Direct electoral system may be for the better

Direct electoral system may be for the better

Once a new, better system is adopted, leaders will be more
accountable to the public, says Teten Masduki of the Indonesian
Corruption Watch (ICW). Below is excerpts from an interview with
Teten conducted by The Jakarta Post's contributor I. Christianto.

Question: How do you perceive the current national leadership?

Answer: If we want to compare the current leadership to the
previous one, we have to look at the problems and the
accompanying sociopolitical dynamism.

President Abdurrahman Wahid's government has very serious
social and political problems. Many people believe that the
President doesn't have the capability to handle the economy,
politics and security affairs. They always compare him with
Soeharto.

Unlike Soeharto, Abdurrahman does not have a background in the
military. I think someone with a military background would not be
able to handle the current problems as the sociopolitical
dynamism has changed. There would be social resistance if
repressive coercion was applied. That's why it seems that
Abdurrahman's leadership is so weak in political, economical and
defense affairs.

I think Abdurrahman also lacks ideas in renewing the nation's
economy. There's no grand strategy in helping the economy to
recover. Politically, the President has also scored poorly in
many cases, including those related with demilitarization. In
defense affairs, the President has been so slow in handling the
bombing cases, the threats of disintegration, ethnic riots and so
on.

I don't have any idea why the current government is unable to
optimize resources such as the National Police, regional
bureaucracy and so on.

In the meantime, the House of Representatives (DPR) also plays
a role in aggravating some of the problems. The House does not
have any clear agenda for improving the situation. Some House
members even politicize certain cases, like those related to
corruption and security, only to challenge the President. They
should try to solve the problems.

Other members of the elite always think about their own
interests. They do not care about the problems faced by the
public. Consequently, the public have their way of solving their
problems. There have been incidents where people forcefully
seized plantation areas previously belonging to them.

Q: What other elements may influence leadership?

A: A political system and the presence of an institution for
democracy. I think our institution for democracy is so dominated
by the interests of the elite that the mechanism of democracy
does not work. We can see what is happening at the House. When
people expect to see the eradication of corruption, the House
only inquires about limited cases, which are related to attempts
to topple Abdurrahman. We need to see more significant cases
disclosed by the House.

And with the current electoral system, we can't expect to have
leaders who are accountable and responsible to the public.

Civil society also plays an important role in supporting
national leadership. Civil society has the potential to handle
something that can't be handled by the state. But civil society
here was decimated during the New Order. That's why social unrest
continues in some areas. The social institution has been
destroyed. In fact, the government will play a smaller role when
a nation becomes more mature.

Q: So what needs to be done?

A: This is not only about an individual. The problems will not
end by replacing a leader. We need to see more wide-ranging
repairs done in the system of democracy and civil society. The
government has to repair the legal aspect, simplify and cleanse
bureaucracy and create a transparent political mechanism.

In civil society, the public can organize themselves to build
awareness in democracy ... this is the key when we talk about
leadership.

A formal leader must set legal supremacy and combat
corruption, for instance. So there must be clear, strong
leadership. Currently, we are only seeing the government and the
legislators are only fighting themselves. The public, meanwhile,
feels insecure.

Q: But to some extent, we now have more freedom ...

A: Yes. In the past, I had to be very careful when holding a
meeting to discuss a corruption case. We had to be very careful
about the presence of intelligence officers. Now we are free. But
that is only about one thing.

Q: Do you think we can rely on current leaders?

A: When it comes to eradicating corruption, Abdurrahman is not a
good leader. There is stern punishment for those convicted of
corruption in China or Singapore.

Instead of implementing strong leadership, he is also involved
in corruption. He probably wants to strengthen his National
Awakening Party (PKB) for the 2004 election. I think other
political party leaders and the elite also do that (corruption),
and that's why some of them try to protect Abdurrahman.

Also, other leaders do not show interest in creating a better
condition. In preparing the state budget, for instance, the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), did not
pay more attention in improving the economy for commoners,
although we believe its grass roots was the commoners. In another
example, Golkar did not show any interest in improving teachers'
welfare.

I think most of the elite are the same; they ignore the
public's aspiration.

Q: How can we have good leaders?

A: This is related to the electoral system. The political elite
has never been accountable to the public.

If we had a district electoral system, or a direct
presidential election, we would have very different leaders.

The current system we have adopted does not make leaders
responsible to the people. Consequently, most people turn to
certain figures. Some of us believe that he or she will be able
to lead the nation.

I think this is not enough as whoever the president is will be
easily troubled by other parties since we have adopted the same
electoral system.

The elections last year were only to legitimize the positions
of the old elite. Then the agenda for reform stopped. So I think
a district electoral system would be good for the nation.

Q: So there's a slight chance for new leaders to appear if we
don't adopt a new electoral system?

A: There is. If we remember the situation after Soeharto fell in
May 1998, there was a public spirit of participation in political
parties.

But we know that those who were supported by the public failed
to secure any positions ... due to money politics. The chance is
over now. We can see now that our economic structure is still
dominated by the same business groups. It's also the same in the
political structure.

Q: Despite the system, will anyone appear?

A: Let me answer this by pointing out two things. First, during
the 32 years under Soeharto, there was no chance at all for
anyone to appear. Second, there were some good politicians, but
then they became a part of the corrupt government.

Now we only have the opposition, who can only criticize but
are not given the opportunity to lead. As a result, no one is
able to lead the nation.

Q: Will this be a matter of time?

A: This is a matter of the elite's good will in making a dramatic
change.

We won't be able to move to a better situation without a
dramatic change, particularly in changing the electoral system.
That's all.

If we adopt a district electoral system and direct voting,
we'll be able to start a new life.

Clean government is also important. We can learn from
Singapore. Although Singapore is an authoritarian nation, the
government is clean. In his first speech when he set out to
cleanse the nation of corruption, former prime minister Lee Kuan
Yew pledged to bring any of his family members to court if they
were involved in corruption.

This is a quality of leadership which has a positive impact on
the public in Singapore. But here, we see three indebted tycoons
being protected. So what we need now is a change.

Q: Do you think cultural aspects and mentalities are related with
leadership?

A: I don't believe culture is an identity. Culture does change
and develop. For instance, the Chinese in Singapore, Hong Kong
and China are very different.

This is also true in Indonesia. Commoners work without tight
schedules, but they can adjust when they become workers. So there
are always changes.

I also don't believe that corruption is a culture, but only a
practice implemented by a corrupt system. So when we have clean
leaders, we'll have a good system.

Q: What kind of a role does the education system play in grooming
leaders?

A: Our education system does not prepare students to be leaders,
but plagiarists and thieves. Just take a look at the
examinations, which only force students to memorize subjects. How
can students find new ideas?

Teachers' roles are so dominant and this encourages a
paternalistic attitude. I think we need to readjust our education
system.

Luckily we have many NGOs which campaign numerous public
issues. For instance, more people are now aware about human
rights. This is due to the role of NGOs, not formal education.

Q: What about your personal experience in leadership?

A: My parents were small entrepreneurs. They did not have too
much time to interfere with the children in deciding on what we
should be in the future. But they prioritized education and urged
us to be the best in school.

As entrepreneurs, they met many different people and became
convinced that becoming a civil servant or military officer would
not be good for us.

Since I was a child, I preferred to mingle with children who
were economically weak and marginalized. I found friends who were
smart but inferior as they came from poor families. Together, we
formed a study group.

As a college student, I read numerous books on social theories
and took part in discussions. I think this contributed a lot to
my understanding about the society I live in. My interest in
social problems was supported by theoretical concepts. By then I
was meeting with friends who shared the same interests in social
affairs.