F

or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and other antigraft watchdogs, the much-heralded regional autonomy seems to be a double-edged sword. On one hand it has sped up delivery of public services, thanks to the transfer of authority and a whopping amount of money from the central to local governments. But on the other hand, the development funds entrusted to regional governments, which this year alone account for one third of the state budget, are prone to embezzlement, often quipped as the “decentralization” of corruption.

One glaring example of the swing of the corruption pendulum from Jakarta to the regions is the recent KPK case implicating the political elite in the South Sumatra regency of Musi Banyuasin. On Tuesday the KPK detained six Musi Banyuasin legislative council members after naming them and 10 other local figures graft suspects. The hall of shame includes Regent Pahri Azhari and his wife Lucianty, council speaker Riamon Iskandar and his three deputies.

KPK investigators allegedly caught the six politicians red-handed accepting Rp 2.5 billion (US$ 189,107) in bribes from the regent, who had agreed to provide Rp 17 billion to all council members for approving his financial report for 2015 and draft regional budget for 2016.

The Musi Banyuasin case, if proven, would be an example of the collusion that in the past typified relations between executive and legislative powers at the national level. With more state funds going to regional governments’ coffers, local politicians have found a new instrument in regional budgets to enrich themselves or recover the money they spent on campaigns.

Misuse of regional budgets, either through provision of facilities for legislative council members or bribery, has been widespread since the inception of regional autonomy in 2000. Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) data in 2010 found that misuse of regional budgets topped the list of corruption cases that law enforcement bodies were investigating and the trend has so far not shown signs of decline.

Between 2004 and 2015, the KPK arrested 64 regional heads for allegedly committing graft, 17 of them in 2014. The Home Ministry data is more saddening as more than 300 regional heads have been involved in graft since direct local elections were introduced in 2005.

There have been mixed responses to the KPK’s tough anticorruption measures in the regions. Innovative regional leaders promote good and clean governance through budget transparency and accountability, while their narrow-minded peers ask the central government for legal protection that will spare them from criminal charges for the use of their regional budget.

Such rampant corruption should not however justify revocation of regional autonomy. The KPK should maintain its leading role in corruption eradication in the regions, but its resources remain incomparable to the more than 500 regencies/municipalities and 34 provinces across the country.

The most workable measure to prevent, if not stop, corrupt practices is for the central government to step up supervision and impose financial punishments on regional governments that fail to uphold budget transparency and accountability.