Bureaucratic reform as an effort to prevent corruption in Indonesia

Abstract This study discusses the fight against corruption through bureaucratic reform. It argues that in addition to criminal action, corruption eradication efforts must also, and more importantly involve bureaucratic reform to ease public services and hold public officials accountable for their actions. Corruption has always been one of the major issues facing not only the Indonesian economy but also every branch of the Indonesian government. Concerned by the devastating impact of corruption on the people of Indonesia along with its economy, Law No. 30/2002 on Corruption was passed which allows for the creation of the Corruption Eradication Commission or Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Despite the tremendous success, the work of the commission is often hindered by complex bureaucratic procedures. This is socio-legal research drawing on qualitative data derived from statutes, interviews, and focus group discussions with lawmakers, civil society, and ONGs. The study reveals that bureaucratic reform can boost the fight against corruption because it improves public services and strengthens the actions of the government. The study also shows that bureaucratic reform can help to increase public awareness of corruption and change their attitude accordingly.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
This paper argues that of all the laws and regulations enacted to fight corruption, including the famous law on the Corruption Eradication Commission known as KPK, which is immensely discussed in this paper, none of them really focuses on corruption prevention. Their main focus is corruption eradication. The main idea of this study is that the fight against corruption can be efficient if bureaucratic reforms are made that focus on corruption prevention. This reform would lead to institutional reform, cultural reform, and organizational reform. The central questions discussed in this study are: what is the reason behind the increase in the number of corruption cases in Indonesia despite the existence a bundle of corruption eradication laws and regulations, and what is the form of collaboration between criminal law and state administrative law in implementing bureaucratic reforms to prevent corruption?

Introduction
Because of its devastating consequences on the economy and its global prevalence, corruption has been categorized as an organized and transnational crime by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). 1 (KPK) given the fact that the Indonesian society is being devastated by corruption, especially corruption committed by state officials or state apparatus. This can be seen from data from the KPK in the last 5 years based on profession/position. The data shows that corruption committed by public officials (heads of institutions/cabinet members and Echelon 1, 2, and 3 officials) is higher than that of private company executives. According to the data, of the 125 public official corruption cases handled by KPK in 2020, two involved President Jokowi's cabinet members.
Based on Law No. 30/2002, KPK is focused on three main issues, namely corruption prevention, corruption eradication, and stolen/embezzled asset recovery. This means that the work of the commission is not only limited to preventing and punishing corrupt officials but also and more importantly restoring state financial and material losses as a result of the corruption. This task is even harder than fighting the corrupt action itself according to criminal, administrative, and constitutional law experts because, although the corrupt action may be detected easily, it is very hard to trace hidden criminal assets. In addition to money recovery, KPK also recovers stolen properties such as land, vehicles, buildings/houses. 8 However, the rather sad reality in the fight against corruption in Indonesia is that, of all the laws and regulations enacted to fight corruption, including the famous law on KPK, which is immensely discussed in this paper, none of them lays out a comprehensive plan to prevent corruption. Their main focus is corruption eradication. This study discusses the issue as to what is the reason behind the increase in the number of corruption cases in Indonesia despite the existence of a bundle of corruption eradication laws and regulations. And as far as bureaucratic reform is concerned, Indonesian criminal law provides for cumulative criminal sanctions coupled with special minimum and maximum specific criminal rules. Besides these rules, there is also a variety of criminal sanctions imposed by judges that consist of commuting the sentence of convicted corrupt officials. This weakens the fight against corruption, the very act the judicial is supposed to fight. This system is broken and needs to be fixed starting from not only the improvement of the criminal law enforcement model but also collaborative state administrative law and bureaucratic reform. To reform the bureaucracy and apply strict state administrative law, the fundamental issue that must be discussed is, What is the form of collaboration between criminal law and state administrative law through bureaucratic reform to prevent corruption? This paper seeks to address this issue. The success of the Corruption Eradication Commission and the Corruption Court has inspired the Police Department, Attorney's Office, and Judiciary Body for reform. They are becoming more active and pre-emptive in fighting corruption. 9

Research methods
This research uses a normative legal research method drawing on elements from criminal law, state administrative law, and constitutional law. The reason why these three areas of law are used is that corruption goes beyond the field of criminal law to include both administrative and constitutional law. The analysis used is juridical-qualitative, namely by reviewing the applicable corruption and corruption-related laws and regulations along with laws related to bureaucratic reform to strengthen the fight against corruption within state apparatuses under the umbrella of criminal law. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive strategy is needed that includes elements of John Rawls's legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture in his theory of justice. To address the research problem, three strands of legal materials were used including primary legal materials as the main materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials as complementary materials to both primary and secondary legal materials. Data obtained from research results, both primary data (field data) and secondary data (library data) are processed by using a qualitative juridical method that takes into account the hierarchy of legislation, legal certainty, and both horizontal and vertical legal harmonization. All these methods are relevant to the research topic as they allow for the inventory of applicable laws and regulations. They also allow for the discovery of legal principles and the efficient use and functioning of legal institutions. Finally, these methods also allow for the implementation of the appropriate level of synchronization of laws and judicial actions in the fight against corruption in Indonesia.

