Democracy and leadership

Democracy and leadership

Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo
Former Governor
National Resilience Institute
(Lemhanas)
Jakarta

More and more people are wondering whether democracy is the
right political system for Indonesia. Democratic reforms, started
in 1958, do not seem to bring improvements to the
multidimensional crisis facing the nation.

Problems have even increased in number as well as in
seriousness. The economy is still vulnerable, the political
situation is full of danger because of ethnic divisions and the
misbehavior of the political elite, while domestic security has
deteriorated.

Some people, especially at the grassroots level, are nostalgic
for the much more stable and orderly situation of the Soeharto
regime. People are inclined to blame democracy as the cause of
all these evils, because of the excessive freedoms that developed
when democratic reforms began. People today do not pay much
attention to the common interest and have become very egoistical
in only looking after their own benefits. Chaotic traffic
conditions are a concrete and clear example of the current
mentality of the people.

Older people will remember the situation in the 1950s when
Indonesia was also in a state of disorder and stagnation because
of the implementation of parliamentary democracy. The dominating
role of political parties, fiercely competing for power, made it
impossible for governments to remain in office long enough to put
their policies in place. Cabinets came and went in a matter of
months. The result was stagnation in many fields of life. So much
so that the majority of the people were happy when president
Sukarno declared the end of parliamentary democracy and a return
to the 1945 Constitution, which would at least provide
decisiveness and stability.

But democratic activists argue that it is wrong to blame
democracy for the nation's woes. They say that Indonesia is just
at the start of the democratic process and it is therefore normal
if there are excesses in the use of freedom. That will gradually
improve with the maturation of the people and greater experience
in the implementation of democracy.

It would be very wrong to think of terminating democracy
because of its transitional weaknesses. That would return
Indonesia to authoritarian, rule with all its grave consequences
as demonstrated so clearly by the Sukarno and Soeharto regimes.
The solution must be perseverance in the building of democracy
and accepting the negative aspects as the price to pay for a
better future.

However, the pessimists are asking how long the transition
will last. They think that the longer it lasts the more the
situation will deteriorate and chaos prevail. In that situation,
it is not inconceivable that the Republic could collapse.

But since Indonesia established Pancasila as the state's
ideology, democracy must be one of the basic principles of life.
The fact is that the fourth tenet of Pancasila is democracy.
However, democracy does not stand alone and must go together with
the four other tenets of Pancasila, namely belief in God,
humanity, national unity and social justice. Therefore, democracy
must be established not just for the sake of democracy or just to
follow other nations, but to develop progress, national unity and
a prosperous and spiritual life.

Looking at Singapore and Malaysia as nations that have
developed very successfully, one can see the prominent role
played by Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad as leaders who
propelled their nations into progress and prosperity. Lee Kuan
Yew always insists that for developing nations democracy can only
bring progress if it is accompanied by discipline, which also
means the rule of law. And Mahathir stated in his closing remarks
before leaving his leadership position that people must not be
obsessed with democracy, because an obsession with democracy
could mean anarchy.

Many people in the West and democratic activists in developing
countries like Indonesia do not recognize Singapore and Malaysia
as democracies. They say that both countries are ruled by Lee
Kuan Yew and Mahathir as dictators. They entirely prefer to
forget that both countries have democratic institutions that
perform normally, including holding regular elections.

They also do not take into consideration that the majority of
people in Singapore and Malaysia are satisfied with the state of
democracy in their countries. But the West is ambivalent, because
it also praises Singapore and Malaysia for their development into
industrial nations. Dr. Mahathir used to say jokingly that he
might be the first dictator in the world elected by a democratic
process.

The building of democracy in Indonesia should take these
examples into consideration. Another fact to consider is that in
the West, the development of democracy was a gradual process. To
safeguard a sound democratic process in developing nations like
Indonesia, one cannot deny that democracy should be accompanied
by leadership. The role of leadership will make democracy a
significant and healthy part of life, fostering progress,
national unity and prosperity.

The direct presidential election in 2004 will decide whether
Indonesia can develop a national leadership that can be trusted
to lead this process. That leadership must be able to establish
the rule of law and social discipline. The economy, education and
public health must be improved so that the majority of the people
will feel and see that there are changes that benefit them. This
will result in strong popular support that the leadership needs
to make the necessary changes. The leadership must also have the
strength and wisdom to end all the ethnic and religious
divisions.

But democratic institutions should also be activated,
including opposition in the legislature and a free and
responsible press. Strong leadership and the rule of law should
take care that the freedoms of democracy do not harm the
continuity of government, because only a government that can last
long enough will be able to deliver significant results.

The leadership should also groom future leaders who can take
the place of the present leadership when the nation has reached a
point of stable and progressive development. That requires from
the present leadership the ability to know when they should step
down and make way for their groomed successors. Leaders like Deng
Xiaoping, Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad have given the
example; it is unfortunate for Indonesia that Sukarno and
Soeharto did not have the wisdom to do this.

The important question Indonesia is facing is whether the
presidential election in 2004 will result in the rise of a
national leadership that can do the necessary job. If it fails to
do so, it is not impossible that very serious consequences will
present themselves on Indonesia's doorstep.