“…Slowly but surely, corruption continues to drain natural resources and widen social inequality.”
This excerpt from Tracing the Roots of Corruption in Prisma Magazine, Volume 37 (2018), shows how corruption threatens natural resources and deepens social inequality. The same edition, The Vicious Cycle of Corruption, also notes that countries with high corruption tend to suffer severe biodiversity loss. In other words, corruption is closely linked to ecological destruction.
This serves as a premise for showing that high levels of corruption do not go hand in hand with good governance of natural resources, including the energy sector. On the contrary, corruption leads to the misuse of natural resources, thereby contradicting the mandate of Article 33(3) of the 1945 Constitution.
Natural resources continue to be exploited without bringing prosperity to the wider population. The benefits are enjoyed only by a small elite, further widening social inequality. Worse still, corruption exacerbates environmental damage caused by such exploitation. Ironically, while the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, the environmental consequences are borne by the entire population. That is the outcome of corruption in natural resource governance.
Looking ahead, the situation appears even more alarming. Instead of improving governance across sectors, including natural resources, corruption in Indonesia seems to be worsening. Like an alarm bell signaling danger, its sound grows louder by the day.
The latest assessment by Transparency International (TI), released this year for 2025, amplifies that warning. Indonesia’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) score has declined to just 34.
The CPI ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates a highly corrupt country, and 100 represents a very clean one. The index covers 182 countries and measures perceived levels of public sector corruption. It evaluates factors such as bribery, embezzlement of public funds, and the prevalence of officials abusing their positions for personal gain.
Other indicators include the government’s ability to combat corruption and nepotism, the existence of laws on budget transparency, mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest, and the extent to which civil society can access public information.
Personally, I find Indonesia’s score deeply disappointing. We have long hoped for improvements—stronger prevention and enforcement—to reduce corruption. Yet instead of progress, the situation appears stagnant, if not worsening.
Indonesia’s score has even dropped from the previous year’s already low 37. In terms of ranking, the country fell ten places, from 99th to 109th, behind Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and even Timor-Leste.
This index underscores a more dangerous trend: the growing phenomenon of state capture. In such cases, corruption occurs not only during policy implementation but also from the very early stages of policymaking and deliberation. TI’s report should therefore serve as a serious call to action in the fight against corruption.
Why should this index serve as an alarm for the natural resource sector? The answer is simple: the CPI’s indicators are deeply intertwined with the sector’s business processes. The declining score is not just a number—it reflects systemic vulnerabilities in the governance of natural resources.
Take licensing, for example—long known as a hotspot for bribery and nepotism. Then there is the lack of transparency in revenues from natural resources, including the energy sector, which makes public oversight difficult. There is also limited public access to environmental documents related to mining activities. These are clear examples of how corruption indicators directly relate to resource governance.
More deeply, CPI data confirms a broader systemic threat: political corruption. A decline in scores from sources such as the Varieties of Democracy Project signals a growing risk of state capture in strategic sectors, such as natural resources. Indonesia has experienced a significant drop in this indicator.
This decline reflects rising political corruption across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It strengthens the signal of policy capture, in which natural resource policies deviate from the constitutional mandate to maximize public welfare.
Data from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) show that, of 650 cases between 2004 and 2017, 80% involved bribery and gratuities intended to influence public policy or state officials (Prisma, 2018).
State capture inevitably produces policies that do not serve the public interest and often lead to environmental degradation. Such policies are typically created without public participation or transparency.
Similarly, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index—which measures the misuse of public office for private gain across branches of government, including the military and police—also shows a decline in Indonesia. This further reinforces the pattern: natural resource wealth risks being captured by elites through power networks.
Two other data sources recorded the lowest scores: the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (on bribery and corruption) and the Bertelsmann Transformation Index (on anti-corruption enforcement). This paints a troubling picture, especially given the many risks of corruption across the entire natural resource value chain—from upstream to downstream.
Transparency Remains Low
Systemic corruption goes hand in hand with limited transparency. This is confirmed by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) validation, which shows that Indonesia’s extractive sector transparency remains far from ideal, with a score of only 63.5 out of 100.
This is concerning, as extractive industries—such as oil and gas, coal, and nickel—are central to natural resource governance.
One major issue is the lack of full disclosure of contracts and licensing documents. Yet such transparency is essential—not only to reduce corruption but also to build public trust in governance (PWYP Indonesia, 2020).
Politics as the Root Cause
Looking deeper, the corruption reflected in CPI indicators appears to be rooted in political problems. Prisma Magazine’s Vicious Cycle of Corruption edition also emphasizes that the core issue of corruption is political.
Similarly, Terry Lynn Karl in Escaping the Resource Curse argues that the resource curse is not primarily an economic problem, but a political one, with transparency as a key issue.
Although her analysis focused on oil, it broadly reflects governance challenges across all natural resources.
TI Indonesia’s analysis also shows that countries with limited civic space—such as restricted access to information—tend to have higher levels of corruption. Conversely, strong democracies are more effective at controlling corruption than flawed or authoritarian regimes.
Corruption in Natural Resources Is Real
These poor index scores are not merely theoretical concerns—they are reflected in real-world scandals. The 2023 arrest of the North Maluku governor is a clear example of how mining permits can become commodities for bribery.
From fossil fuels to renewable energy, corruption permeates every stage—from licensing to environmental restoration obligations to policy formulation.
For instance, a study on the 2020 revision of Indonesia’s Mining Law concluded that it favors oligarchic interests. The political process was effectively “locked in” by elite coalitions, resulting in policies that fail to reflect public interests.
In practice, corruption cases—such as bribery in nickel mining permits or manipulation of reclamation guarantee funds—demonstrate how governance failures directly harm the environment and local communities.
Reclamation is supposed to ensure environmental recovery after mining. But when corruption interferes, environmental destruction worsens—and the public bears the cost, especially communities near mining sites.
A Leadership Challenge
This troubling landscape—from declining indices to regional scandals—now rests on the shoulders of the Prabowo-Gibran administration. Article 33(3) of the Constitution will be a true test: will they break the cycle of corruption, or become part of it?
Natural resource governance must ultimately serve public welfare. Exploitation should only occur within that framework.
This requires not only law enforcement, but strong executive commitment to eradicating corruption—and coordination across all branches of government.
Because enforcement alone is meaningless if corruption has already taken the form of state capture. Transparency and public participation must become central pillars, not mere formalities.
These indicators of corruption and transparency are not just numbers—they signal an urgent and worsening crisis. If left unaddressed, the alarm bells will only grow louder—and Indonesia will move closer to the resource curse.
Source: Kumparan
Writer: Ariyansah NK