4 October 2024 –
The necessity of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) is often debated, especially when considering some of the least corrupt countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which lack such agencies and have fewer anti-corruption laws. This debate has gained traction due to concerns about the integrity of ACAs, raising questions about whether they are part of the solution or part of the problem. Doubts about the credibility of these bodies, which are meant to uphold integrity across various organizations, further fuel this discussion. However, eliminating ACAs to solve their issues is not a viable solution. Instead, developing collaborative and creative approaches to address these challenges is crucial.
The 17th UNCAC Coalition Asia-Pacific regional meeting emphasized the importance of integrity within anti-corruption agencies. During the meeting, Adam Graycar, Professor Emeritus at the University of Adelaide, Australia, and Kurnia Ramadhan, Head of Judiciary Monitoring at Indonesia Corruption Watch, called on civil society organizations to advocate for effective and accountable anti-corruption agencies.
The meeting gathered 24 participants from the region including Asia-Pacific members, and affiliated groups, and colleagues from the Coalition’s Hub.
How to assess the integrity of the ACAs
Anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) play a crucial role in the battle against corruption. Their importance is highlighted in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), adopted in 2003. Article 6 of the UNCAC specifically mandates the establishment and effectiveness of a specialized body equipped with the legal and institutional capacity to combat corruption.
For an anti-corruption agency (ACA) to be effective, political commitment is essential. However, ACAs must also demonstrate the courage and capacity to prosecute all perpetrators of corruption impartially. Transparency International’s report, Strengthening Anti-Corruption Agencies in Asia Pacific, assesses the effectiveness and integrity of ACAs across six Asian countries. This comprehensive study examines seven key components of ACAs and employs a specially developed methodology, using 50 different indicators to measure effectiveness. The report highlights critical areas such as ACA independence, accountability, and integrity, alongside their abilities in detection, education, investigation, and prosecution. Addressing these concerns is crucial for ACAs to function effectively and uphold their mandate in the fight against corruption. This assessment tool can be a guideline for CSOs to assess their ACAs.
What kind of ACA do you need?
Corruption thrives where there is opportunity. In other words, the more opportunities there are for engaging in corruption, the more incidents of corruption will occur. Anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) are designed to restrict these opportunities. However, there are instances where ACAs, tasked with preventing the abuse of power, end up abusing their own entrusted power. More anti-corruption laws do not necessarily result in less corruption. It’s essential to have checks and balances not only on the actions but also on the status and power of ACAs.
When considering the role of an anti-corruption agency, it is important to ask: Is it about the law or the opportunity? Laws are created to reduce opportunities for corruption, but they are only effective if they do so. Professor Adam argues that laws alone do not guarantee less corruption unless they effectively limit opportunities for corrupt behavior and are supported by a culture that does not tolerate corruption.
Professor Adam Graycar identifies various types of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) based on their effectiveness. The first type, which he refers to as “watchdogs,” have ample resources, independence, and are not influenced by politicians. Singapore and Hong Kong’s ACAs are prime examples of effective watchdogs in the Asia-Pacific region.
The second type, known as “attack dogs,” are used by governments to target political opponents. These agencies often function with a political agenda rather than a genuine commitment to combating corruption.
The third type, referred to as “paper tigers” or “toothless tigers,” have limited resources, powers, and jurisdiction. These agencies often lack the political will to take effective action against corruption.
Professor Adam emphasizes that for an ACA to be effective, it must have both functional jurisdiction and the ability to act independently. Without these key factors, an anti-corruption agency cannot fulfill its mandate effectively.
Are ACAs Problem-Solvers or Problems? ICW is advocating for a problem-solving ACA- KPK Indonesia
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) is dedicated to strengthening the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Indonesia. Kurnia from ICW has voiced concerns over Indonesia’s declining score in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) since 2019. This decline is attributed to the 2019 revision of the KPK law, which has weakened the commission. The KPK is no longer considered an independent agency, with its supervisory board members being selected by the President.
The current KPK leader was chosen by the President and the House of Representatives. He is a former police general, accused of committing several ethical violations during his tenure as KPK’s Deputy of Enforcement from 2018 to 2019. In 2018, ICW reported him for these alleged violations. Consequently, ICW calls for a reform in the selection criteria for KPK commissioners, emphasizing the need for integrity, competence, and independence. They also urge the government to consider their recommended candidates and to transparently announce the names of the Selection Committee members.
Having an ACA does not automatically solve corruption problems. Ensuring the integrity of an ACA requires independent and accountable leadership, transparent recruitment processes, an adequate budget, skilled staff, and a well-defined strategy. These key factors are essential for the effective functioning and development of anti-corruption agencies.
Improving the Integrity of ACAs: The Role of Civil Society Organizations
Enhancing the integrity of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) is a challenging task, but the civil society organizations (CSOs) can play a crucial role in this endeavor. By organizing workshops, skill development training, and other educational programs, CSOs can make a significant impact.
CSOs can drive change by advocating for structural reforms and promoting integrity, education, and mobilization among the general public. A holistic educational and cultural approach can be effective in fostering a culture of integrity. Additionally, CSOs can explore and develop situational countermeasures to combat corruption, as recommended by Professor Adam.
Through these efforts, civil society can help restore and strengthen the integrity of ACAs, ensuring they operate effectively and independently in the fight against corruption.