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.