Presidential succession needs prudence<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): One of the most debated political issues since
\nthe early 1990s has been the topic of political succession. It is
\nworth noting that Indonesia has never experienced a peaceful
\nsuccession of its leader. Therefore, many people wonder how the
\nsuccession of President and Vice President in 1998 will take
\nplace. Will it proceed smoothly or will it lead to a political
\nfiasco?<\/p>\n
It seems the more our politicians speculate on this issue, the
\nmore uncertain the situation becomes. The more the issue is
\ndiscussed, the more the problems remain the same. Whenever our
\npoliticians talk about succession, they tend to repeat what they
\nhave said earlier and their statements present nothing new.<\/p>\n
Several senior government officials have been named for the
\nposition of Vice President, but the statements are not more than
\npure political speculation without a well-founded argument.
\nSometimes politicians just drop a name to see how the public will
\nreact.<\/p>\n
In developed democracies we can easily assess the situation in
\nthe lead-up to an election. Opinion polls conducted by the mass
\nmedia, for instance, are an indication of how much support a
\ncandidate can win.<\/p>\n
But in Indonesia, the situation is much more complicated.
\nThere are certain idiosyncratic variables that should be taken
\ninto account. Some government officials suggest that open
\ndiscussion on the election chances of each political group is
\nunethical. How can we rationalize the alienation of the public
\nfrom a political domain in which they are constitutionally
\nentitled to participate? Presidential succession should be
\nconsidered a topic fit for public discussion.<\/p>\n
Prudence is absolutely necessary in managing political
\nsuccession. Prudence exists when we act only after careful
\nthought and planning. We cannot pretend to ignore the disastrous
\nconsequences that might occur if we don't handle the agenda
\ncarefully and prudently.<\/p>\n
There is a high cost involved if people remain in a state of
\npolitical uncertainty. It would be unwise to keep everybody
\nguessing regarding the future leadership of our political system.
\nPolitical groups should give priority to wider interests instead
\nof personal or sectarian political ambitions. Of course, we
\nshould not allow our political system to degenerate into \"a kind
\nof anarchy with everyone maneuvering for position\" due to the
\nabsence of effective political management (M. Vatikiotis, 1990).<\/p>\n
There are several reasons why the government should take the
\ninitiative in managing political succession in a prudent way.
\nAs a society in transition we are not yet mentally prepared to
\nproceed with open political competition in the election of our
\npolitical leaders. As many groups in our society are still
\ncommitted to their primordial loyalties they can be easily
\nmanipulated by irresponsible political elite.<\/p>\n
A strong government should ensure that the political system is
\nnot jeopardized. This may not mean that the government should
\nsuppress political freedom for the sake of its own interests.
\nEffective political management in developing societies always
\npresupposes the presence of strong but prudent political leaders.<\/p>\n
Second, our ambition to become a modern industrialized state
\nin the 21st century will obviously necessitate the presence of
\npolitical leaders capable of managing politics in a more
\ntransparent and accountable manner. Such political leadership can
\nonly be established in a long and well-designed process.
\nSingapore's experience in managing its political succession
\nshould be an important lesson. It demonstrates how the process of
\neconomic modernization can only be guaranteed if we develop a
\nwell-planned political system.<\/p>\n
Singapore is one example of a workable congruence between
\nindustrialization and political management. Economics cannot be
\nbased on professionalism and primitive political management at
\nthe same time. A combination of industrialization and primitive
\nleadership will only lead to a society suffering endlessly from
\nsocial and economic injustice. We should learn how to develop
\ndemocratic political life in order to provide a conducive
\natmosphere for the evolution of technological and cultural
\ninnovations in our society.<\/p>\n
Third, a series of riots in several places recently was a
\nclear indication that political harmony in our society cannot be
\ntaken for granted. Indonesia is well known for its hospitality,
\nfriendship, and peaceful environment.<\/p>\n
If we consider how easy some members of our society turn to
\nviolence then our pride would be baseless. Indeed, having too
\nmuch pride in our peace-loving culture without any critical
\nattitude will only tarnish the good reputation of our nation.
\nUnfortunately, some government officials think people's loyalty
\nto the political system can be engineered.<\/p>\n
Honesty is apparently lacking in our political culture.<\/p>\n
Fourth, we should be aware of the fact that the three
\npolitical groups are preparing for the 1998 succession. In such a
\nsituation, political maneuvers made by those antagonistic groups
\ncan be very destabilizing because they will tend to focus on
\ntheir respective short-term interests without giving priority to
\nwider national necessities.<\/p>\n
In addition to this, ambitious politicians could manipulate
\nthe \"floating mass\" for their own political goals. Partisan and
\nsectarian political maneuvers can be prevented if the government
\nis able and willing to give a clear indication of where the
\ndesirable change should proceed. Change which is not managed will
\nonly lead to political unrest emerging out of social and
\npolitical frustration which can destroy the whole system.<\/p>\n
The unpredictability of political life is one clear indication
\nof political instability. Political stability suggests the system
\ncould continue no matter who the leader is. Political stability
\nmust be tested by a transition of power. This is exactly what has
\ntaken place for many years in advanced democracies.<\/p>\n
The unpredictability of the political system notwithstanding,
\nthere are some critical points that need to be taken into account
\nin order to ensure a smooth and peaceful political transition.<\/p>\n
First, there should be an open and honest national dialog in
\norder to build a genuine consensus regarding the succession
\ndilemma. We cannot wait until 1988 for such a dialog. A peaceful
\nand smooth succession should be carefully planned. Major
\npolitical groups could arrange a national meeting to establish a
\nconsensus which is binding to everybody. Such a consensus can
\nreduce the political tension prior to the 1998 succession.<\/p>\n
Second, it is unwise to prohibit people from expressing their
\nopinion regarding the eligibility of the contenders for the 1998
\nsuccession. Any prohibition or restriction can be self-defeated.
\nIndeed, there will no political gain from the so-called
\n\"succession secret\". The more we keep everybody guessing, the
\nmore the public becomes suspicious of the government's intention.
\nIt is the government's task to explain to the public all policy
\nissues which might entail critical consequences for the nation.
\nBeing honest with the people is one of the best methods of
\npolitical education.<\/p>\n
Third, the existence of formal procedures for the election of
\nthe President and Vice President may not automatically mean that
\nthe succession will run smoothly. Unfortunately, this has become
\nthe standard answer given by certain government officials when
\nasked about the succession. Politics is largely determined by
\npower and interest rather than abstract ideals. Instead of
\nreferring to the formal procedures, it is far better if the
\ngovernment explains the real situation and how it might try to
\nproduce a progressive change in the future.<\/p>\n
Fourth, we ought to know by now that the 1998 succession is
\nnot an end in itself. It is not more than a critical point in
\nthis nation's long historical process. There are still many other
\nimportant agendas to be worked out in the year ahead. Let us not
\nbecome captives of our own history. There is still a long way to
\ngo before we achieve our national goals stipulated in the
\npreamble of the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
In this time of delicate transition we do need serenity to
\naccept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things
\nwe can, and wisdom to know the difference. Such a prudent
\nattitude may be the key to a smooth and peaceful succession in
\n1998.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and
\nPolitical Sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan,
\nBandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen,
\nBelgium.<\/p>\n
Window: Prudence is absolutely necessary in managing political
\nsuccession. Prudence exists when we act only after careful
\nthought and planning.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/presidential-succession-needs-prudence-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}