Do we need civilian leadership?

By Aleksius Jemadu

JAKARTA (JP): Recently, Juwono Sudarsono, the deputy governor of the National Resilience Institute, put forward a provoking idea about the necessity of continuing to let someone with a military background lead the country for at least another five years. According to Juwono, civilians are not ready to become president before the year 2005 (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 9, 1997). He questioned in particular the capability of a civilian leader in dealing with many fundamental problems in political and economic spheres. The problem with Juwono's view is that civilians can never have the chance to prepare the necessary transition from a military-dominated government to a civilian government. Such transition has taken place in many developing countries such as Brazil, Peru, Argentina, and South Korea.

The success of these countries in establishing a democratic civilian government should inspire us to explore the possibility of allowing the same pattern of power transition to take place here. Political socialization of a leader could have a significant impact upon his or her style of leadership. The hierarchy of command which is practiced in military organizations is not suitable for the global tendency towards a more egalitarian way of organizing politics and the economy.

If it is true that future leadership will depend on networks of interdependence among different public and private organizations then we have to abandon our traditional reliance on the centralization of command which is typical in a military- dominated government. Moreover, the formation of political personality in military organizations is very much characterized by a standardization of ideas and behavior. Pluralistic views are normally considered anomalies and a lack of discipline.

Juwono seemed to neglect the fact that Indonesia had and still has the potential to generate great civilian leaders. To be sure, under the government of civilian leaders in the 1950s there was no political stability at all. However, this does not necessarily mean that civilian leaders will always fail to establish order and stability for the nation. The most important criterion that future leaders will have to satisfy is flexibility in incorporating all social and economic options of the nation so that there may be synergy in dealing with global challenges.

Another weak point of Juwono's view is that he puts too much emphasis on centrality of command (military approach) as a key to solving Indonesia's fundamental problems. Unfortunately, he did not make any reference to the experience of former communist regimes in Eastern Europe where this approach has proved to be political suicide. Political leadership which relies on centralization of power will tend to have a fragile legitimacy. Only democratic government can expect to enjoy the support of the people in this era of globalization. A civilian leadership with its flexibility in mobilizing voluntary participation of different organizations in society will have more opportunities to accomplish the more interactive governance which is so essential for a modern political system.

On top of that there is growing concern today that territorial nation-states in the Third World have become increasingly limited in capacity to provide basic services such as housing, health, food, education, and clothing because of their ill-designed policies and lack of financial resources. Due to the process of economic globalization many poor people in developing societies are powerless and hopeless in facing the severity of social and economic illnesses such as unemployment, weakening of national currency, corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

In his book titled One World, Ready or Not (1997) William Greider suggests that the global economy is sowing "creative destruction" everywhere. On the one hand the global economy enables great accumulation of wealth, but on the other hand "it is also reviving forms of human exploitation that characterized industry one hundred years ago, and raising profound questions about the relevance of the nation-state in the face of impersonal market forces".

When all nations are busy making efforts to improve their competitiveness in global trade, their leaders tend to forget the most disadvantaged groups in society. In this era of market- driven economy there is strong tendency to value people by their contribution to the process of economic production. Those who are not productive and contribute nothing to the production of goods and services will be automatically marginalized and become second-class citizens.

It is noteworthy that the capacity of various groups in society to face the negative impact of global economy is not the same. People who control financial and technological resources will find it easy to adapt. Those who do not will have to struggle to survive. Thus, the incorporation of our economy into global capitalism may not necessarily strengthen the unity of our society. Solidarity with the poor and other disadvantaged groups in society then becomes a scarce thing.

With all these global challenges there is a real need for future Indonesian leaders to establish a convergent governance in which networks of interdependence between public and private organizations could become conditio sine qua non. Of particular importance in this regard is how close cooperation between the government and the private sector can be endorsed to respond productively and creatively to global challenges especially in the economic sphere.

Preparing a strong and effective civilian leadership as a precondition for the establishment of a democratic nation-state will certainly take time. It will not be an instant process. Hopefully, Juwono's pessimistic view on the readiness of civilian leaders will not hinder us from inventing new methods of governance which would be more suitable for this era of global democratization.

The writer is a lecturer of the School of Social and Political Sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung.