The arrest of the Regent of Rejang Lebong, Bengkulu Province, as well as the Regents of Pekalongan and Cilacap in Central Java, in sting operations conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has once again added to the long list of regional leaders implicated in corruption cases. From 2004 to January 2026, KPK has prosecuted more than 201 regional leaders for corruption. The growing number of regional leaders involved in corruption raises serious questions about its root causes at the regional level.
Professor of Public Policy Governance at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Professor Gabriel Lele, assessed this phenomenon as not merely the result of individual behavior but also influenced by structural issues within the political system and regional governance. According to him, the root of corruption among regional leaders stems from institutional rules that make political costs in regional elections extremely high.
“Just to secure party support, the basic calculation ranges from Rp500 million to Rp1 billion per seat of support. That is only at the candidacy stage, not including campaign costs and vote-buying practices,” he said on Tuesday (17. Mar).
These high costs lead some candidates to view political contests as investments that must be recouped once they take office. In practice, political capital often comes from loans or business sponsors who are later rewarded with government projects when the candidate is elected. In addition to political costs, he also highlighted the relatively low formal welfare guarantees for regional leaders. According to him, the official salary of regional heads, which ranges from around Rp6–7 million per month, is not comparable to the social burdens they must bear while in office.
“The social costs are high because people frequently request direct assistance for various needs that are not always covered by the regional budget,” he explained.
Furthermore, the procurement of goods and services remains the largest loophole for corruption in regional governments due to its substantial budget allocation and manipulable profit margins. This practice not only causes financial losses to the state but also a decline in the quality of goods and services produced through government projects.
“In practice, companies have calculated from the outset that they need to set aside around 20 to 30 percent to meet certain demands in order to secure projects,” he said.
He emphasized that efforts to eradicate corruption among regional leaders must be carried out comprehensively by simultaneously combining prevention, oversight, and enforcement measures. On the prevention side, he suggested that the government needs to strengthen regulations on political financing and campaign funding. This should be supported by transparent management of regional budgets so that the public can also play a role in oversight.
“Regional governments must actively disclose information to the public, for example, regarding the structure of the regional budget and projects funded by it. This way, the public can participate in monitoring their implementation,” he explained.
Weak oversight systems at the regional level further exacerbate corruption practices among regional leaders. Internal oversight through inspectorates is considered not independent because it falls under the regional head’s authority, while political oversight by regional legislative councils (DPRD) is often ineffective due to shared party coalitions.
He also noted that public and media oversight remains weak, particularly in regions where civil society capacity remains limited. Therefore, strengthening public oversight is seen as a key measure to prevent corruption at the regional level.
“In most regions, the party holding the majority of seats in the DPRD is also the party supporting the regional head. So how can effective control be exercised if they come from the same group?” he stressed.
In addition to prevention and oversight, he asserted that law enforcement remains crucial to deterrence against corrupt offenders. Without firm punishment, practices categorized as grand corruption will continue to recur. Severe penalties, including asset confiscation or impoverishment of corruptors, can serve as a deterrent for public officials who abuse their power.
“Without a strong deterrent effect, we will continue to cycle through the same problems. Harsh penalties and impoverishment of corruptors can be one way to create that deterrent,” Professor Gabriel concluded.
Writer: Cyntia Noviana
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Photo: Freepik