|
|
Pemilu Presiden, Legislatif, Pilkada
Corruption amid a disaster's rubble
2008-06-13
A report released here on Thursday by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
focuses on corruption across the Asia Pacific region. The UNDP Asia−Pacific Human
Development Report 2008, titled Tackling Corruption, Transforming Lives, looks at corruption
in the Asia−Pacific region.
One of the Report's findings is that regions that suffer from a disaster or conflict are also the
same regions most likely to suffer from high levels of corruption. Does a disaster mean there will
be an increase in corruption? There are a number of reasons to suggest there is a link.
One feature common to disasters is that regular systems of control break down. When a disaster
strikes, the capacity of government agencies to enforce rules and regulations and uphold
standards is weakened. Critical records of account are lost. Key staff and leaders can be lost in
the disaster or be forced to flee from conflict. Either way there is diminished government
capacity.
In most disasters, markets become dysfunctional. Supply chains are disrupted, demand patterns
change dramatically and the capacity to finance production or purchases is undermined. Other
impacts can even include a break down in social order, such as rioting and looting −− all of which
can exacerbate the impact of dysfunctional markets and weakened Government capacity.
Each of these sudden changes can undermine trust −− a hard to measure but critical component of
the social fabric that sustains community.
Under all of these circumstances people are forced to adjust societies' "rules of the game". The
result is that social, economic, administrative and political resistance to corruption is weakened.
Additionally in many disasters or post−conflict recovery programs there is a large amount of
fresh money promised by an assortment of funding agencies −− donors, NGOs and other
13 June 2008
international agencies. Most of these agencies will be quite unfamiliar with the local conditions,
but are determined to assist support−affected communities. Many in the local communities will
be unfamiliar with how these new agencies operate but are keen to receive support.
This combination of factors combines the great need (of victims) with significant fresh resources
(usually with tight headquarter timetables to spend or lose), but with weakened local capacity to
deliver and ironically even to absorb this assistance. This dynamic produces the completely
predictable behavior of cutting corners to get the job done quickly, and therefore to be less
concerned for due process and prudence. One logical side effect of this will be leakage of funds.
I believe it is possible to avert the long−term damage caused by corruption to the lives of those
people already affected by a disaster.
The first major step is simply to acknowledge that a disaster situation will heighten opportunities
for abuse of authority for personal benefit. To argue otherwise is irresponsible. Indeed, such
arguments offer the enabling environment for corrupt practices to take hold.
A second issue is to reject the notion that corruption greases the wheels of the bureaucracy. It
does not. Indeed the report quotes one prominent Indonesian leader who declares that corruption
is not grease, but rather "a spanner in the works".
Having accepted these two positions, policy makers are then forced to ask themselves what must
be done to reduce the potential for corruption to subvert post−disaster recovery efforts.
One key strategy is to promote a culture of transparency. This means that affected communities
need to know how the donors and NGOs operate. They need to be aware that different systems
do not necessarily mean corruption. Transparency helps to remove a fog of unclarity which some
people exploit for their own ends. Importantly, transparency levels the playing field and allows
common citizens, who do not enjoy special access to policy makers, to know what they should
expect and how programs should be conducted.
There is also a need for accessible systems of communication and complaint, so that grievances
and questions can be addressed, thus reducing the potential for social suspicion and hostility.
Disaster situations are ones in which standard operating procedures do not work for the public
good. In order to redress the problems of bureaucracy the answer is not by getting around it (that
13 June 2008
is corrupting the system), but rather "fixing it". The guiding principles must be what rules and
regulations should operate in a disaster situation, but which continue to provide high standards of
accountability and constrict opportunities for abuse.
Proposals should include reforming the way procurement and audit takes place in disaster
situations. Independent real−time evaluation of costs and prices should be applied in order to
better identify whether prices paid were or were not reasonable, or that the pace of project
implementation was or was not reasonable.
There is also a need for disaster policy makers to see integrity control systems not as costs, but as
investments. For example, in the case of Indonesia's Agency for Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction in Aceh and Nias (BRR), the actual expenditures made to maintain its Anti
Corruption Unit has been vastly less than savings it has made in preventing potential losses due
to corruption. In short, good control systems are excellent investments.
Outside the heat of the battle for managing a disaster there is a need for some cool−headed policy
thinking about how to streamline regulations and operating procedures in order to limit the
potential for abuse and other forms of corruption.
In this regard, Indonesia's recent experiences with both disaster and post−conflict management
offer some valuable lessons for the region and the world.
This article was published by The Jakarta Post on 13 June 2008 at the time of the launch of the
U DP's Asia Pacific Regional Human Development Report which focused on the theme of
corruption. I was asked to produce an input paper on the dynamics of corruption in special
development situations, that is natural disasters, armed conflicts and political transition – each
of which have been experienced in Indonesia over the past few years
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
