Legal Transformation in Limiting Human Rights in the Dilemma of
Preventing Nepotism and Corruption
Andik Puja1 , Faisal Santiago2
Borobudur University, Indonesia
[email protected] 1,
[email protected]2
|
Abstract |
||
|
Legal transformation in
restricting human rights (HR) has become a crucial issue in efforts to
prevent nepotism and corruption. This phenomenon creates a dilemma between
maintaining government integrity and protecting human resources, such as the
right to freedom of politics, expression, and work. This study aims to
explore how the law in Indonesia has changed in restricting human resources
to prevent nepotism and corrupt practices and analyze whether these
restrictions are in line with the principles of justice and proportionality.
The research method used is normative law, with a legislative approach and
case studies. Secondary data were collected through analysis of laws,
regulations, and court documents related to corruption and nepotism. The
research findings show that legal transformation in Indonesia has resulted in
stricter regulations on conflicts of interest; however, in some cases,
restrictions on HR are considered excessive, leading to potential violations
of individual rights. In conclusion, although there is a need to control
nepotism and corruption, it is important for the government to ensure that HR
restrictions remain proportional and in line with international standards.
The implication of this study is the need for more comprehensive,
transparent, and accountable legal reform. The government needs to ensure
that any anti-corruption regulations that restrict human rights are based on
clear needs and are closely monitored to prevent abuse of power. Public
involvement in oversight should also be increased to strengthen legal
legitimacy and public trust. Keywords: Legal transformation, human rights, nepotism,
corruption, legal regulation |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
*Corresponding Author: Andik
Puja
Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
In the midst of increasingly rapid global
developments, challenges to law enforcement and protection of human rights
(HAM) are becoming increasingly complex. One of the main issues that continues
to emerge is efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption, collusion, and
nepotism (KKN). The phenomenon of KKN has a very broad impact on society,
damaging the social and economic order of life, and reducing public trust in
state institutions. However, in efforts to overcome this problem, legal
dilemmas often arise related to restrictions on human rights, especially
political rights and individual privacy. Corruption, collusion, and nepotism
are forms of abuse of power that have become part of the structural problems in
many countries, including Indonesia. Therefore, it is important to understand
how legal transformation can address this problem without sacrificing the basic
rights of individuals. Efforts to limit these negative practices often conflict
with the principles of human rights that must be protected in every legal
system. In this context, this article will examine how legal transformation
plays a role in limiting human rights, especially in dealing with the dilemma
of preventing nepotism and corruption
Corruption and nepotism are not only local issues, but
also global problems that affect many countries in the world. According to
Restrictions on human rights in order to prevent
corruption have great urgency. One example is the restriction of political
rights, such as the right to be elected or the right to work in the public
sector for individuals who are proven to be involved in corrupt practices. On
the other hand, such restrictions must be carried out carefully so as not to
violate broader human rights principles, such as freedom of association, the
right to be free from discrimination, and the right to decent work and livelihood.
Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a Clean and
Corruption-Free State, which is implemented in Indonesia, regulates very severe
sanctions against those who are proven to have practiced corruption. However,
problems arise when efforts to eradicate corruption involve restrictions on
political rights and individual freedoms that are sometimes difficult for
society to accept widely, especially when these rights are considered
fundamental in a democratic system
Several studies and literature have discussed various
aspects related to corruption, collusion, and nepotism, as well as the
relationship between corruption and nepotism and restrictions on human rights.
In terms of supervision and prevention of corruption,
collusion and nepotism, Warokka (2017) discusses the role of the Ombudsman in
ensuring public services are free from corruption. He emphasizes the importance
of independent supervision to maintain government accountability in preventing
abuse of power. In addition,
The proposed legal transformation in limiting human
rights to prevent nepotism and corruption should not only focus on the
application of harsh sanctions, but also on institutional reform and increasing
transparency. One reform that can be done is to introduce a more efficient
monitoring system and involve public participation in supervision. This system
will not only prevent the occurrence of corruption, collusion and nepotism, but
also ensure that individual rights are respected. In addition, digital technology
can be used to increase transparency in government and public recruitment
processes, so that nepotism practices can be avoided more effectively. The use
of technology-based systems in the CPNS selection process, for example, can
minimize the potential for corruption practices that occur in the field
This article aims to explore the legal dilemmas that
arise in efforts to prevent corruption, especially in relation to restrictions
on human rights. Restrictions on human rights in the context of eradicating
corruption and nepotism require a careful approach so as not to conflict with
the basic principles of democracy and human rights. Therefore, legal reform and
stricter supervision, as well as the use of transparent technology, are key to
achieving a balance between preventing corruption and protecting human rights.
