In search of a true leader for the future of Indonesia

In search of a true leader for the future of Indonesia

Endy M. Bayuni, Deputy Chief Editor, The Jakarta Post,
Cambridge, Massachusetts

As this is presidential election year for Indonesia, attention
naturally turns to the question of national leadership.
Unfortunately, the way our electoral system is set up, people
would rather talk about whom, among the present pack of political
figures, deserves to be president. Very rarely would they ask,
given the complexity of challenges that the next president must
face: What kind of leader does Indonesia need?

What is leadership anyway?

And does democracy ensure the election of a real leader?

Recently I had the privilege of sitting in the class of Dr.
Ronald Heifetz*, Harvard's renowned leadership guru. He defines
leadership as the capacity to mobilize others (community,
members, or constituents) to deal with adaptive
challenges/problems.

The key term here is "adaptive challenges" which entail
changes in values, norms, attitudes and behavior. Heifetz argues
that it is the community that ultimately must do the adaptive
work. A leader's task is to draw their attention to the work, and
to provoke the community to rise up to the challenge.

This may sound too technical a definition, but it
distinguishes itself from the conventional view of leadership, as
having the capacity to influence others to follow.

The conventional approach cites visionary, charismatic and
other physical traits a person must possess as a leader in order
to be able to influence her followers.

While unconventional, Heifetz's narrower definition has the
advantage of distinguishing a leader from a person who has been
vested with authority. A president or a CEO is not a leader until
she leads the nation or the company in facing up to its adaptive
problems. In a lot of cases, a president or a CEO fails the test
because she conceals the real problems from the nation, or the
company.

Going by the same definition, a person with no formal
authority can exercise leadership. Martin Luther King had no
formal authority, but he established for himself immense informal
authority to influence an entire nation to change their ways and
attitudes toward black-American civil rights in the 1960s. Note
how the adaptive work was done not by Rev. King, but by Americans
themselves.

How would Heifetz's leadership concept fit into present-day
Indonesia, which is in the process of electing its leaders
through a democratic process?

Before we begin the search for candidates who fit his
definition, we must define what is the main adaptive challenge
facing Indonesia today.

One would think that reform is the chief national agenda.
After all, that was the consensus when the nation got rid of
strongman Soeharto six-years ago. Reformasi became the battle cry
of the student-led people-power of 1998, and the agenda according
to which the present coalition government was elected a year
later.

Looking at the government's policies today, reform, which
essentially entails change, has been subordinated. Instead,
stability has been the chief preoccupation of the government of
President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Stability and public order is the bedrock of this
administration's policies. President Megawati seems to have
assumed that changes will take place in an orderly fashion if the
nation is stable. She sent the military to quell separatist
insurgency in Aceh and Papua and deal with other security issues.
She keeps invoking the threat to national unity -- perceived
rather than real -- as her chief, probably even her only,
concern.

Even her economic policies seek to impose stability and avoid
disruptions, rather than pushing some of the changes that are
necessary to move ahead.

In fairness, both the executive and the legislative branches
have done a lot during these last five years: Amending the
constitution, repealing outdated laws, setting up this or that
commission, addressing the balance of power between the
legislative and executive branches, redefining the role of the
military and police, holding a general election, decentralizing
the administration, and a host of other "reform" measures.

These achievements, while admirable, are essentially technical
fixes. All we have done during these last five years has
concerned tinkering with the institutional framework of the
government.

As far as adaptive work is concerned -- changing our norms,
attitudes, behavior and values to be more compatible with
democracy -- little has been achieved.

Corruption is still pervasive if not more widespread,
intolerance remains the order of the day, and violence and the
use of force continue to be the means of settling scores and
differences. Without looking at the current institutional set up,
this is the same Indonesia that existed five-years ago: Corrupt,
intolerance and violent.

These are the real adaptive challenges that Indonesians needs
to deal with today.

We have basically squandered the last six years under three
presidents precisely because none really exercised effective
leadership.

B.J. Habibie was certainly capable of providing good technical
fixes, and must be credited for organizing the 1999 elections.
But he did not fit the bill as a reform figure.

Abdurrahman Wahid -- were it not for his physical disability
and poor administrative skills -- could have matched the
definition of a leader for he did challenge the nation to review
their values, attitudes and behavior, and to do the adaptive
works.

His biggest fault was that he tried to do too much for any
nation to absorb. He overestimated the nation's capacity to carry
out the adaptive works.

Or is it possible that the nation was simply not ready to
change its ways and did not want to go through the pain that
changes often entail?

Not surprisingly, the same politicians who voted him into
office in October 1999 booted him out 20 months later.

When Megawati took up the helm in July 2001, her work was
already cut out for her by the same politicians: Restore the
nation from the state of disequilibrium left behind by Gus Dur.
While she may be commended for a job well done, she diverted the
nation away from its problems, and allowed the country to avoid
doing the adaptive work. In her hands, real reforms simply ground
to a halt.

Looking ahead, is it possible for democracy to ensure the
election of a president who is also an effective leader? The
answer lies in the hands of voters. The only thing that democracy
guarantees is that we reduce to a minimum the likelihood of a
dictator getting elected.

If voters feel comfortable with a president who promises order
and stability, then they had better stick with Megawati or choose
one of the former Army generals among the pack. Any of them would
probably be up to that task.

But if they are looking for a president who can lead or
mobilize the nation to address its adaptive challenges, which is
what reform really means, then, they should consider looking at
candidates who genuinely offer to lead the nation toward change.

Is there anyone among the pack of presidential contenders who
fits the description of a real leader? That, unfortunately, is a
one-million-dollar (or whatever this election costs) question.

The writer is currently studying at Harvard University under a
fellowship from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism.