After a decade of his presidency, former President Joko Widodo–usually known as Jokowi–was nominated as the finalist for the Most Corrupt Person of the Year by the Organized Crime and Corruption Report Project (OCCRP). Albeit, at the end he was not the most corrupt person of the year, he was nominated alongside former President Bashar Al-Assad (Syria), President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (Nigeria), President William Ruto (Kenya), Prime Minister Hasina (Bangladesh), and Gautam Adani (India). As a reaction, Jokowi, other politicians, and the public have stated their opinions; some contradict, while others agree. As a global network of journalists and corruption and crime investigation experts, OCCRP has gathered public opinions and votes worldwide. Ergo, it was concluded that Jokowi has a huge role in sustaining the corruption culture in the system (OCCRP, 2025). However, since this nomination was based on public submissions, pro-Jokowi politicians or figures stated that the reports were baseless and unaccountable. This response sparks controversies and questions that will be discussed further: 1) systemic damage 2) culture and understanding of corruption within the people, and 3) the perspective of narrow-minded nationalists.
Damages Done in the System through Legislation, Political Interference, and Family
President Joko Widodo was inaugurated as president for the first time in 2014. After his first term as president in 2019, another election was held. He and Ma’ruf Amin–former Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia–won the election by 55.05% against Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno. Many mentioned the characterization of Jokowi as a leader from the “ordinary” people played a big role throughout his presidency; the number of 75% through a public satisfaction survey proved this right (Fajri & Hantoro, 2024). Despite the strong characterization of Jokowi, many view the other “unknown,” “dirty,” and untruthful side of him. Without a doubt, just like any other government in this world, intransparency, small cheats, and small things lead to a bigger corruption scheme.
In the second era of Jokowi’s leadership, the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR-RI) decided to continue the plan of reviving the Rancangan Undang-Undang Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK in English; Corruption Eradication Commission), still and all-knowing well that the bill is full of controversies. This decision was considered on September 6th, 2019, and was rushed for 12 days to officially be Law No. 19 of 2019. Afterward, it triggered debates and demonstrations from civilians, students, workers, and more. This bill takes away the independence of KPK as an independent body to eradicate, investigate, and act as a supervisory entity. Through Article No.3 in Law No. 19 of 2019, it is stated that KPK is now acting as an institution under the executive branch whose duties and authorities are independent of any form of power. This specific article itself sounds ambiguous and paradoxical. Could an institution be independent when it is in control of the executive branch? Possible bias, political interference, and power dynamics may affect KPK’s authorities; it is weakening.
The systemic damage didn’t stop through legislation; it began there. After years of leading the country, Indonesia had to vote for a new president in February 2024. Surprisingly, this time Prabowo chose someone who is quite unqualified when it comes to the political sphere; he chose Gibran Rakabuming Raka. As widely known, Gibran is the oldest son of Jokowi and he was the mayor of Surakarta from 2021 to 2024. Other than that, he did not have any other political experience, as he was a businessman back then, just like his father. Based on Law No.17 of 2017, anyone could run for president and vice president if they are over 40 years old. However, in this election there was a rush to conduct a judicial review on this specific law (Perdana & Imam, 2023). Subsequently, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia pronounced that anyone under the age of 40 can participate in the presidential and vice-presidential elections, as long as they are currently or have previously held a state office elected through elections, including regional head elections. Before the judicial review and the constant change in the constitution, Jokowi’s eldest son–Gibran–could not run for vice president. Thankfully, due to his uncle’s power as the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, Gibran who was a mayor doing alright, became a vice president candidate overnight. The tables turned; a few days before the election, the head of the General Elections Commission of Indonesia (KPU) was given a sanction and final warning due to violation of ethics. Hence, the neutrality of KPU and other institutions in Indonesia was questioned during the whole timeline of the campaign.
Moral of the Story: Most Corrupt Person and Institution
In simple words, the writer views that OCCRP highlights the corruption in Jokowi’s context as a systematic damage caused by manipulation of law, power, and presidential title. If one reflects on the given definition by OCCRP and the Indonesian constitution, the same meaning aligns. Article No.3 in Law No.31 of 1999 stated that those whose aim is to benefit themselves, other people, or a corporation, who abuse the authority, opportunity, or means available to them because of their position, are considered to be acting corruptly. The systematic damage done by Jokowi throughout his presidency shows how corruption is opposing honesty and instead reaching for one’s gain.
Notwithstanding the clear definitions written in the constitution, many do not view the damage done by Jokowi as corruption; some of them refuse to claim this definition of state loss. The work of good political hands is in play, trying to cover up what really is corruption and its culture. As an act to contravene this claim by OCCRP, some people view this as an attack on Indonesia’s “good name” and morality; narrow-minded nationalism. Thus, this way of viewing brings a specific challenge in eradicating corruption. These contradicting views do not only appear in civilians but also around people in power. Unfortunately, throughout these years, the definition of corruption in Indonesia has been circulating around materialistic gains and losses; a deconstruction of how people view corruption is well needed. Therefore, through this nomination by OCCPR, it may become one of many humble beginnings of breaking the old-school definition.
Reflection
After OCCPR launched their report, Setyo Budiyanto–the current Chairman of KPK–responded that if Jokowi is reportedly guilty, a report should be filed to the Corruption Eradication Committee by bringing strong evidence and supporting documents (Faiz & Yuantisya, 2025). Just by trying to rethink what Budiyanto stated earlier, it shows how difficult it is nowadays to fight corruption in Indonesia and how reluctant the KPK is to conduct further supervision and investigations. Manipulation of the legal system, nepotism, and political interference in the anti-corruption body speak louder than the actions to eliminate the corruption culture in the system itself. The whole pattern of a well-structured nepotism here can be seen clearly; the President, who happens to be Gibran’s father and Anwar Usman–Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia–who is Gibran’s uncle. However, up to this day, pressure towards this action has not been taken into action. In a place where greed is unlimited, destruction in the system begins–it destroys the institution, law, and people’s minds. Now, a question to be reflected further is whether the country should be ruled by the leader’s political will and power or by the awakening of the people.