Democracy and leadership<\/p>\n
Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo
\nFormer Governor
\nNational Resilience Institute
\n(Lemhanas)
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
More and more people are wondering whether democracy is the
\nright political system for Indonesia. Democratic reforms, started
\nin 1958, do not seem to bring improvements to the
\nmultidimensional crisis facing the nation.<\/p>\n
Problems have even increased in number as well as in
\nseriousness. The economy is still vulnerable, the political
\nsituation is full of danger because of ethnic divisions and the
\nmisbehavior of the political elite, while domestic security has
\ndeteriorated.<\/p>\n
Some people, especially at the grassroots level, are nostalgic
\nfor the much more stable and orderly situation of the Soeharto
\nregime. People are inclined to blame democracy as the cause of
\nall these evils, because of the excessive freedoms that developed
\nwhen democratic reforms began. People today do not pay much
\nattention to the common interest and have become very egoistical
\nin only looking after their own benefits. Chaotic traffic
\nconditions are a concrete and clear example of the current
\nmentality of the people.<\/p>\n
Older people will remember the situation in the 1950s when
\nIndonesia was also in a state of disorder and stagnation because
\nof the implementation of parliamentary democracy. The dominating
\nrole of political parties, fiercely competing for power, made it
\nimpossible for governments to remain in office long enough to put
\ntheir policies in place. Cabinets came and went in a matter of
\nmonths. The result was stagnation in many fields of life. So much
\nso that the majority of the people were happy when president
\nSukarno declared the end of parliamentary democracy and a return
\nto the 1945 Constitution, which would at least provide
\ndecisiveness and stability.<\/p>\n
But democratic activists argue that it is wrong to blame
\ndemocracy for the nation's woes. They say that Indonesia is just
\nat the start of the democratic process and it is therefore normal
\nif there are excesses in the use of freedom. That will gradually
\nimprove with the maturation of the people and greater experience
\nin the implementation of democracy.<\/p>\n
It would be very wrong to think of terminating democracy
\nbecause of its transitional weaknesses. That would return
\nIndonesia to authoritarian, rule with all its grave consequences
\nas demonstrated so clearly by the Sukarno and Soeharto regimes.
\nThe solution must be perseverance in the building of democracy
\nand accepting the negative aspects as the price to pay for a
\nbetter future.<\/p>\n
However, the pessimists are asking how long the transition
\nwill last. They think that the longer it lasts the more the
\nsituation will deteriorate and chaos prevail. In that situation,
\nit is not inconceivable that the Republic could collapse.<\/p>\n
But since Indonesia established Pancasila as the state's
\nideology, democracy must be one of the basic principles of life.
\nThe fact is that the fourth tenet of Pancasila is democracy.
\nHowever, democracy does not stand alone and must go together with
\nthe four other tenets of Pancasila, namely belief in God,
\nhumanity, national unity and social justice. Therefore, democracy
\nmust be established not just for the sake of democracy or just to
\nfollow other nations, but to develop progress, national unity and
\na prosperous and spiritual life.<\/p>\n
Looking at Singapore and Malaysia as nations that have
\ndeveloped very successfully, one can see the prominent role
\nplayed by Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad as leaders who
\npropelled their nations into progress and prosperity. Lee Kuan
\nYew always insists that for developing nations democracy can only
\nbring progress if it is accompanied by discipline, which also
\nmeans the rule of law. And Mahathir stated in his closing remarks
\nbefore leaving his leadership position that people must not be
\nobsessed with democracy, because an obsession with democracy
\ncould mean anarchy.<\/p>\n
Many people in the West and democratic activists in developing
\ncountries like Indonesia do not recognize Singapore and Malaysia
\nas democracies. They say that both countries are ruled by Lee
\nKuan Yew and Mahathir as dictators. They entirely prefer to
\nforget that both countries have democratic institutions that
\nperform normally, including holding regular elections.<\/p>\n
They also do not take into consideration that the majority of
\npeople in Singapore and Malaysia are satisfied with the state of
\ndemocracy in their countries. But the West is ambivalent, because
\nit also praises Singapore and Malaysia for their development into
\nindustrial nations. Dr. Mahathir used to say jokingly that he
\nmight be the first dictator in the world elected by a democratic
\nprocess.<\/p>\n
The building of democracy in Indonesia should take these
\nexamples into consideration. Another fact to consider is that in
\nthe West, the development of democracy was a gradual process. To
\nsafeguard a sound democratic process in developing nations like
\nIndonesia, one cannot deny that democracy should be accompanied
\nby leadership. The role of leadership will make democracy a
\nsignificant and healthy part of life, fostering progress,
\nnational unity and prosperity.<\/p>\n
The direct presidential election in 2004 will decide whether
\nIndonesia can develop a national leadership that can be trusted
\nto lead this process. That leadership must be able to establish
\nthe rule of law and social discipline. The economy, education and
\npublic health must be improved so that the majority of the people
\nwill feel and see that there are changes that benefit them. This
\nwill result in strong popular support that the leadership needs
\nto make the necessary changes. The leadership must also have the
\nstrength and wisdom to end all the ethnic and religious
\ndivisions.<\/p>\n
But democratic institutions should also be activated,
\nincluding opposition in the legislature and a free and
\nresponsible press. Strong leadership and the rule of law should
\ntake care that the freedoms of democracy do not harm the
\ncontinuity of government, because only a government that can last
\nlong enough will be able to deliver significant results.<\/p>\n
The leadership should also groom future leaders who can take
\nthe place of the present leadership when the nation has reached a
\npoint of stable and progressive development. That requires from
\nthe present leadership the ability to know when they should step
\ndown and make way for their groomed successors. Leaders like Deng
\nXiaoping, Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad have given the
\nexample; it is unfortunate for Indonesia that Sukarno and
\nSoeharto did not have the wisdom to do this.<\/p>\n
The important question Indonesia is facing is whether the
\npresidential election in 2004 will result in the rise of a
\nnational leadership that can do the necessary job. If it fails to
\ndo so, it is not impossible that very serious consequences will
\npresent themselves on Indonesia's doorstep.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/democracy-and-leadership-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}