Arroyo's lesson

For many years, the Philippines has been a leading example for Southeast Asian countries seeking to move toward democracy.

During the darkest days of totalitarian rule, Indonesians often coveted the kind of freedom and respect for political rights enjoyed by their Filipino neighbors. It represented, and continues to represent, a model of the vibrancy of a democratic state but at the same time an example of the pitfalls to be avoided in a country far more familiar with liberal democratic practices.

In many ways Indonesia's road to democratic reform emulated that of the Philippines. We both replaced all-conquering autocrats, forced the downfall of elected presidents and proved just how strong "people power" could be.

Apart from the two countries being the world's two largest archipelagoes, both face similar challenges in eradicating corruption, overt poverty and instilling democratic processes in societies long encumbered by coercive methods.

Both countries have learned also that despite the utopian notions of democracy, it is by itself no panacea for malignant cancers such as systemic corruption and other abuses of power.

Hence it is no surprise that Indonesians are again watching carefully the latest political crisis faced by Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Though the fallout of the scandal is colored by various political nuances and self-interest, its ultimate cause is something Indonesian leaders should always be wary of: Betraying the public's trust.

The relationship between an elected leader and his/her constituents is like a marriage. It is a contract simply based on faith. Once trust has been violated, it is very difficult to rekindle the kind of compassionate following and faith which was so full of promise at the start of the tenure.

Whether or not Arroyo deserves to be ousted is a judgment Filipinos will have to make. Nevertheless it is clear that she did enough to violate the public's trust.

Indonesia's Abdurrahman Wahid learned this lesson the hard way. The dismissive manner in which he approached the issue of "contributions" eventually spurred a political storm which led to his ouster in what effectively was a constitutional coup.

For such a brilliant man Abdurrahman neglected the simplest of rules: Public opinion matters.

Abdurrahman's first mistake was to betray the public's trust. His second, was to ignore public opinion.

Maybe the fact that he was not directly elected by the people had contributed to his vanity.

Sometimes we expect too much from our leaders; standards which we would not set for ourselves. But societal leaders do stand above the crowd, that's why they were chosen in the first place. They are required to exemplify the highest morality, astuteness in character and a leadership quality to inspire other men to transcend their own limitations.

To elect men or women of lower caliber and moral fiber is to belittle the greatness of one's nation.

Indonesia continues its search for these men and women, though the search over the past seven years has been more frustrating than fruitful.

The pervading culture of leadership here instead seems to hurriedly betray the public trust once in office, rather than enhance it.

We call on our elected leaders -- at all levels -- to heed the lessons of Arroyo's predicament.

The people trust "your" leadership, but they will watch very carefully "your" work. A breech of trust will result in a public uprising. Even if a politician survives such a scandal the consequences will be so great that it would restrict one's political mobility for remainder of one's tenure.

In the construction of this new Indonesia it is not only sufficient for public officials -- elected or appointed -- to do their job well, but also honestly!