<![CDATA[This study aims to critically evaluate the disparity between political rhetoric and the implementation of formal anti-corruption policies across three regime periods in Indonesia: the Old Order, the New Order, and the early Reformation era. This research employs a qualitative historical-comparative design using Thematic Analysis Braun & Clarke, 2006. Data sources include presidential speeches, legal statutes, and institutional records, which were coded to identify patterns of political will versus enforcement reality. The analysis reveals distinct patterns: (1) The Old Order established the initial legal terminology for corruption but lacked enforcement data and institutional capacity due to political instability; (2) The New Order (32 years) produced strong anti-corruption rhetoric and laws (Law No. 3/1971), yet corruption became systemic and structured, indistinguishable from state operation; (3) The early Reformation era marked a shift towards institutional independence (establishment of KPK), attempting to dismantle the decades-long structure of the previous regime. Unlike the previous eras, the Reform era focused on creating “superbodies,” though early enforcement outcomes struggled to match the scale of entrenched corruption inherited from the New Order regime. The study concludes that legal evolution alone is insufficient without political consistency. The transition shows that while institutional authority has strengthened, the “culture of impunity” remains a persistent legacy that new regulations struggle to overcome.]]>
