The INdonesian enigma: Economic, leadership crises<\/p>\n
Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo, Former Governor National Resilience
\nInstitute (Lemhanas), Jakarta<\/p>\n
Indonesia is again facing a serious crisis of leadership and
\ngovernment in the face of mass demonstrations that have spread
\nbeyond Jakarta, involving students and even housewives.<\/p>\n
The government decision to increase oil, telephone and
\nelectricity prices at the same time, though later modified, was
\nindeed a very brave act. We must assume President Megawati
\nSoekarnoputri, Vice President Hamzah Haz and the other members of
\nthe government have the common sense to understand that such a
\ndrastic decision would create strong reactions amid already
\ndifficult living conditions.<\/p>\n
Being politicians they certainly could have guessed that
\nnegative reactions would be manipulated by their political
\nopponents. All our politicians are known for their preparations
\nfor the coming 2004 elections, including the election of the
\npresident and vice president.<\/p>\n
That in spite of these consequences the President and her
\nministers made the radical decision, is an indication that they
\nwere really pressed to do so. If the decision was really
\ninevitable why did the government not make the very important
\npsychological preparations to prevent negative reactions?<\/p>\n
The President and her assistants made a very serious mistake
\nin this respect, or had entirely misjudged the people's mind. Is
\nit because most or all of the ministers and the President and
\nVice President, belonging to the middle class, do not feel and
\nunderstand the commoner's difficulties?<\/p>\n
One cannot avoid doubting the government's serious defense of
\ntheir decision when after facing mass demonstrations, they so
\neasily change the price increases. This retreat is proof, in
\nparticular for the students, that the decision was not seriously
\nthought over after all -- hence the rallies continued.<\/p>\n
However, the initial opposition to price increases only has
\nnow become a more serious development -- a strong voice urging
\nMegawati and Hamzah to step down.<\/p>\n
Those who want this leadership change base their demand on the
\nfact that the national leadership no longer has the support and
\ntrust of the majority of the people. Many decisions and judgments
\nare not in accordance with what the people really need.<\/p>\n
There are also people who strongly believe that the President
\nis indeed not good enough for her job. From the start of her
\npresidency some questioned Megawati's intellectual capabilities
\nto make her an effective head of state.<\/p>\n
This doubt became stronger when the President kept silent in
\nmany instances where her opinion could be important to guide the
\nnation. But her supporters defended her silence by comparing it
\nwith the attitude of her predecessor, President Abdurrahman
\nWahid, whose many statements and expressions were causing more
\nnegative than positive reactions. So after balancing the negative
\nand positive factors most of the people agree that it is better
\nthat Megawati and her government remain in office until the
\ncoming elections in 2004.<\/p>\n
But now people again begin to doubt whether it is really
\nbetter for the nation to keep Megawati until 2004. Many decisions
\nare badly hurting the nation, like the sale of Indosat and other
\ndecisions around the privatization of state owned firms, the
\nprice increases, and others.<\/p>\n
There is an increasing concern that during these two years
\nmore government misjudgments will happen. People are now thinking
\nabout replacing Megawati by forming a Presidium that will lead
\nthe state until the 2004 elections.<\/p>\n
However, others feel that such a change will harm our
\ndemocratization process. Following reformasi, two presidents in a
\nrow were forced to step down, namely B.J. Habibie and Abdurrahman
\nWahid. It would be very bad for democratic developments if the
\nPresident must again step down without a normal election process.<\/p>\n
Moreover, there is no assurance that a Presidium can work
\neffectively to lead the nation with its multidimensional
\nproblems. And it is doubtful whether the personalities that form
\nthe Presidium are really capable, knowing the prevailing
\nmentality and weaknesses among the political elite.<\/p>\n
So to prolong the presidency of Megawati until 2004 may indeed
\nbe disastrous for Indonesia. But to replace her now will not
\nbring any improvements, it could even be worse. This is the first
\ndilemma which troubles Indonesia today.<\/p>\n
The second dilemma is caused by the leadership problem. The
\nkey solution would be a leadership with a much higher quality.
\nFirst, leadership than can enforce discipline, including to
\nitself.<\/p>\n
How can we have legal supremacy without any discipline? And
\nhow can we have a sound democratic political system and economic
\nimprovement without effective laws? During the Soeharto regime
\ndiscipline was already weak, but after reformasi discipline
\ndeteriorated substantially when freedom and democracy were
\ninterpreted as the total liberty to do everything one wanted.
\nThis excessive freedom has not been restrained until today with
\nall the negative consequences.<\/p>\n
Effective leadership should entail strong physical and moral
\ncourage. It should be able to confront the several interests of
\nthe culprits of collusion, corruption and nepotism, that would
\nfeel threatened by actions to bring them to court. And it should
\nhave the moral courage to make unpopular decisions, if they are
\nreally needed to better the nation.<\/p>\n
To gain public confidence, leadership must demonstrate
\nconsistency by its actions, and decisions should not differ from
\nstatements. Leaders who tell the people to live austerely, but
\nswim in luxury, would make people cynical. Until today
\nconsistency has never been a strong feature of our leaders,
\ndating back to the first president Sukarno up to his daughter,
\ntoday's president.<\/p>\n
Leadership must consist of achievement-oriented people. Not
\npeople who are fond of theorizing only without the ambition to
\nmake these theories reality.<\/p>\n
People get confused listening to the many debates among so-
\ncalled political, economic and security observers, who do not
\nhave the capability to achieve when they are in an executive
\nposition.<\/p>\n
We cannot hope to have real positive change unless this
\nleadership requirement is met. The second dilemma is caused by
\nthe fact that this kind of leadership cannot develop in the
\npresent political system. A political system that is controlled
\nby the political parties, in particular the large one, whose
\nleaders are not interested in a different kind of leadership.<\/p>\n
People with good intentions and with promising basic qualities
\nare reluctant to enter political life, realizing they cannot
\nbreak the prevailing traditions. Some try to form their own
\nparties, but these new parties do not have the capability to be
\ninfluential. Many of the new parties even enhance the political
\nmalaise.<\/p>\n
It is therefore far from certain that the 2004 elections will
\nmake Indonesia much more capable to bring improvements in solving
\nthe multidimensional problems. And Megawati's challenge to her
\nopponents and competitors might not be too unrealistic. Another
\nterm for her is not impossible given the quality and capability
\nof her aspiring opponents. But what would happen to Indonesia if
\nthat comes true?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-indonesian-enigma-economic-leadership-crises-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}