T

he year 2015 has just passed but some will not look upon it with fondness. Many say it was a dark year in the history of corruption eradication in Indonesia. Multiple attempts to weaken the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) demonstrated that the road to a corruption-free nation is still a long way ahead. The alleged criminalization of the previous chief and vice-chief of the KPK was among the most highlighted issues last year.

With the recent inauguration of the KPK'€™s new leadership, despite some criticism of the selection process and the pessimism about the selected candidates, there are great expectations that the new leaders will be able to stage an effective corruption-eradication campaign. In Transparency International'€™s 2014 Corruption Perception Index Indonesia was only ranked 107th (out of 175 countries), which demonstrates the need for some radical changes in the country'€™s strategy against corruption.

Fighting corruption is like facing a multi-headed snake with the ability to heal and grow more heads each time one is cut off. This is why cutting the snake'€™s heads alone is not going to be enough to put an end to the problem. Another problem with this approach is that the growing heads of the snake will fight back once they are strong enough (or brave enough) to do so. The systematic weakening of Indonesia'€™s anti-corruption agency is simply a form of retaliation from those who feel hurt or threatened by the agency.

Many regional leaders have been named suspects or have been convicted for corruption. The Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) said recently that since 2010 there had been around 289 suspicious transactions involving 50 regional heads, some of which had led to criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Anti-corruption organizations have revealed that many regional leaders seem to be highly tolerant of a corrupt environment. Many public officials who ended up in prison for corruption were believed to have committed graft simply by implementing the instructions from their superiors out of a blind obedience to their superiors. The '€œdark force'€ of obedience to powerful figures in authority has been the subject of a number of studies worldwide.

One of the most prominent studies was performed by Stanley Milgram around half a century ago at Yale University. Milgram carried out a series of experiments on obedience and authority that tested individuals'€™ willingness to administer electric shocks to a test subject under the direction of an authority figure. Interestingly, the experiments revealed that 65 percent of these individuals, despite their initial objections to the scientist in charge of the process, continued to administer the shocks even when the dials they turned already reached the fatal line.

This and many more similar studies on obedience suggest that in many cases, in a situation similar to that portrayed by Milgram'€™s experiments, obedience to an authority figure triumphs over one'€™s morality and consciousness. Therefore, some believe that obedience is hardwired into the human brain and only those with strong willpower are able to overcome its '€œdark force'€.

Many behavioral scientists argue that studies on obedience offer an explanation for various serious crimes committed by otherwise morally sound people including corruption or even murder and genocide. All of these suggest the danger of pledging obedience to the wrong authority figures. In reality, authority figures do not have to be one'€™s superiors in his or her organization but can also be other figures whom one agrees to obey. In Milgram'€™s experiments, for example, the authority figure was the scientist who administered the test whom the studied individuals had no prior or formal relationship with.

Obedience has been part of the Asian culture for generations and is viewed by many as a pillar of functioning governments. Nevertheless, in many cases of corporate failures, for example, many corrupt leaders exploited the '€œdark force'€ of obedience to control their subordinates to support their misconducts. Scandals such as those at Olympus in 2011 and Toshiba in 2015 are evidence of the devastating effects of the so called '€œculture of obedience'€ where subordinates can only do one thing and one thing only, that is following their superiors'€™ orders without question.

Studies on corruption in Indonesia suggest that the culture of obedience was particularly strong in the government during the New Order era. Traces of this culture can still be found in a number of public institutions these days as evidenced by the numerous cases of collective corruption (also known as korupsi berjamaah). Many lower level public officials, for example, were forced to assist their superiors in their corrupt acts and ended up in jail. Some of these people did not want to live the life of a lawbreaker but their misplaced obedience finally dragged them down to the dark path of corruption.

The existence of the culture of obedience has also made corruption so resilient and so enduring. This should be understood in particular by the country'€™s anti-corruption agency, the KPK. The new leaders of the KPK who came from various backgrounds need to understand the problem from various different angles. More importantly, they themselves need to be strong enough to resist the '€œdark force'€ of obedience (e.g. to former superiors) to maintain their independence and impartiality.

The highly adversarial environment that surrounds corruption eradication demands an anti-corruption agency to have the sensitivity to recognize even the smallest elements that make corruption the problem it is and address them accordingly. The legal approach alone has been proven to be ineffective in killing the '€œmulti-headed snake'€. More innovative initiatives are needed to ensure our children do not live in a country where corruption is a norm.

Just as with any other anti-corruption agency anywhere in the world, there will always be resistance to the existence of the KPK as well as efforts to undermine its roles in eradicating corruption. Worldwide evidence suggests that being independent as well as staying impartial are major prerequisites for a successful anti-corruption agency. On the other hand, there are (much) lesser known prerequisites such as secrecy and unpredictability.

Anti-corruption scholars believe that an anti-corruption agency'€™s independence is generally associated with its ability to resist political interference as well as freedom from any undue influence.

Furthermore, when performing its duties, to demonstrate its impartiality, the agency must be indifferent to things such as past and current personal relationships as well as personal preferences, likes and dislikes. To minimize the negative impacts from its adversarial environment an anti-corruption agency needs to balance the transparency and confidentiality of their corruption eradication activities.

Corruption investigation, for example, is only going to be effective when sufficient confidentiality is maintained throughout the process, which leaves the investigated parties unable to predict investigators'€™ next moves and devise countermeasures accordingly.

This is also to say that when an anti-corruption agency loses its independence, impartiality, confidentiality and unpredictability it will be as good as nonexistent.

The planned amendment of the KPK law has been seen by anti-corruption supporters as part of the joint efforts to diminish the KPK'€™s power to curb corruption in the country. We should therefore stage a nationwide campaign to fight against the amendment.
_____________________________________

The writer is the director of the Center for Forensic Accounting Studies at the Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta. He obtained his Master'€™s and PhD in forensic accounting from the University of Wollongong in Australia.