*SALARY POPULISM, THE DEATH OF INTEGRITY: THE STATE’S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE ROOTS OF CORRUPTION*
By:
*Masduki Duryat*
(Lecturer in Education Policy Analysis_)
Indramayu, July 11, 2926
When a prosecutor is suspected of involvement in major cases and searches of several locations uncover billions of rupiah and tens of kilograms of gold, the public is no longer simply angry—the public is disgusted.
Even more painful, this scandal occurred amidst the president’s confident policy of increasing the salaries of law enforcement officers by hundreds of percent.
Instead of being a solution, this policy now appears to be a grave irony: the state is spending a fantastic budget, while its officials continue to shamelessly sell the law.
*Policy Populism: High Salaries as an Instant Cure*
The 300 percent salary increase for law enforcement is a policy that appears politically populist, but is substantively problematic. The president seems to want to demonstrate his support for legal reform, but his chosen approach is simplistic—considering corruption solely a welfare issue.
This is a fundamental error in reading reality. Corruption in Indonesia is not born of poverty, but rather of greed fostered by power with little control (Becker, 1968).
This policy also demonstrates the state’s failure to diagnose the disease. Corruption among law enforcement is not simply an economic issue, but also a matter of mentality, organizational culture, and impunity.
When the system allows violations without firm consequences, no amount of salary will change behavior. The state is like giving “vitamins” to a body that is actually suffering from chronic cancer.
*Leadership Contradictions: Rhetoric vs. Reality*
The President talks about legal reform and eradicating corruption, but the reality on the ground shows a glaring contradiction. Salary increases without accompanying oversight reforms and elite exemplary behavior will only breed public cynicism. Furthermore, the public perceives a double standard in law enforcement—sharp downwards, blunt upwards. Under these conditions, any policy will lose moral legitimacy (Fukuyama, 2014).
Rather than curbing corruption, salary increases without systemic reform have the potential to create moral hazard. Officials feel they are “appreciated” by the state, but without strict oversight, they continue to exploit gaps in power for personal gain. In fact, in many cases, corruption becomes more sophisticated and difficult to detect. This shows that financial incentives without integrity only soften, rather than eliminate, corrupt practices (Rose-Ackerman, 1999).
When public policy fails to address the root of the problem, it loses not only effectiveness but also the state’s moral authority. The public begins to question the government’s seriousness in eradicating corruption. Is this truly reform, or merely political image-building? Eroded public trust is a serious threat to the sustainability of the rule of law (Tyler, 2006).
*Spiritual Dimension: Corruption as a Betrayal of Trust*
From an ethical and religious perspective, policies that only emphasize material aspects without building integrity are a flawed approach.
Corruption is a betrayal of trust, not simply an administrative violation. When the spiritual dimension is ignored, office becomes a tool of exploitation. This is what we are witnessing now: highly paid officials with little integrity.
What’s needed now is not just a salary increase policy, but the political courage to implement comprehensive reforms: strengthening independent oversight, taking action indiscriminately, and building a culture of integrity from top to bottom. Without this, the president’s policies will be merely half-hearted reforms—looking grand on the surface, but hollow on the inside.
*Conclusion: A Failure That Must Be Admitted*
It’s time for the state to be honest with itself: salary increases are not the primary solution to eradicating corruption. If this policy continues without fundamental evaluation, we will only witness repeated failures.
Even more tragically, the state will continue to spend large sums on something that doesn’t address the root of the problem. And at the same time, the law will remain a commodity—bought and sold by those who are supposed to protect it.**
—–
