenditures.

Third, business groups who are interested in getting contracts from the government or in gaining state-funded projects. These three groups then establish a sort of transactional relation by giving the involved parties any kind of economic, financial, and political benefits.

At this point, legislators who have political authority to endorse or refuse a proposed budget often mistreat the constitutional rights for personal gain.

They connive with their counterparts in government bureaucracies and private sectors to approve development projects in return for bribes. Indeed, such illicit practices are prevalent and have become a public secrecy.

Those legislators also commonly offer state-financed projects for their constituents in exchange for popular votes in election. Worse, they frequently abuse political power by mobilizing and distributing public resources for individual interest, which is often called political corruption.

Nevertheless, such political corruption is not exclusively associated with the Indonesian parliament; it is also found in the American Congress which is dubbed "pork-barrel politics." Pork-barrel politics is a slang term meaning "... public spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support in the form of either campaign contributions or votes" (Diana Evans, Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress, Cambridge, 2004).

In the context of pork-barrel politics, the cycle of corruption becomes much more complicated, not only because of such intricate power relations but also it is connected with the ambiguity of Indonesian people in response to those who are accused of corruption.

Because people benefit from pork-barrel politics, they often endorse shady politicians and are very supportive of those who are charged of corruption.

Regrettably, Indonesia's democracy seems to be a breeding-ground for flourishing corruption in the form of pork-barrel politics.

The writer is PhD candidate in Social Anthropology at the University of Sussex, United Kingdom.

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia