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.