The public reaction to events surrounding the graft and abuse charges filed against the two members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) illustrates the importance of public opinion in the fight against corruption.
Without the level of public interest and outrage concerning the events surrounding this situation it is unlikely that government would have acted with such haste in dropping the criminal charges against the two KPK officials.
The public is now focusing on Bank Century and the political intrigue surrounding the inquiry into events associated with the bailout.
Depending on how issues unfold, the Indonesian public may again become outraged by actions of either the government officials authorizing the bailout and/or the politicians conducting the inquiry.
However, it unlikely that Bank Century case would have evolved to the extent that it has if there had
not been such a significant level of public interest in seeking information on the circumstances surrounding the bailout and subsequent inquiry.
Each of these high-profile cases highlights a significant milestone in Indonesia’s efforts to address the ills associated with corruption.
Once the public in any demo-cratic society becomes knowledgeable and intolerant of particular
situation it will demand action and in most instances the government will respond in an attempt to appease the public’s displeasure or outrage.
Conversely, if the public continues to tolerate and accept inappropriate actions by both high
and lower levels of government it is very likely that these inappropriate or corrupt practices will continue.
The democratic institutions that exist or are evolving in Indonesia such as the independent media
and civil society watchdog organizations provide the means for the Indonesian public to become initially aware of, and eventually more knowledgeable about potential inappropriate actions by government officials.
Free and fair elections where politicians can be voted out of office based on their prior actions, as well as the right to protest by registering support for the two KPK officials on a Facebook page or joining a demonstration at the Hotel Indonesia traffic circle also allow Indonesians to display their intolerance of specific government actions.
Admittedly, problems existing within the Indonesian judiciary, other components of law enforcement and the bureaucracy still inhibit the ability of the Indonesian public to express their intolerance and effectively address grievances associated with corrupt government practices.
Regardless of any codified legal requirements or published procedural regulations every individual has their own personal values and standards of behavior which are utilized in judging if a particular action by a government official is either acceptable or intolerable.
These personal values are developed based on the environment in which an individual lives and their perception of what constitutes acceptable standards of behavior.
An individual’s personal standards of behavior are developed as part of an educational process that begins in childhood and continues, with regular reinforcement, through early adulthood.
The guidance, actions, and practices of parents, relatives and friends are instrumental in establishing a child’s or young adult’s personal values and standards of behavior.
If a child comes from a family and environment that either practices or tolerates bad behavior, it is very likely that the child will adopt those same behavioral standards as their own when becoming an adult.
Equally important are the standards of behavior conveyed and reinforced by the actions and practices of those responsible for formally educating children, especially during the early formative years.
It is not only what a child or young adult is formally taught but also what they continually observe as acceptable or common practices in their environment that dictate the development of their own
personal values and standards of behavior.
Regardless of the motivation, the actions of a parent in either offering a low level government official a gratuity for expediting a routine government process, expressing appreciation by providing some rupiah to their child’s underpaid teacher for grading an exam, or offering a police officer some money during a minor traffic infraction that will be observed and eventually recognized and adopted by a child as acceptable behavior.
If Indonesia is to continue on the path of effectively combating corruption it is essential that more emphasis be given to education, especially to the young citizens of the country who have not yet formulated their own standards of behavior.
Many share the responsibility for ensuring that next generation of Indonesians do not tolerate the existing corrupt practices that are currently prevalent throughout the country.
Parents and family members, teachers, religious figures, senior public officials and other recognized members of society all share responsibility to serve as role models by not only condemning the evils of corruption, but more importantly demonstrating by their own acts and deeds that certain actions are unacceptable in an open and democratic society.
As illustrated by the recent high-profile KPK case, an informed and intolerant public is one of the most effective means to address inappropriate actions by public officials.
The challenge for Indonesia is to channel this same level of public intolerance to the routine acts of corruption that most Indonesians encounter in everyday life.
The writer holds a doctor of Management degree from the University of Maryland and has lived and worked in Indonesia. He is an active member of the United States Indonesia Society.