It is important for the state to ensure that the laws applied in eradicating
corruption do not ignore the basic rights of individuals. In this case, legal
transformation that not only prevents corruption but also prioritizes human
rights principles will create a more just, transparent, and accountable system
of government
The research approach used in this study is a
normative legal approach that examines the transformation of law in limiting
human rights in an effort to prevent nepotism and corruption. This approach was
chosen because the research focuses on the analysis of applicable legal norms,
both in laws and in legal practices in Indonesia.
The type of research used is descriptive-analytical
research. This research systematically explains the regulations and legal
policies that limit human rights in order to prevent nepotism and corruption.
Furthermore, this research also analyzes whether these restrictions are in
accordance with the principles of justice and proportionality in law.
The population in this study includes all laws and
regulations relevant to the prevention of nepotism and corruption in Indonesia,
including laws, government regulations, presidential decrees, and court
decisions. The research sample was selected purposively, which is a legal
document that is considered the most relevant and representative to be
analyzed.
The data collection technique used is a literature
study. Data is collected from primary legal sources such as laws and court
decisions, as well as secondary sources such as scientific journals, law books,
and related research reports published in the period 2019-2024.
The data analysis technique used is qualitative
analysis. The collected data is analyzed in depth by examining the contents of
selected laws and court decisions. The results of the analysis are then
interpreted based on legal theory and human rights principles to assess the
suitability between human rights restrictions and the objectives of preventing
nepotism and corruption.
The practice of Corruption, Collusion, and
Nepotism (KKN) in Indonesia has not been fully addressed. Various efforts and
good intentions from officials in government institutions have been expressed
with a commitment to firmly combat KKN. All national potential has been
directed to designing a Good Government and Clean Government system as a way
out of the KKN crisis.
During the five-year period from 1998 to 2003,
through representatives, several legal instruments regulating KKN were formed
to replace Law No. 3 of 1971 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of
Corruption. Some of these laws include:
1. Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the
Implementation of a State Free from Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism (State
Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia 1999 Number 75, Supplement to the State
Gazette Number 3851).
2. Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (State Gazette of the Republic of
Indonesia 1999 Number 140, Supplement to the State Gazette Number 3874).
3. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (State Gazette of the Republic of
Indonesia 2001 Number 134, Supplement to the State Gazette Number 4150).
4. Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) (State Gazette of the Republic of
Indonesia 2002 Number 137, Supplement to the State Gazette Number 4250).
Nepotism creates significant social inequality
in society. When public officials appoint family members to strategic positions
without considering their qualifications and professional competence, it risks
reducing the effectiveness of work and the quality of public services. This
injustice can lead to social and economic marginalization, worsen the economic
conditions of society, and disrupt political stability. This practice can
encourage monopolies in government projects, where companies without nepotistic
connections seek to approach powerful individuals through illegal means, such
as bribery and gratification.
Nepotism in the distribution of government
projects hampers innovation and efficiency in the economic sector. Projects
managed under a nepotistic system tend to face cost overruns and quality
declines, negatively impacting the state budget and slowing down infrastructure
development and public services while reducing the competitiveness of the
national economy.
Nepotism can also reduce public trust in
government and public institutions. In addition, nepotism fosters social
frustration and apathy among the people, reducing their participation in
national and state development, while weakening integrity and transparency in
government management. Nepotism undermines the values of justice and
transparency in government, creates a culture of corruption and worsens
existing social conditions. This can increase social dissatisfaction and
tension, where marginalized communities tend to adopt a passive attitude
towards development and government oversight. This situation, in turn, can
endanger the future of the nation and state.
One of the main consequences of nepotism is
the emergence of social injustice. This occurs because nepotism tends to ignore
the principles of meritocracy and individual qualifications, thus hindering
social mobility and creating a gap in opportunities between individuals with
strong (relational) connections and those who do not. According to Sari (2021),
nepotism exacerbates social inequality by prioritizing the family or relatives
of officials without considering more qualified and competent individuals. As a
result, opportunities for skilled individuals to improve their social and
economic conditions are limited, which further strengthens the gap across
social strata.
