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.