The recent corruption case involving PT Pertamina has cost the country roughly 193 trillion IDR, or around 11 billion USD.

With songs like ”Bayar Bayar Bayar” by Sukatani becoming more popular, some people think that the culture is showing a much more realistic approach when dealing with the issue of corruption, in both Indonesia's political and economic landscape.

But it looks like pragmatism is just adding to the Indonesian people's disappointment. Seeing as the government has continued their seemingly nonchalant or even apathetic demeanor, at this point, the issue has been as tender as it is tired. While corruption is often seen as an administrative failure, its persistence shows we need to be asking a bigger question: Is it just a product of modern governance, or is it something that's been systematically built into Indonesia's history?

Democracy, or lack thereof, along with corruption, date back to pre-independence.

The Dutch East India Company, or the VOC, set up systems that rewarded elites and bureaucrats who kept their power through systems of subjugation, setting up a culture where power and wealth became closely intertwined. As a result, this has made bribery and favouritism commonplace for people to both exploit and be exploited by, and a legacy that continues to stand strong to this day.

Post-independence, political instability and economic mismanagement reinforced corruption as a tool of governance. Under Soekarno’s rule, the state relied heavily on informal military and political elite networks to maintain control. These networks strengthened after the G30S PKI in 1965, which involved the murder and kidnapping of important military generals and officers, as well as a civilian, the daughter of a general. This marked the beginning of Suharto's New Order era. 

By prioritizing economic growth through the centralization of power, institutionalized corruption wreaked havoc on the country, bringing unprecedented levels of oppression as dissenters were silenced left and right. After three decades in power, ending in 1998 amidst the financial crisis and nationwide protests, Transparency International estimated that Suharto embezzled between 15 billion to 35 billion USD worth in state funds, making him one of the most corrupt leaders in history.

Following his downfall, the priority was the implementation of major democratic reforms, which included the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in 2002, which was seen as steps toward greater accountability. However, due to severe structural weaknesses, legal rollbacks, and persistent political interference, since then little to no progress has been made in culling back the corruption that has taken root. Despite its initial success, the KPK’s ability to function independently has been increasingly undermined, reflecting broader challenges in Indonesia’s efforts to combat corruption.

While democracy introduced greater transparency mechanisms, corruption remains embedded in state-owned enterprises, procurement processes, and electoral politics. High-profile scandals—such as the Bank Century bailout and the Jiwasraya investment fraud case—demonstrate that corruption is no longer confined to government institutions but extends to private corporations and financial sectors.

Indonesia's ranking of 99th out of 180 countries in the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index reflects these ongoing challenges.

Despite anti-corruption rhetoric; weak enforcement, legal loopholes, and institutional fragmentation continue to facilitate corrupt practices at all levels of governance.

Moreover, recent policy changes have further hindered reformation efforts. The weakening of the KPK’s investigative authority, coupled with increased police involvement in corruption cases, has led to growing concerns over the politicization of law enforcement. The erosion of judicial independence has exacerbated these issues, allowing those in power to manipulate legal frameworks for personal and political gain.

Debates of stagnation in the Reformation Era after its 25-year run are in talks due to setbacks in former President’s Joko Widodo’s administration—with concentration of power in the presidential seat and military positions while the civil society’s voices are being dampened. National Alliance expert Manuel Kaisiepo relayed to Kompas,

”Unfortunately, during the period of 2014-2024, there has been a stagnant democracy towards a worse decline. From stagnation to experiencing decline. In the past 10 years, there has been a pattern of a joint coalition among the president, parliament, political parties, military, police, and oligarchs.”

Following the now presidential era of Prabowo Subianto, the New Order dictator’s son-in-law, the political elite’s idea now is to build a permanent large coalition; more so to justify a deterioration in Indonesia’s trust in democracy.

While Indonesia struggles with deep-rooted corruption, other nations have successfully implemented reforms to curb its impact. With examples such as;

• Singapore addressed corruption through strict legal enforcement, an independent anti-corruption agency, and robust public sector accountability.

• South Korea demonstrated that prosecuting high-ranking officials, including former presidents and corporate leaders, can reinforce institutional integrity.

• Georgia reduced corruption significantly by digitizing government services and eliminating bureaucratic inefficiencies, limiting opportunities for bribery.

These examples suggest that strong political will, institutional independence, and public oversight are critical factors in effectively reducing corruption. However, they also highlight the necessity of consistent enforcement and structural reforms rather than temporary anti-corruption campaigns.

A key question remains: Is corruption primarily a structural issue, or is it culturally ingrained? While historical patterns indicate that corruption has long been embedded in governance structures, recent developments suggest that its persistence is driven by weak institutions rather than cultural predisposition.

Eliminating corruption entirely may be unrealistic, but minimizing its influence requires fundamental changes in governance. Without systemic reform, corruption will remain a self-perpetuating cycle, continuing to undermine economic development, public trust, and democratic stability.

The PT Pertamina corruption case and ongoing legal restrictions on the KPK exemplify the persistent struggle between anti-corruption efforts and institutional resistance. While historical precedents have shaped corruption in Indonesia, its continued prevalence reflects failures in governance, legal enforcement, and political accountability.

The question is not whether corruption can be theoretically handled or not.

The real issue is whether Indonesia will take decisive steps to address it. Without independent institutions, transparent governance, and active civic participation, corruption will continue to dominate political and economic systems.