Understanding the term bureaucratic reform
According to the Extended Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI), reform is a change that occurs drastically to improve a social, political, legal, religious, or economic field in a society or country. Reform in a country is generally triggered by three conditions: (a) a deviation in the state administration.
(b) the aspiration for better public services.
(c) the desire to uphold moral and ethical values within the administration.
Etymologically, the term bureaucracy comes from the French "bureau" which means office or desk, and from the Greek createin which means to organize. Bureaucracy has two main elements that can form understanding, namely formal regulations or norms and hierarchies. So, it can be said that the notion of bureaucracy is formal power based on regulations or laws and the ideal principles of the operation of an organization. Bureaucracy is an important instrument in society. Bureaucracy must be interpreted as a process and system that is rationally created to guarantee an orderly, certain, and easily controlled mechanism and work system.
Bureaucratic reform is a change in the mindset and work culture of the state apparatus and is an attempt to reform and make fundamental changes to the government administration system, especially institutional/organizational aspects, management, and human resources. 10 Bureaucratic reform is the implementation of public services to meet the needs and expectations of the population as well as to achieve good governance by providing efficient and accountable services to the public., 11,12

The long road to corruption laws enforcement in Indonesia
Corruption is so rampant in Indonesia that a special commission for its eradication namely the Corruption Eradication Commission for established in 2002 through Law No. 30 13 It is so pervasive that it was categorized as an international problem by the United Nation when on 31 October 2003, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention against Corruption. 14 Besides terrorism, narcotics, and psychotropic crimes, corruption is one of the crimes that get global attention. In general, corruption does not only result in state financial losses, but it can have a very broad negative impact on society, economy, security, politics, and culture. 15 Because it is often heard that corruption has become a "culture" in Indonesia, corruption is destroying the judiciary, democratic institutions, and the electoral process in Indonesia as pointed out by the Election Supervisory Body of the Republic of Indonesia (Bawaslu). 16 Romli Atmasasmita strongly points out that in addition to impoverishing Indonesian people, corruption also robs them of their economic and social rights. 17 Understanding corrupt government officials operate and how their crime is depleting state finances is not just enough, it is crucial to realize that corruption is a crime against the whole community. In a developing country like Indonesia, corruption is a violation of the social and economic rights of the community at large, it is a destructor of the social order. So, therefore, the eradication effort should not only be oriented toward deterring perpetrators but also and more importantly it should be directed at restoring the social and economic rights of the community and the public trust in government institutions. Considering this, Marwan Effendy (2005) argues that efforts to eradicate corruption include the creation of the following agencies/teams/ commissions 18 : (1) the Corruption Eradication Team (TPK), led by Attorney General Sugih Arto from 1967 to 1982; (2) Commission Four (K4) January-May 1970, chaired by Wilopo; ( In addition to these agencies, there are also financial and government oversight or institutions established based on the Constitution or other laws/regulations issued by the government such as the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Wasbang, BPKP, Inspector General, Inspectorate General, Supervisory Board of Non-departmental Institutions, Provincial Bawasda, and Regency/City Bawasda. As mentioned at the outset of this paper, the Indonesian government has also issued many regulations that can be used as the legal basis for the fight against corruption, namely: ( The repressive function carried out through cumulative criminal sanctions has been implemented and several perpetrators have served their sentences, but the goal to deter is yet to be reached as the number of corruption cases keeps increasing as shown by the 2020 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) released by Transparency International (TI). This report indicates that in terms of corruption, Indonesia scores 37 and ranks 102 out of 180 countries surveyed, this means that corruption is high in the public sector. This concerns the corruption related to clear procedures and public accountability, abuse of public resources, professionalism of civil servants, and independent audit. This data also shows that criminal punishment has failed to deter perpetrators and lower the number. The concept of punishment outlined in the corruption law, namely Law No. 31/1999 in conjunction with Law no. 20/2001 on Amendments to Law no. 31/1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, is not commensurate with the goal of punishment, namely, return the perpetrator of corruption to society as a good citizen and protect the public by prioritizing the precepts contained in Pancasila, the nation five philosophical pillars. 21 These are five explanations for this failure 22 : (1) Court verdicts on corruption cases are not carried out in front of the public, whereas in some countries these rulings are carried out in open spaces to deter anyone that is tempted to go down that road.
(2) In Indonesia, criminal sanctions for those convicted of corruption are the same as for those convicted of other crimes, as specified in Law No. 12/1995 on Corrections in conjunction with the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, so that in practice, the development efforts for corrupt officials are only more about personality development without providing independence development because independence development is not sufficient to be implemented. Efforts to foster independence are more about skill development, so it is not suitable when applied to corrupt officials who have already established competence/soft skills. To remediate this, prison sanctions must be substituted for social work sanctions and fines. Subside sanctions (alternative fines become confinement sanctions) must be prohibited because this will provide an opening for the convict to take subsidiary sanctions rather than fines. 23 Data shows that subsidiary sanction of imprisonment is preferred by a majority of convicted corrupt officials.
(3) The imposition of criminal sanctions has not been able to inhibit the level of corruption so far because they are mild and therefore, they seem to encourage perpetrators instead of deterring them.
(4) In punishing the perpetrators of corruption, judges mostly use Article 2 and Article 3 of the Corruption Law, which sets the criminal sanctions to 2 years and 2 months on average. Based on the results of ICW's 2015 after monitoring 524 corruption cases involving 564 convicted defendants, as many as 294 were proven to have violated Article 3, while 97 defendants violated Article 2 of the Anti-Corruption Law. Judges have never imposed capital punishment on perpetrators of corruption. Judges are more likely to punish perpetrators with Article 2 or 3 of the Corruption Law, which only imposes between 2 years and 4 years in prison. This seems like a slap in the face, not a harsh punishment for a crime of this magnitude. Evidence of this assumption lies in the increasing number of corruption cases every year, as indicated in the 2021 Annual Report of the Corruption Eradication Commission. 24 The following table 1 shows the most prevailing forms of corruption and their impact on the state economy.
The above figures show how massive the state's financial loss is. Keep in mind that this is taxpayers' money, not private money. It is money that was supposed to be used for the common good, to support critical programs that benefit the community. Figure1 shows that of the total money embezzled, only a tiny fraction was restored into the state treasury. This is a big loss that is already impacting a great majority of the Indonesian population, especially those already suffering from the Covid 19 pandemic. This can result in the public losing interest not just in the administration but also in every branch of the government along with democratic institutions and ultimately the electoral process. This is referred to by many Indonesian scholars as electoral corruption. 25 This is very detrimental to the rule of law and democracy as these two concepts heavily rely on the public's trust and participation in government affairs to operate. The public's trust and participation in public life is the key to good governance. Without the public's participation, the government would lack legitimacy.
Resolving the above situation should involve both repressive and preventive methods. The preventive aspect is not highlighted in Law No. 19/2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission for the Eradication of Corruption. KPK should develop a strong network and treat existing institutions as conducive "counter partners", so that the prevention and eradication of corruption can be carried out more efficiently, and per the general provisions stipulated in the legislation. KPK must also cooperate, supervise, and monitor existing institutions in a joint effort to prevent and eradicate corruption.
