This study aims to introduce and analyze a new type of corruption called colonized governance logic, where laws, institutions and moral norms are co-opted to protect elite power. Using Indonesia as a case, it shows why standard anti-corruption fixes fail.
This study adopts a qualitative interpretive design following Bevir and Rhodes’ (2003) interpretive institutionalism. The selection of secondary data, including policy documents, legal frameworks and corruption case records, was guided by relevance to Indonesia’s postcolonial governance context and by theoretical salience. Data were analyzed through iterative thematic interpretation, tracing how narratives of power, legality and compliance reproduce the logic of corruption. The coding process involved identifying patterns of tolerance, political leverage and internalized obedience across textual sources.
The study reveals that corruption in Indonesia is sustained through three interrelated mechanisms embedded in colonized governance logic: systematic toleration (e.g. 2019 KPK Law revision), hostage politics (e.g. 2020–2021 Bansos scandal) and colonized mentality (e.g. MenPAN-RB compliance culture).
This study is primarily conceptual and interpretive, relying on secondary data and critical analysis of Indonesia’s governance context. As such, its findings may not capture the full diversity of corruption dynamics across regions or institutions, nor provide generalizable conclusions beyond the Indonesian case. However, by theorizing corruption as embedded within colonized governance logic, the study offers a framework applicable to other postcolonial settings. The implications highlight the need for future empirical research using comparative and participatory methods to test, refine and operationalize emancipatory anti-corruption strategies across different institutional and political contexts.
The study underscores the need for anti-corruption strategies that move beyond compliance-based reforms and legalistic approaches. By exposing how corruption is embedded in colonized governance logic, it calls for policies that prioritize institutional resilience, citizen empowerment and protection of whistleblowers. Practically, this means designing accountability mechanisms that are context-sensitive, strengthening civic oversight and fostering inclusive political participation to challenge elite domination. For policymakers and reform advocates, the findings highlight that effective anti-corruption requires dismantling structural asymmetries of power, cultivating ethical bureaucratic cultures and embedding sustainability into governance reforms rather than relying solely on external or global frameworks.
The study highlights how corruption, when normalized through colonized governance logic, erodes public trust, perpetuates inequality and entrenches social hierarchies. By revealing the mechanisms of systematic toleration, hostage politics and colonized mentality, it demonstrates how citizens may become complicit in sustaining corrupt systems, often through resignation or coerced compliance. Addressing these dynamics requires empowering communities, fostering civic education and creating safe spaces for collective action against corruption. Socially, the study emphasizes the importance of shifting from passive acceptance toward active resistance, enabling citizens to reclaim agency in governance and contribute to building more equitable and accountable institutions.
This study makes a novel theoretical contribution by introducing the concept of colonized governance logic, a new analytical framework that reframes corruption not as a distortion of governance, but as its constitutive logic in postcolonial states. It identifies three original mechanisms: systematic toleration, hostage politics and colonized mentality that have not been theorized together in prior literature.
