Effective leaders needed to manage social conflict

Effective leaders needed to manage social conflict

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Many would agree that the greatest challenge
that Indonesia will have to face in the coming century is how to
create a modern nation-state based on a strong and democratic
civil society capable of competing with other nations in the
global market.

However, national unity in a pluralistic society can never be
taken for granted. Nor can it be assumed as a static condition.
Managing conflict is a permanent necessity to ensure the
survivability of a nation-state.

We must honestly admit that conflict is an inevitable element
of our social life. Fundamental differences do exist among
different ethnic groups, religions, cultures, languages, and
social strata of Indonesian society. The differences, however,
may not necessarily mean that we cannot build a strong nation-
state.

Economic development as a mechanism to allocate authoritative
values in society very rarely provides equal opportunities for
members of society. Some groups in society might benefit more
than others in appropriating the fruits of economic development.
Some other groups might even be marginalized in the process of
economic development. Unequal distribution of economic resources
will inevitably lead to the crystallization of the existing
innate divisive conflicts. This is precisely the reason why
people tend to put it down to social and economic inequality when
asked about the cause of the recent riots.

The main argument of this article suggests that our political
leaders should learn how to manage conflict in a pluralistic
society such as ours so that the conflict might be controlled and
transformed into a creative dialectics towards the establishment
of a strong nation-state.

How can we define the concept of "conflict management" in such
a way so that it might fit the typical situation of our society?

Conflict management can be understood as a process of
reconciling crucial differences among the protagonists so that
they might be willing to maintain their togetherness and
committed to enhance cooperation to achieve common benefits.

It goes without saying that the role of the government is very
critical in providing an effective leadership which is capable of
accommodating and harmonizing the conflicting interests promoted
by different segments in society.

What does it mean to have an effective leadership? Effective
leadership can be said to exist when a leader has a strong
legitimacy, formal and substantial, and his policies can be
accepted by all groups in society. An effective leader puts
public interests above his or her own strategic calculations and
political ambitions.

Without an effective leadership, a nation would appear to be
going nowhere. Conversely, the presence of an effective
leadership can produce significant achievements in many important
aspects of national development.

It should be noted that an effective leadership cannot be
likened to an authoritarian one. While the first type of
leadership can invite respect from the people, the latter can
continue to exist because the people feel powerless to resist.

Whether a nation can create an effective leadership depends
greatly on the existing political culture which dominates
political life. By political culture we mean patterns of
political behavior and ideological orientations which tend to
persist over time.

Conflict management in a pluralistic society such as Indonesia
requires the presence of an effective leader. The fact that the
New Order government has managed to combine good economic
performance and political stability over the last three decades
should be seen as proof of an effective leadership. However, what
is the foundation to believe that this type of political
leadership will be sustainable? Can the young generation within
the national leadership develop a capability to cope with new
demands and challenges from within and outside the nation?

We cannot expect that political stability should always be
imposed from above. The empowerment of our civil society is an
important agenda to be worked out as we enter the next
millennium.

The strength of a modern nation-state reflects the empowerment
of its civil society. It is believed that the recent spate of
riots in several places has been due to the fact that the
government is too strong and seems to be inaccessible for the
grassroots. There seems to be a wide gap between the jargons used
by government officials and the real social and economic
conditions of many of us. As a result, people from the lower
strata tend to find solutions to their problems within the
framework of their respective innate divisive loyalties. They
tend to hate all the political and economic symbols of the
dominant power.

Political stability has become the main goal of conflict
management in many developing societies, including Indonesia.
However, the promotion of political stability is unthinkable
without the participation of all groups in society. It is a
common practice in many developing countries that the people tend
to become objects of manipulation for the sake of political
stability.

It should not come as a surprise if some people get worried
about stability because one person's stability can be another's
repression. A dynamic stability always implies change toward a
better society. Political stability without change is equal to
political stagnation. The desire to have a better life is very
human in any society. Political stability is not an end in itself
but an instrument to achieve social and economic progress for
all.

There are several conditions that need to be seriously
considered if we want to develop an ability to manage conflict in
our pluralistic society. First of all, we have to change the way
we deal with the problem of social and economic inequality.

Without underestimating the real efforts made by the
government in alleviating poverty in rural and urban areas, we
would argue that it would be much more effective if we take the
risk of changing some structural characteristics of national
development.

Problems of poverty and economic inequality are structurally
embedded in our development approach. People might ask why
poverty tends to persist and even increase both in urban and
rural areas as our economy grows steadily?

There is no easy answer to such a complicated and disturbing
question. To be sure, it is not easy to satisfy everybody.
However, the government can give more opportunities to the weak
economic groups by facilitating and simplifying the process of
getting soft loans and credit from state banks.

We cannot alleviate poverty by capitalizing on the benevolence
of the conglomerates. It will be more elegant if we find ways how
to prevent the conglomerates from appropriating most of economic
resources. It is the task of the state to create justice in
society by allocating authoritative values in a more equal and
accountable way. Thus, just and fair allocation of economic
resources can be used as an instrument to manage conflict because
it touches the basic needs of the people.

Second, the government should be consistent in its effort to
eradicate corruption within the whole public sector system. Good
examples from political leaders are absolutely necessary. Respect
for superiors is a strong passion among our bureaucrats. A
corrupt leader cannot be expected to have sufficient moral power
and courage to prevent his subordinates from corruption. This is
why corruption has become a pervasive phenomenon so difficult to
get rid of.

If the common people feel powerless in facing a lot of
irregularities and infractions, they will become frustrated and
tend to commit violent acts once there is an opportunity to do
so. Thus, ethical improvement within government bureaucracies
becomes an important element of strengthening the idea of a
modern and democratic nation-state. Only a clean government can
exercise an effective leadership in managing conflicting
interests in society.

Third, the principle of equality before the law should be
practiced by all. There are two senses of this principle. It
might apply to the rules themselves and it can also refer to the
actual practices of legal administrators. Where the executive
power tends to dominate the judicial power, it is very likely
that the formal law might be just, but the judges might be
corrupt.

Rule adjudication could then be characterized by the
preservation of the dominant political group's interests in
society. As a result, the principle of rule of law becomes "rule
of bureaucratic law". "Rules of the game" becomes "game of rules"
because the ruling power can manipulate the existing rules for
its own benefits.

The absence of legal certainty could lead to the accumulation
of social frustrations at the grassroots level because they feel
powerless to make their voice heard by the ruling elite. This is
precisely the reason why government officials should undertake
sincere dialog with the people. Dialog can be an effective
instrument to soften hard elements of social envy and ethnic
hostility.

Finally, the proper function of democratic institutions such
as parliament, political parties, trade unions, mass
organizations, voluntary organizations and the mass media can be
very helpful in managing conflict in pluralistic society.

These institutions should be freed from bureaucratic
intervention. If they cannot demonstrate their independence in
articulating the interests of their constituents, what else can
we hope from them?

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan,
Bandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen,
Belgium.

Window A: It is believed that the recent spate of riots in several
places has been due to the fact that the government is too strong
and seems to be inaccessible for the grassroots.

Window B: It should not come as a surprise if some people get
worried about stability because one person's stability can be
another's repression.