Until these bureaucratic reforms are met, enacting laws and regulations will not effectively address the issue of corruption. Bureaucratic reform will set the stage for an efficient implementation of existing laws and regulations. Bureaucratic reform implies the improvement of policies that allow for professional public services and eliminate maladministration. Such efforts can be seen in the enactment of Law No. 30/2014 on Government Administration, and Law No. 25/2009 on Public Services, as well as several statutory provisions that support the direction of bureaucratic reform, namely Presidential Decree No. 44 of 2000 on the National Ombudsman Commission. With the issuance of the various laws and regulations above, it is hoped that the state agencies can carry out their duties and authorities correctly and avoid corrupt actions, especially those related to abuse of authority by government officials.
In addition to reforming the above laws and regulations, which have proved to be less efficient in preventing corruption, reform can be made to provide more awareness and a change of attitude and mindset of the population in general and government officials in particular. In most developing countries and especially Indonesia in particular, it is common to see people bribe or give a gift to a public official in recognition of a service performed. Mostly, people turn a blind eye to such a practice as they do not consider it corruption. Public officials, on the other hand, believe they are entitled to certain favor for the service rendered and therefore expect such practices to be convoyed upon them. This practice can be traced back to the pre-colonial time when the people were used to loading the officials of the rulers with all sorts of gifts and commodities just because they believe they were entitled to them. Then came the Dutch colonizers who not only upheld this principle but somehow amplified it. Sadly, the Indonesians broke the chains of colonialism but did not get rid of this ancient mindset. It was a culture then, and it still is today, unfortunately. It might not look like corruption in the eyes of many Indonesians, but it encourages corruption. Hence the need for a cultural reform, one that is deeply rooted in the responsibility towards family and religion. Because one works to make a lawful and honest living to provide for themselves and their family. Given the fact that Indonesia is predominantly a Muslim country, religion needs to play a bigger role to increase family values, love for one another and the country, decency, honesty in handling the common good, and above all, the fear of ALLAH SWT.

Bureaucratic reform and strategic steps to accelerate the fight against corruption
Bureaucratic reform is the government's effort to improve administrative performance through various means aiming to create effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. 26 Realizing good, transparent, and professional government free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism is carried out through: a. Institutional arrangement, lean and flat organizational structure (there are not many hierarchical levels and the organizational structure is more dominant in professional/functional position holders than structural positions); b. Simple, concise, easy, and accurate management, clear mechanisms, systems, and procedures through optimizing the use of information and communication technology and having adequate offices, work facilities, and infrastructure; c. Structured human resources of the state apparatus that focus on the needs of the organization in terms of quantity and quality (professional, competent, ethical, high-performing, and prosperous; d. Accountability, quality performance, effective, efficient, and conducive; e. Excellent service (fast, precise, fair, consistent, transparent, etc.), satisfying customers, and good governance. 27 The first bureaucratic reform was carried out in 1962 by the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia under the administration of President Soekarno Hatta with the establishment of the State Apparatus Retooling Committee which was tasked to improve bureaucracy in the administration of public services. Furthermore, in 1966 still under President Soeharto Hatta, the Presidential Decree of the Ampera Cabinet No. 75 formed the Team for Controlling Government Apparatus and Administration (PAAP) that was in charge of reforming the administration and bureaucracy in Indonesia. Between 1980 and 1990 when President Suharto took power, the policy of bureaucratization and deregulation was closely related to the government's efforts to stimulate domestic and foreign capital investment in Indonesia through the open market economic system model. This political era was known as the Orde Baru or the New Order, President Suharto's political signature during which the bureaucracy in Indonesia was affiliated with both his political party Golkar (the single majority party in the House of Representative or Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) and the national army or TNI. The services provided by the bureaucracy during the New Order era received a lot of attention, especially the preferential treatment of Golkar constituents. However, a major political turmoil took place in 1997 when a monetary crisis led the population to put an end to President Suharto's presidency as the result of the accumulated public disillusionment in his tyrannical rules and policies. This was the beginning of the new political era known today as Era Reformasi or Reform Order. 