In addition, nepotism can also increase the
level of corruption in public institutions. When public positions are filled
based on family or personal relationships, the quality of public services can
become unprofessional, complicated, and result in social dissatisfaction.
Kurniawan and Setiawan (2020) explain that placing individuals in strategic
positions due to nepotism has a negative impact on the efficiency and
effectiveness of public services, because decisions made are based on personal
relationships rather than abilities or qualifications. This has the potential
to reduce the quality of public services, reduce public trust in government
institutions, and damage the legitimacy of government functions.
Corruption is often considered a cultural
heritage rooted in the patrimonial system that has existed since the era of
kingdoms and traditional society in Indonesia. According to Onghokham, in
traditional kingdoms, there is no distinction between private wealth and public
wealth; the wealth of the royal family is often seen as equal to the wealth of
the state. In this context, wealth is used as a tool to buy the loyalty of
important officials, generals, regents, and other elites.
Feudal mindset and patrimonial culture have
been an inseparable part of Indonesia's social dynamics to this day. The
dominance of such culture forms strong social solidarity, although it often
includes illegal practices, including corruption. Solidarity and social
cohesion among corrupt actors manifest complex challenges in efforts to
eradicate corruption.
When this social solidarity develops among
corrupt actors, serious challenges arise in combating corruption. Corrupt
practices are often carried out collectively and involve multiple parties who
support each other, creating a culture of impunity. When individuals in this
network feel secure in their solidarity, the risk of law enforcement becomes
low. This makes it difficult for law enforcement agencies to uncover and
process corruption cases involving multiple actors. In addition, this
patrimonial culture can cause public hesitation to report corruption, fearing
social consequences or retaliation from the perpetrators.
On the other hand, feudal mindsets and
patrimonial cultures create rifts between the people and the leaders. When
leaders are seen as figures with absolute power and protected by solidarity
networks, the public tends to feel alienated and less trusting of the
government system. This alienation can trigger greater apathy and
dissatisfaction with the government, which ultimately undermines the legitimacy
and effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts. To overcome this challenge, there
is a need for an approach that engages the public in fighting corruption,
including raising awareness of the importance of transparency and
accountability.
Although the bureaucratic system has undergone
modernization, if the mindset and social structure are still influenced by
patrimonial nuances, efforts to eradicate corruption will always be hampered by
the existing cultural mentality. This shows that for successful eradication of
corruption, fundamental changes in thinking and social systems in society are
needed.
In Indonesia, legal developments in preventing
nepotism and corruption have undergone significant transformation in line with
efforts to increase government accountability. After the end of the New Order
regime, society and the government realized the need for stricter measures to
address practices that undermine the integrity of state administration. One
important milestone in this regard was the enactment of Law No. 28 of 1999
concerning the Implementation of a Clean State Free from Corruption, Collusion,
and Nepotism (KKN).
This law serves as a legal basis that
emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in state
administration. With the enactment of this law, state administrators are
expected to operate based on clear and open principles, thereby reducing the
possibility of corruption and nepotism. In addition, this law provides a clear
definition of what constitutes corruption, collusion, and nepotism, and
emphasizes that such practices cannot be tolerated in government.
As part of the prevention efforts, Law No. 28
of 1999 imposes strict sanctions on public officials involved in corruption and
nepotism. These sanctions include administrative, criminal, and civil actions
that can be imposed on individuals or groups who violate the regulations. With
these sanctions, it is hoped that they can instill a deterrent effect among
state administrators to avoid participating in practices that are detrimental
to the public interest.
Legal developments did not stop at that law.
Furthermore, the government issued various regulations and additional legal
instruments aimed at strengthening anti-KKN efforts. For example, Law No. 31 of
1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and Law No. 30
of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), were designed
to create an independent institution with the authority to investigate,
prosecute, and effectively combat corruption.
Restrictions on Human Rights (HR) are
permissible in certain contexts but must meet international standards,
especially the principle of proportionality. This principle emphasizes that any
restrictions imposed must be in line with the objectives to be achieved. In the
context of governance, the main purpose of such restrictions is to maintain
integrity and transparency in the administration of the state. This means that
when the state takes steps to limit some individual rights, these steps must be
justified and not exceed what is necessary to achieve that objective.
However, in practice, in Indonesia, there are
still many cases where HR restrictions are applied excessively, resulting in
violations of individual rights. For example, policies that limit access to
certain jobs for family members of public officials intended to prevent
nepotism are a good goal; however, these restrictions are often not accompanied
by a clear mechanism to assess the relevance and impact of these measures. In
the absence of adequate explanation, these restrictions can be considered a form
of unfair discrimination.
The implications of these disproportionately
applied restrictions result in injustice for the individuals affected. Those
faced with such restrictions often feel that their rights are being ignored,
and they have ineffective channels to defend their interests. When individual
rights are not taken seriously, it can lead to an erosion of public trust in
government institutions. This sense of injustice can breed frustration among
the public, especially when they feel that the policies are not being implemented
fairly and transparently.
Thus, the principles of justice and
proportionality are two important concepts in law and ethics that are often
used in the context of policy-making, law enforcement, and human rights
protection. First, the principle of justice is concerned with the fair and
equal treatment of all individuals. It encompasses several aspects: equality
where all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law without
discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or other factors; fairness demands
that everyone has an equal right to legal protection and opportunity;
procedural justice ensures that legal processes are conducted transparently and
fairly, including the right to a lawyer, the right to be heard, and the right
to defend oneself. Fair processes are essential to achieving legitimate
outcomes. Furthermore, substantive justice is concerned with the outcomes
produced by legal processes, ensuring that decisions are based not only on the
rules but also take into account the context and needs of the individuals involved;
and distributive justice focuses on the distribution of resources and benefits
in society, demanding that resources, opportunities, and burdens are shared
fairly among all members of society.
Second, the principle of proportionality
focuses on the appropriateness and balance between the objective to be achieved
and the measures taken to achieve that objective, such as appropriateness where
the measures taken must be in line with the objective being pursued. For
example, if the objective is to prevent corruption, then the preventive
measures taken must be relevant and effective in achieving that objective.
Balancing interests requires that measures must not be excessive or too severe
compared to the benefits obtained. In the context of restrictions on human
rights, the measures taken must provide benefits that outweigh the harm caused
to the rights of individuals. The underlying need dictates that the measures
must stem from a compelling and clear need; intervention should only occur if
there is a strong and clear reason to do so.
In addition, overcoming the dangers posed by
nepotism requires solutions through various strategies, such as reforming
policies and regulations by creating clear and firm policies or regulations to
prohibit nepotism in both the public and private sectors; mandating
transparency in the recruitment and promotion process while imposing strict
penalties for violations of the rules; enforcing strict law enforcement to
ensure compliance with anti-nepotism regulations. In addition, effective
monitoring with severe penalties for violations committed by perpetrators of
nepotism must be established, with guaranteed and fair legal consequences.
The establishment of an independent oversight
committee serves to monitor and evaluate nepotism practices; this committee
should not be directly involved in the recruitment and promotion process. A
safe and objective complaint system regarding nepotism cases should also be
available.
This independent oversight committee is
responsible for increasing accountability and reducing opportunities for
nepotism. They have the authority to conduct investigations and provide
recommendations for improvement. Periodic evaluations and audits will be
conducted to identify and address nepotism issues. In addition, the committee
will proactively analyze HR management policies and practices to determine
potential nepotism violations and ensure compliance with anti-nepotism policies
in the recruitment and promotion process.
Clear and firm policies on nepotism need to be
implemented to minimize the risk of abuse of power. Effective regulations
should include a clear definition of what constitutes nepotism and provide
effective reporting mechanisms for individuals who wish to report violations.
In addition, it is also important to implement
a fair system in the recruitment and promotion process for key positions to
reduce the practice of nepotism. A meritocratic system should focus on
individual qualifications, competencies, and performance, with decisions based
on objective criteria. Suryanto and Agustin (2021) assert that a strong
meritocratic system can help reduce the influence of nepotism by ensuring that
individuals selected for certain positions are the most qualified and
competent.
One implication of the HR restrictions can be
observed in the restrictions imposed on former convicts in the context of
elections, as stated in Article 169 letter p of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning
General Elections. This article stipulates that one of the requirements to
become a vice presidential candidate is that the individual has not been
convicted of a crime based on a court decision that has obtained legal force,
especially for those who have been convicted of crimes that are punishable by
more than five years in prison. This provision also applies to candidates for
legislative positions, both at the level of the People's Representative Council
(DPR), Regional Representative Council (DPD), or Regional People's Legislative
Assembly (DPRD), as well as candidates for regional heads and their deputies.
The provisions on the political rights of
former convicts have been examined by the Constitutional Court (MK), resulting
in several decisions, some of which are conditionally constitutional, while
others are conditionally unconstitutional. For example, MK Decision No.
4/PUU-VII/2009 and MK Decision No. 42/PUU-XIII/2015 show that although there
are restrictions on former convicts running for public office, special
conditions are still mandated by the Court's decisions.
The General Election Commission (KPU), as the
election organizing body, in April 2019 stated its intention to prohibit former
corruption convicts from becoming candidates for members of the DPR, DPR, and
Regional Representatives. This step sparked debate among election observers,
academics, political parties, and the general public. In this regard, KPU
Chairman Arief Budiman stipulated KPU Regulation (PKPU) Number 20 of 2018
concerning the Nomination of Members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/City
DPRD, as well as PKPU Number 14 of 2018 concerning the Nomination of
Independent Candidates for the DPD Election.
In several provisions of the PKPU, important
articles regulate violations against former corruption convicts who register as
legislative candidates. Article 7 paragraph (1) letter h states that candidates
for members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/City DPRD must be
Indonesian citizens who meet the requirements: "Not former convicts, drug
lords, perpetrators of sexual crimes against children, or convicts of
corruption." With the provisions stipulated by this PKPU, the prohibition
on former corruption convicts from registering as candidates for the upcoming
legislative election can be implemented.
Human rights (HR) restrictions are often seen
as a necessary step to prevent nepotism and corruption in government. However,
the application of these restrictions must be done carefully. Without
considering the principles of justice and proportionality, HR restrictions can
trigger negative reactions from the community. This can happen if individuals
feel that their rights are being threatened or ignored without adequate
justification, which can further lead to distrust in the government.
One implication of disproportionately imposed
HR restrictions is the emergence of resistance within the community. When
individuals feel that their rights have been violated, especially in a context
where the restrictions are not accompanied by transparent and accountable
explanations, they may oppose the policy. Such resistance can undermine the
government's position in combating nepotism and corruption, as an unsupportive
community is less willing to collaborate or provide the information needed to
address corrupt practices.
In addition, disproportionate human resource
restrictions can reduce the effectiveness of the law itself. When citizens
perceive the policy as unfair, they may ignore or violate the law, perpetuating
the cycle of corruption and nepotism. For example, if a policy prohibiting the
hiring of family members of public officials in certain positions is not
coupled with transparent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the policy may
be seen as an abuse of power.
To avoid such negative implications, the
government must ensure that any HR restrictions are always accompanied by
strict supervision. This includes formulating clear and transparent policies
while involving the public in the policy-making process. By doing this, the
government can build trust in the community and encourage active participation
in preventing nepotism and corruption. Through an inclusive and responsive
approach, HR restrictions can be an effective tool for creating clean and
accountable governance without sacrificing individual rights.
In addition, the obstacles faced by the
government in implementing HR restrictions to prevent nepotism and corruption
in Indonesia stem from the lack of public understanding and awareness of the
importance of these measures. Many individuals are not fully aware of the
relationship between HR restrictions and efforts to prevent damaging practices.
This creates a gap between the policies set by the government and the reality
experienced by the community on a daily basis.
Public misunderstanding often arises from
inadequate information about the purpose and benefits of HR restrictions. If
the government fails to conduct effective socialization, the public may
perceive these restrictions as unfair violations of individual rights. For
example, when a policy restricts the access of family members of public
officials to certain positions, individuals may feel that their right to
compete in the labor market has been violated without understanding that the
policy is intended to prevent nepotism.
Opposition to policies that are considered
detrimental can have severe consequences. When the public is unaware of the
importance of limiting human resources in order to prevent corruption,
collusion and nepotism, they tend to ignore or even reject government efforts.
As a result, efforts to eradicate nepotism and corruption become less effective
because public support and involvement are very important in the process.
To address this issue, the government should
engage in better education and socialization regarding HR restrictions and
their relationship to preventing nepotism and corruption. Approaches that
involve the public in open dialogue, seminars, or information campaigns can
help raise awareness and understanding. In this way, the public can see HR
restrictions not as a violation but as an important step towards achieving
integrity and transparency in governance. Increased awareness will encourage
the public to participate more fully and support the policies put in place,
making the prevention of nepotism and corruption more effective.
Inconsistent application of HR restrictions
poses a major challenge in preventing nepotism and corruption in Indonesia.
Uncertainty in the implementation of policies often creates confusion among the
public and leads to injustice. When restrictions are not applied uniformly,
individuals may feel that the policies are unfair and non-transparent, which
ultimately reduces public trust in the government and law enforcement agencies.
For example, if there is a policy that limits
access to jobs for family members of public officials but does not impose
strict and consistent penalties, the public will feel the gap. When some family
members of officials can access certain positions while others cannot, it
creates the impression of favoritism towards certain groups. This phenomenon
can damage the government's image and make anti-nepotism policies seem
ineffective.
This uncertainty can also breed skepticism
among the public about the government�s good intentions to combat corruption
and nepotism. When the public feels that policies are not being implemented
fairly, they may be reluctant to support government initiatives and participate
in preventing corruption. This skepticism can lead to broader apathy toward the
legal system and governance in general, causing individuals to feel that their
involvement in such efforts is pointless.
Weaknesses in oversight and law enforcement
present significant obstacles to the effectiveness of HR restrictions in
preventing nepotism and corruption in Indonesia. Without strict oversight,
there is a risk of abuse of power by public officials. They may use their
positions to protect personal or group interests rather than serve the public
good. When this happens, it exacerbates the nepotism and corrupt practices it
is intended to prevent.
For example, regarding restrictions on access
to employment for family members of public officials, if there is no clear
oversight mechanism, officials may grant exemptions or permission to their
relatives to obtain certain positions. This practice creates unfairness and
undermines the integrity of the recruitment process. Individuals who witness or
learn about such practices may believe that the legal system is ineffective,
which can further reduce trust in the government.
Weaknesses in law enforcement also contribute
to the powerlessness of society against nepotism and corrupt practices. When
laws are not consistently enforced, individuals may feel hopeless and skeptical
about anti-corruption efforts. Uncertainty about the penalties or consequences
for violators of the law leads individuals to believe that there is no point in
reporting acts of corruption or nepotism, because they feel such violations
will go unpunished.
The lack of transparent and accountable
policies in the implementation of HR restrictions is a major obstacle in
preventing nepotism and corruption in Indonesia. Ambiguity in policies and
procedures can create doubts among the public regarding the government's good
intentions. If the public does not have a clear understanding of the purpose
and benefits of these restrictions, they tend to be skeptical and question the
integrity of the government. This can lead to the rejection of policies
intended for the public interest.
Policies that are not formulated transparently
and without public involvement will struggle to gain broad support. The public
feels alienated when excluded from the policy-making process that affects their
lives. Public involvement in policy formulation is crucial because it increases
the legitimacy and public acceptance of the measures. If individuals perceive
that their voices are being ignored, they are likely to withdraw support for
government initiatives aimed at preventing corruption.
Lack of public trust stemming from inadequate
transparency can further exacerbate existing conditions and render prevention
of nepotism and corruption ineffective. In an uncertain environment, people
tend to refrain from reporting cases of nepotism or corruption that they
observe, because they feel that no justice or real action will be taken.
Therefore, the creation of transparent, clear and accountable policies is
essential to rebuilding public trust in the government.
In their efforts to prevent nepotism and
corruption, governments often impose stringent regulations. While the intent of
these policies is positive, aiming to protect the integrity of government and
ensure fair treatment for all individuals, excessive regulation can have
adverse effects. When regulations are too numerous or complex, individuals may
find it difficult to exercise their rights. They may feel harassed by
bureaucratic red tape, reducing their motivation to engage in governance
processes or access public services.
One of the main problems caused by excessive
regulation is the creation of unnecessary barriers for individuals who want to
participate in public activities, such as applying for a job or obtaining a
business license. When regulations become too restrictive, those who are
eligible to participate in the process may feel pressured or hindered by
unrealistic requirements. This can create frustration among the public and
reduce their trust in the legal system and government.
In addition, excessive regulation carries the
risk of abuse of power by law enforcement officials. When law enforcers are
given significant authority to enforce regulations, they are likely to exploit
this power for personal gain or to discriminate against certain individuals or
groups. For example, law enforcers may seek stricter compliance from certain
groups while showing leniency to others with special connections or
relationships. This situation not only creates inequity but can also exacerbate
the nepotism and corruption that it is intended to prevent.
This study has several limitations that need
to be considered for the interpretation of the results. First, the data used
are mostly from secondary sources, which may affect the accuracy and relevance
of the current information. Second, this study focuses more on the review of
laws and regulations in Indonesia, so generalization to the global context
requires further research.
In addition, the theoretical approach used may
not fully reflect the dynamic and changing legal practices over time. This
study also does not include direct empirical analysis of specific legal cases,
which could provide a more in-depth perspective. Thus, further research
involving case studies and primary data is highly recommended to strengthen
these findings.
The application of the principles of justice and
proportionality in limiting human rights is crucial. States must ensure that
any legal measures that limit individual rights are based on clear needs, are
implemented proportionately, and are accompanied by strict supervision to avoid
abuse of authority.
Thus, this study recommends the establishment of a
more comprehensive, transparent, and accountable legal policy. Legal reform
supported by an independent oversight system and civil society involvement in
public oversight can strengthen efforts to eradicate nepotism and corruption
without ignoring the protection of human rights. With these steps, it is hoped
that a more just, effective, and balanced legal system will be created in
supporting a clean and corruption-free government.
|
� |
BA Saebani and AF Mubarok, "Nepotism in
Political Power and Efforts to Solve It," Polhum Sovereignty Law and
Diplomatic Politic, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 10-19, 2024.
Corruption Eradication Commission. (2022). KPK
Annual Report. Journal of Indonesian Governance, 14(1), 45-67.
E. Pattiasina, "Criminal Sanctions
Against State Administrators Due to Violation of Law Number 28 of 1999
Concerning the Implementation of a Clean State Free from Corruption, Collusion,
and Nepotism," Lex Crimen, vol. 8, no. 3, 2019.
F. Djamil et al., Corruption, Collusion, and
Nepotism (KKN): In the Perspective of Islamic Law and Morals; In Revealing
Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism in Indonesia, Yogyakarta: Aditya Media,
1999.
I. Nurdin, Government Ethics: Norms, Concepts,
and Practices for Government Administrators, Yogyakarta: Lintang Rasi Aksara,
2017.
Jones, M., & Brown, L. (2021).
Whistleblower Protection and Human Rights. International Human Rights Journal,
17(1), 99-123.
Lee, T. (2019). Corruption and Human Rights:
Legal Dilemmas. Journal of Comparative Law, 19(3), 287-305.
M. Warokka, "The Role of the Ombudsman in
Supervising Public Services Free from Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism,"
Lex Privatum, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 97-104, 2017.
PM Marzuki, Legal Research, Jakarta: Kencana
Prenada Media Group, 2006.
Pujihartini, "Overcoming Corruption,
Collusion and Nepotism in the Acceptance of National Civil Service
Candidates," Jurnal Mentari Publika, vol. 2, no. 2, 2022.
Rachmawati, "Anti-Nepotism Regulation:
Policy and Implementation," Journal of Public Policy, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
30-42, 2020.
SS Iskandar and N. Prasetyoningsih, "The
Development of Legitimacy of Restrictions on Former Political Rights," UMY
Repository, 2019.
Smith, J. (2020). Privacy vs. Transparency in
Government. Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 201-225.
Sumartana, Ethics and Combating Corruption,
Collusion, and Nepotism in the Reform Era, Yogyakarta: Aditya Media, 1999.
Susanti, A. (2023). Human Rights in the
Digital Age. Human Rights Review, 20(4), 355-370.
Transparency International. (2021). Corruption
Perceptions Index 2021. Journal of Global Governance Studies, 15(2), 112-130.
UNODC. (2020). Anti-Corruption Policies and
Practices. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(3), 215-233.