JAKARTA – In Japan, when a politician is caught in a corruption scandal, resignation is often the immediate consequence. In some cases, the weight of public dishonor is so unbearable that individuals have taken extreme measures, including suicide, as a way to atone for their perceived failure. The expectation of personal accountability in Japan’s political culture stands in stark contrast to Indonesia, where corruption remains rampant and public officials often face little more than temporary inconvenience before returning to positions of power.
The difference between these two nations in dealing with corruption stems from centuries of cultural and historical development. Japan’s deeply ingrained shame culture has conditioned its leaders to accept responsibility for their actions in ways that transcend legal repercussions. A public figure tainted by scandal is expected to withdraw from public life, whether through resignation or, in more extreme cases, self-inflicted punishment. This expectation is not merely enforced by law but by an unspoken social contract that demands honor above all else.
Japan’s history offers multiple instances of this phenomenon. In 2007, Toshikatsu Matsuoka, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, was under investigation for misuse of state funds. Before he could face public questioning, he was found dead in his apartment, having taken his own life—a tragic but telling reflection of the intense pressure placed upon Japanese officials in times of scandal.
Another case is that of Keishu Tanaka, the Minister of Justice, who resigned in 2012 after revelations about his past ties with yakuza groups. Although he did not face criminal prosecution, the social backlash was sufficient to end his political career. Similarly, Akira Amari, the Minister of Economy, stepped down in 2015 after allegations that his staff had accepted bribes, even though he personally denied wrongdoing. The expectation of personal accountability was greater than the legal obligation to step aside, demonstrating how deeply Japan values ethical leadership.
Indonesia, by contrast, has struggled to instill a similar sense of shame among its leaders. Many politicians convicted of corruption return to power after serving prison sentences, with some even receiving public support upon their release. This pattern highlights a fundamental difference in societal attitudes: whereas Japan sees corruption as an unforgivable stain on one’s reputation, Indonesia often treats it as a temporary setback.
The absence of a strong shame culture in Indonesia can be attributed to historical and structural factors. Unlike Japan, which was shaped by centuries of samurai traditions and Confucian moral philosophy emphasizing honor and integrity, Indonesia’s governance structures evolved under colonial rule and post-independence political systems that often prioritized patronage over accountability. Corruption became deeply embedded in the political landscape, and without significant social repercussions, public officials found ways to manipulate the system for personal gain without facing permanent consequences.
Furthermore, Indonesia’s legal and political institutions have failed to exert the same pressure on corrupt officials as their Japanese counterparts. While Japan enforces strict electoral laws that prevent disgraced politicians from making a comeback, Indonesia’s system remains lenient, allowing those convicted of corruption to return to influential positions. The lack of public outrage in many corruption cases also suggests a degree of societal tolerance, further reducing the deterrent effect of legal consequences.
Japan’s ability to enforce political accountability through its shame culture has contributed to a governance system where ethical misconduct carries significant social and professional costs. In contrast, Indonesia’s political environment lacks the same moral expectations, allowing corruption to persist with little resistance. Until Indonesia fosters a culture that genuinely rejects corruption, public officials will continue to evade responsibility, eroding public trust in the country’s leadership and governance.
