A year into the Prabowo Subianto – Gibran Rakabuming Raka administration, Indonesia’s fight against corruption stands at a dangerous crossroads. The language of reform still fills speeches, but the practice of power tells another story. Behind promises of “clean governance” lies a quiet but profound transformation: Law enforcement is no longer serving justice; it is serving politics. Over the past 12 months, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the National Police have amassed extraordinary authority.
On paper, this looks like progress—a stronger hand to prosecute wrongdoing. In reality, they have blurred the line between justice and power. Cases against opposition figures move swiftly, while those involving the ruling coalition’s inner circle fade into procedural limbo. Corruption has ceased to be merely a crime; it has become a political tool. The law, once meant to protect citizens, now disciplines adversaries and rewards loyalty.
Civil society groups call this “judicial capture,” the moment when executive power seeps so deeply into the courts and prosecution that impartiality dies. When prosecution becomes negotiation, justice loses its moral core. This dynamic was on full display when Prabowo granted sweeping clemency on July 31 – abolition for former trade minister Thomas Lembong and amnesty for 1,116 others, including Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) secretary-general Hasto Kristiyanto, who was still on trial for corruption. Never before had clemency been extended to defendants whose cases were unfinished. Politically, Prabowo crossed a crucial line, even if his clemency decision remained legally within his rights.
Corruption watchdogs such as Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Transparency International Indonesia (TII) and IM57+ warned that clemency without clear standards turns mercy into political currency. The timing was hardly coincidental. It came just as relations between the ruling coalition and the PDI-P began to thaw. “National reconciliation,” once a noble phrase, now sounds like a euphemism for political barter. Beyond the courtroom, conflicts of interest have spread through the bureaucracy. Programs like the free nutritious meal program and the Red and White Rural Cooperatives initiative were launched as pro-people initiatives but are now vehicles for elite competition. Reports suggest procurement chains and distribution channels are dominated by political allies. The same pattern extends to state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Dozens of politicians now sit on their boards, appointed without transparency or clear qualifications. What is justified as “reward for service” is the quiet normalization of state capture: political loyalty opening doors to public resources.
Meanwhile, the legal foundation for fighting corruption is being chipped away. The long-awaited Asset Forfeiture Bill, which would allow the state to seize stolen wealth, remains stuck in the House of Representatives despite years of promises. This delay costs Indonesia trillions in unrecovered funds. The failure to pass a comprehensive asset forfeiture law carries profound and damaging consequences that go beyond simply lost revenue. Without the ability to swiftly and legally seize illicit gains, the financial incentive for corruption remains high. Corrupt officials calculate that even if convicted, they have a strong chance of keeping their stolen assets hidden or transferring them to family members, making the risk of punishment acceptable. Currently, prosecutors must prove a direct link between the crime and the asset for every seizure, which is an arduous and often impossible task when dealing with complex, layered money laundering schemes.
An asset forfeiture law would shift the burden of proof, requiring suspects to explain the legitimate source of their vast, unexplained wealth. The absence of this law means state resources are wasted on slow, cumbersome recovery efforts. Unrecovered proceeds from corruption often feed back into the system, funding political campaigns, manipulating markets and allowing the cycle of graft to perpetuate itself. The delay ensures that the economic power of corruption continues to undermine legitimate governance and the free market. Indonesia lags behind its regional peers who have modern non-conviction-based asset recovery mechanisms. This lack of legal power makes international cooperation difficult, as foreign jurisdictions are hesitant to assist in repatriating funds without robust domestic laws in place. Instead of strengthening the law, lawmakers are now seeking to weaken it. Proposed revisions to the Anticorruption Law would narrow the definition of “abuse of power”, effectively shielding powerful decision-makers from accountability as long as they avoid direct bribery.
Critics warn that this would decriminalize policy-level corruption and turn impunity into law. Even punishment has lost its deterrent power. When former House speaker Setya Novanto walked free on parole in August after serving only two-thirds of his sentence for the Rp 2.3 trillion (US$138.74 million) e-ID card scandal, the public got the message loud and clear: In Indonesia, justice is negotiable. Hundreds of other convicts have quietly received sentence cuts, justified as “prison management”. The cumulative effect is deeply corrosive.
Law enforcement no longer stands above politics; it revolves around it. The moral authority of anti-corruption work, once Indonesia’s pride, is being eroded by political interference and executive overreach. Rebuilding integrity requires more than slogans. Prosecutors and judges must be shielded from political pressure. The House must prioritize asset recovery and political finance reform instead of immunity clauses for officials. Civil society, academics and professionals must reclaim the public narrative that corruption is not a partisan issue but a national one. A decade ago, Indonesia inspired the region with its bold experiment in democratic accountability.
Today, it risks becoming a cautionary tale of how democracy can preserve its form while hollowing out its soul. The true test of the Prabowo – Gibran administration will not be its efficiency, but its integrity: How it upholds the rule of law when power tempts it to do otherwise.
This article was published in thejakartapost.com on October 21, 2025.
Leave a Reply