28 In the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, bureaucratic reform is interpreted as a rearrangement of the system of governance that is run by government officials, both at the local and national government levels. The approach to bureaucratic reform based on the amendments to the 1945 Constitution is a systemic approach that prioritizes comprehension overextension. Based on the framework of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, the Ministry of Administrative Reform of the Republic of Indonesia may initiate reform through policy recommendations and restructuring to fix institutional/organizational problems; they may also use rationalization and policy relocation to address human resource problems of the state apparatus, they may also use simplification and automation policies to address system/procedure management problems, they may use policy of deculturating the old culture by enculturating a new culture address bureaucratic culture problems. Bureaucratic reform can be achieved through good governance. Ontologically, the paradigm shift of government towards governance is manifested in a shift in mindset from a bureaucratic orientation that originally served the interests of power to improve the quality of public services. 29 Bureaucratic reform efforts cannot be separated from the political, administrative, legal, and state finance dimensions because the complexity of the problems faced by the Indonesian bureaucracy is interrelated with these dimensions. Every effort that has been made needs to be evaluated so that any obstacles that arise can be addressed immediately. The success of bureaucratic reform is also determined by the creativity and innovation of each implementer. Bureaucratic reform must encourage more open (transparent) government practices that involve actors outside the government bureaucracy as government stakeholders. In other words, bureaucratic reform is a means of realizing a new paradigm of government from the government paradigm to the governance paradigm. 30

Fighting corruption through bureaucratic reform
To run the wheels of government optimally, the structure of the entire government needs to be reviewed through research to determine whether the number of cabinet members is adequate. The main duties and functions of each cabinet member and Head of Non-Departmental Government (LPND) need to be stated as clearly as possible to avoid overlap and duplication. 31 As stated earlier, bureaucratic reform is an effort to rearrange the government bureaucracy to allow it to provide excellent service to the public. Bureaucratic reform discussed in this paper are institutional reform, management reform; and human resources (apparatus) reform. 32 Institutional reform concerned government institutions and is needed to reorganize their organizational structure to form an organization with the right function and size (right sizing) to create a modern and accountable organization that operates effectively, and transparently, and prioritizes good services to the community. Reforms in the field of management are needed so that in carrying out technical, judicial, and administrative tasks, there are clear guidelines so that the results can be measured. Management reform is carried out by establishing clear, orderly, nonoverlapping systems, processes, and work procedures (SOPs), per the principles of good governance.
Human resources reform includes a change in the mindset and behavior discussed earlier and a change in work ethics. Changes in mindset must be carried out by all state apparatus starting from the top leadership to the lowest employees. The assumption that an official must be served must stop to encourage the love of public service because basically, the state apparatus is a servant of the community so it must prioritize service to the community. The change in the mindset will increase public trust in government and the sense of responsibility, which is closely related to the change in work ethics, which include the love for one's work, honesty, punctuality, respect for the customer, the desire to improve one's skills and knowledge and to give ones best to please the customer, the efficient use of budget, etc. A civil servant must have commendable behavior at work. They must be an example to the community, especially in terms of obedience and compliance with applicable laws and rules.
Finally, the purpose of bureaucratic reform is not only to efficient laws and regulations but more importantly to produce responsible civil servants who have high integrity, and high productivity, and who prioritize public services to create a clean, effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable bureaucracy. 33

Conclusion
As the United Nation put it, corruption has negative impacts on every aspect of society and is deeply intertwined with maladministration jeopardizing social and economic development, and undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law. 34 Despite the enactment of many laws and regulations, corruption is still rampant in Indonesia. This is partly due to the fact many if not all these laws and regulations have only focused on corruption eradication instead of corruption prevention which may be best achieved through bureaucratic reform. It allows for an efficient governance mechanism with constructive synergy between the government, the private sector, and the community. Preventing corruption, promoting transparency, and strengthening institutions are crucial if the government really wants to improve the living standard of the Indonesian people and keep Indonesia a rule of law and democratic nation. The fight against corruption should not only be limited to legal reform but also and more importantly, it must involve bureaucratic reform to eliminate maladministration and allow for the awareness and participation of every Indonesian and everyone living in Indonesia. It is the responsibility and right of everyone because it affects everyone. And that only through cooperation and the involvement of each and every individual and institution can Indonesia win the war against corruption. States, government officials, civil servants, law enforcement officers, media representatives, the private sector, civil society, academia, the public, and youth alike all have a role to play.