In search of a person who can lead

In search of a person who can lead

This is the first of two articles on leadership by Dr. Ignas
Kleden, a sociologist and executive director of The Go-East
Institute (Institute for East-Indonesian Affairs), Jakarta.

JAKARTA (JP): A leader in a stable society can work from
behind. His leadership is successful if things are running well
and people are not necessarily aware of his presence and
interference. The existing norms and values are sufficient
guidelines to orientate his followers as to how to behave.

By contrast in a crisis situation, a leader becomes a
necessity. He must show his presence, appearing in front of his
people to restore the confidence among his followers and to
assure them that though they are deeply embedded in
disorientation, everything will be alright again because they can
put everything under control.

A leader becomes the personification of norms and values which
in a time of crisis are very liable to become shaky and
indefinite. The loosening of values and norms would not lead to
increasing confusion if people still have somebody to look up to,
somebody who represents in his personality and behavior --
steadiness, firmness in conviction, sovereignty over problems and
pressures, and moral courage to face up to even the worst
possible situation. To put it philosophically, a leader is by
definition a man for others and never a man for himself.

This is clear in theoretical terms but becomes blurred in real
practice. A leader might be undaunted in the face of troubles and
even threats and yet this could become sheer obstinacy if what he
tries to defend is not for the benefit of his followers but for
his own self-interest.

In the same vein, a man can remain cool and stable in the
midst of pressing problems and uncertainties, yet this could be
far away from real composure and firmness and instead be mere
indifference if he has no empathy with the concern of the many
who are suffering.

A leader seems to be a man (or a woman for that matter) who
not only can think for the people but also can feel with them.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand whether a leader is
really doing his best to render his people to be seriously aware
of their troubles; or perhaps he is trying to explain away the
troubles by making fun of them or even just ridiculing looming
issues that are burdensome and troublesome.

There is usually only a hair's breadth difference between
bringing people to optimism and hope and leading them to quasi-
ignorance or illusion. Needless to say, there are problems which
by nature can never be glossed over by means of trivializing
their urgency.

Whatever politicians would say about the rising unemployment
and the reduction of subsidies for fuel, people can never be made
forgetful, let alone ignorant, of the additional economic burden
they might not be able to shoulder.

Also, we cannot simply say "don't worry" or "why bother" to
those who have lost two or three members of their family in the
killings and violent conflicts in Ambon, Papua, and Aceh. At the
same time more than 100 East Timorese who chose to join the
Republic during the last referendum in East Timor are still
waiting desperately for resettlement.

From a national point of view, it is somewhat embarrassing
that the issue of humanitarianism has become actual and important
just after the killing of three United Nations workers.

Likewise, the situation of political refugees and the solution
to the problem of prointegration militias were given more
attention after the United States threatened to lay an economic
embargo on Indonesia if the militias were not disarmed entirely.

There is no denying the fact that killing in whatever form is
a terrible thing. But what has been said so far about the death
of political refugees both because of miserable protection and
poor accommodation as well as violent treatment? Was any mention
ever made of this loss of lives as a humanitarian problem? Double
standards in moral judgment and political stance are still the
order of the day in Atambua or in other parts of the globe.

Indonesia has no doubt been heavily hit by a multifaceted
crisis. The demand for economic recovery, for example, is still
aggravated by the requirement of economic reform. Recovery in
economic activities should necessarily be accompanied by a reform
in the economic structure.

The government and people are unfortunately faced with this
double task. Reform without recovery is very likely to lead to a
total paralysis of the economy, whereas recovery without reform
would bring the national economy back to square one, with all the
requisites for another crisis.

This condition is made worse by the political crisis
originating in at least two sorts of development. Political
openness has provided the opportunity for much more exercise of
political freedom and democratic rights without much
consideration of their costs and benefits.

Continuous demonstrations and protests for whatever reasons
have brought about political hullabaloos which exceed the
available political carrying capacity. Meanwhile regions which
were neglected and whose populations fell victim to political
violence during the New Order, are now standing up to demand the
return of their economic and political rights, amounting to
unexpected regional insurrections.

Past economic losses and political harassments should be taken
into account by the present government in order to come to terms
with regional disappointments satisfactorily.

In Aceh such disappointment takes the form of regional revolt,
in Papua a separatist movement, whereas in Ambon it is
manipulated by external forces to become a quasi inter-religious
conflict. If we keep lingering at the face value of these
insurrections, we would easily come to misleading analytical
conclusions and consequently to wrong political decisions.