In search of a safe exit from our present crisis

In search of a safe exit from our present crisis

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): What is really the problem in Indonesia today?
Why are we unable to solve our crisis in a peaceful and civilized
manner? Why do we desert reason and passion, and resort to
violence?

People have different perceptions regarding these questions.
According to some, we are basically facing a crisis of
governance. Others believe it is more a crisis of leadership. And
there are those who think that all our problems stem from selfish
squabbles between people within our political elite.

Those in the first camp point to the various negative
characteristics of our past and present governments. They say
that our government always fails to satisfy any of the seven
criteria of good government.

These are openness, accountability, responsiveness, fairness,
observation of international standards, recognition of basic
rights and governance based on consent. Which of these criteria
are met by our government, past or present, they ask.

People who argue we are facing a leadership crisis maintain
that leaders within the political parties currently governing the
country have no legitimacy. They are the products of a general
election that was heavily rigged and manipulated.

For this reason many members of the general public feel that
these "elected officials", in spite of their legality, do not
really represent the people. It is very seldom that their public
statements represent the opinions of the majority.

More often than not, their public opinions are merely echoes
of the government's stance at any given time. In the eyes of the
public they are leaders who lack legitimacy and credibility.

On the other hand, so the theory goes, on the "opposition
side" there is also a deficit of political leaders who know how
to relate the specific aspirations of their political parties to
the long-term national interests. By emphasizing the specific
political demands of their respective parties without any
reference to the common demands of the nation, these leaders have
led their followers to believe that differences between current
political parties are irreconcilable.

Thus the only way to make their political aspirations become
reality is through achieving absolute political victory. And in a
direct or indirect manner these leaders suggest that any means,
including political deception, money politics and physical
elimination of rival leaders is justified to achieve absolute
victory.

This kind of political rhetoric has caused many political
followers to adopt an uncompromising sectarian fanaticism which
can easily be manipulated to create unruly and violent mob
behavior. Our political leaders, both the rulers and opposition
leaders, seem to forget that the essence of politics is shaping
and reshaping perceptions and opinions regarding the present and
the future.

The art of making political alliances and compromises, which
is imperative in any truly democratic society, remains a distant
dream in our current political arena.

It is against this backdrop that the third school of thought,
which regards our present crisis as a result of political
squabbles among our political elite, has emerged. Followers of
this school maintain that many of our political leaders are
currently so eager to achieve their personal political ambitions
that they brush aside any political idea perceived as obstructing
their personal ambitions, and subsequently mobilize their
followers to defend their respective positions.

Many of the political dogfights that have occurred in our
society lately are just extensions of personal rivalries between
these political leaders. It is the fight of the elite.

These three perceptions are interrelated. They do not
represent three mutually exclusive problems. They are merely
three partial perceptions of one huge political situation. The
question we are facing is how to emerge from this crisis. Where
should we start to end our present crisis and build anew a
society that is more tolerant of differences, shows greater
respect of morality, and is therefore capable of sustaining a
good government?

Should we start by forcing our political leaders toward
greater intelligence and accountability, or should we start by
improving our government's institutions?

The answer is that both must be attempted simultaneously.
However, we must realize that these two efforts are long-term
endeavors.

Improving the quality of the national political leadership is
a difficult and elusive target. This is because, as Leila
Fischtak from the World Bank puts it, leadership is an
"intangible dimension of governance."

It is basically an intergenerational process. Old political
leaders will not easily change their attitudes and habits. Young
political leaders need time and experience to become wiser. Only
dramatic events containing "internal momentum for change" will
make possible the sudden emergence of qualitatively different
leaders.

Improving the effective functioning of government institutions
is also a long-term process. It is not realistic to hope that a
government of a quality much higher than the present one can be
formed instantly. According to Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian
scholar, generating a better government includes improving the
ability of the political elite to deploy effectively "both the
means of coercion and the means of inspiration."

It can easily be inferred that political leaders with this
kind of wisdom will emerge only from a model of political
schooling of a very different design than the one that has
hitherto existed in our country.

Does it mean that there is no hope for a quick exit from our
present crisis? I don't know. I think it depends on how our
political elite perceives our present situation. Do those with
power and influence really have a sense of crisis? Do they really
have a sense of urgency?

Again, I do not know. I hope they do, but thus far I do not
see any sign that they really have these two senses. I hope I am
wrong.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.