TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

A better deal for those in public office

Finally Indonesia is seeing an open debate on businessmen and family business in politics

Berly Martawardaya (The Jakarta Post)
Jakarta
Mon, June 8, 2009

Share This Article

Change Size

A better deal for those  in public office

Finally Indonesia is seeing an open debate on businessmen and family business in politics.

During the New Order period, the public turned a blind eye to public officials and their family businesses, since business was considered an acceptable means to compensate their low official salaries. Favoritism was sometimes so blatant that in one case the IMF had to include a special clause in its letter of intent, to revoke Tommy Soeharto’s license to produce cars.

Since the beginning of the Reformasi era, such practices have adopted a lower profile, but have not been outlawed and are still socially accepted. Law No. 28/1999 on good governance only broadly forbids any action that puts family or crony interests ahead of the interests of the state or society.

Incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has stated that Indonesia needs leadership that does not mix national interests with family business, and he picked Boediono as his running mate to emphasize this point. On a separate occasion Boediono said ideally public officials should have no business activity whatsoever.

The SBY-Boediono pair is clearly attempting to tap into the public uneasiness with Jusuf Kalla’s and Aburizal Bakrie’s businesses. Both Kalla and Bakrie are members of the Golkar Party. In 2007, Aburizal Bakrie ranked as the richest man in Indonesia according to a Forbes survey, with Kalla at number 33.

Kalla demanded proof to justify comments that his family business had got special treatment, and said it would be discriminatory to forbid public officials and their families from having businesses.

Megawati joined the fray and expressed support for family business regulation, but without banning them.

This seems to be a dilemma. On the one hand it is the legal right of every citizen to be involved in legal business activity. And on the other, the elusive quest for good governance is a very important policy objective – especially in a developing and consolidating democracy like Indonesia. Money cannot buy health and happiness, but it can get a lot of things. Political campaigns can be very costly and thick bank accounts can give parties a much-needed edge to win seats.

In the past, business tycoons were satisfied supporting political candidates that shared their policy views. But the world has recently seen some very rich businessmen climbing into political offices and affecting public policy on their own.

Unsurprisingly, such media tycoons have done quite well in politics since the media plays a pivotal role in political campaigns. Italy’s  Silvio Berlusconi got elected three times as prime minister in Italy, while it took a military coup to oust Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand. They both are the richest men in their respective countries and both own major TV stations.

Ross Perot, a rich oil businessman, almost defeated Clinton and became the president of the United States. Meanwhile, multi-millionaire Michael Bloomberg, the incumbent mayor of New York and owner of a massive media enterprise, is thought to be safely on his way to being reelected for the third time. Ministers of finance in the US have often come from Wall Street’s major investment firms.

Most countries allow people to run campaigns using their own money, but after becoming public officials there needs to be a separation between personal and public interests.

While it is very hard to separate a businessman from his business past – as difficult, perhaps, as it would be to separate a famous movie star-turned-politician from their glamorous past – there is a way to ensure public interests are not compromised once they are elected into office.  

Whatever share or stake in a company a public office-holder has, this should be sold and the money should be put either into a fixed deposit or into the custody of a blind trust institution whose function is to manage funds but that is legally forbidden to disclose where the money is invested.

This would avoid conflicts of interest between politicians and any policies that may arise while they are in office. After the person steps down, the control over the resource would be returned to its rightful owners.

Thailand, the Philippines and South Africa, for example, even take one step further and choose to err on the precautionary side with constitutional clauses especially for politicians, their family businesses and their wealth.

In too many cases, countries’ resources and opportunities have been squandered by families of the political elite in their forays into business. While transparency and anti-corruption have had a boost in Indonesia lately, it is too early to let our guard down and be complacent.

If a businessman decides to serve the people and hold public office, a mandatory, but temporary, divestment of his wealth should be a small price to pay for such a noble pursuit.

The writer is a lecturer at   the School of Economics, University of Indonesia and  a PhD candidate in economics at the University of Siena-Italy.

{

Your Opinion Matters

Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.