Indonesia needs a leader with ideas for social change

Indonesia needs a leader with ideas for social change

Indonesia needs leaders with great ideas for crucial changes
to guide the country out of the crisis. Munir, a prominent rights
activist and founder of the private Commission for Missing
Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), believes that ordinary
people are prepared to experience changes. He talked to The
Jakarta Post's contributor I. Christianto recently.

Question: Indonesia is still haunted by a myriad of problems.
Do you think this is also because the nation is having a
leadership crisis?

Answer: Yes, Indonesia is having a leadership crisis. In the
context of politics, leadership relates with the ideas for social
change. Almost all of the political elite do not have a concept
of social change. So they are only the political elite, not
leaders.

A political leadership crisis can also be seen from the
absence of the value that could bring us to a new political
system. Those who have ideas for social change usually present
such a value. This is what we are experiencing now as there is no
value and no ideas emerging for social change. We are only
witnessing a time of drawn-out quarrels among rival groups who
covet power.

In the meantime, we are not seeing any perspective in the
conflicts among the political elite. Just look at how the
chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly, Amien Rais,
quarrels with President Abdurrahman Wahid. Or remember when the
House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung was involved in a
debate with Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri?

There is no perspective on how to help the nation develop a
better political condition. What we see is a new legitimization
of the political debate. I would say that Indonesia does not have
any leaders but is being plunged into an era of protracted
discord.

Q: Why does the elite keep on quarreling?

A: Because the nation's political transition process is
premature. Since the fall of the New Order in May 1998 we should
have had a transition period by now. But it was over too soon.

In a transition period, there should have been a process for
social changes, but we have not seen any strong ideas or values
emerging to make those changes. We have only seen a change of the
elite.

The elite were previously part of the power holder but now
they've become figures who are able to manipulate people who want
to see social changes. So the transition worked without any
vision or direction. Now we cannot see any difference between
those who want a change and those who are pro status quo.
Automatically, no changes can take effect.

Q: Why did the right figures fail to surface?

A: Because the characteristics of the movement, which forced
Soeharto to step down, were too fluid. It was originally a mass
organization. In that situation, the leadership was so weak and
manipulative. Anyone could have lead the movement. Traditionally,
based on the old political culture, people expect to see a
"powerful figure".

So those who emerged in that situation were only new faces but
from a previous political structure.

The current crisis will give the right figures less than
perfect options. Such options are actually the strategic ones for
changes to take place. The challenge for them to emerge is more
difficult in a situation like this.

Q: Is there any space now for the figures who have true ideas for
social change?

A: Yes. There is enough space now. This is supported by the fact
that people are tired of the quarrels (among the political
elite). Common people begin to realize the difference between
"leaders" and "the elite". So those who have true ideas will be
recognized.

However, it is difficult for the figures to appear because the
sociopolitical condition does not allow them to appear yet
(because the prevailing power is so strong). A resistance to
build an antithesis against the current political mainstream
would be supportive.

Do you think such a resistance can grow?

I think so. Some elements are ready to become a power to be
reckoned with for social change. This may lead to social
movements and the destruction of the leadership by the current
political elite. These movements want to see a social change and
they won't use the traditional symbols, like religion, but
consolidated concepts.

Q: How long will the process be?

A: It'll take at least five years. This is only to find an
organized relationship in a better political structure. This
means good relations between the people who want to see social
changes and new leadership. It will be a long process.

Q: Are there any other conditions needed for good leadership?

I think when there is a repressive situation, like we had
during Soeharto's rule, we will have a longer period to enter a
better situation.

I find that some of the people, who really have ideas for
social change, prefer to avoid politics. So far there have been
only ideas but no action.

Many other people have ideas but are reluctant to build any
basis to them. They even think they do not have the capacity to
become leaders. For instance, many intellectuals support social
changes but that's all, they do not want to get involved.

I think basic social change needs real participation, not only
words.

Q: Do you think the current government has a vision?

A: It's a bit hard to define the vision of the President as he is
only trying to survive. To make a comparison, former president
Soeharto's vision was quite obvious; it was about power
centralization, and social change was his only enemy.

Actually, the President has a vision to liberalize the
political system. That's all. He's also afraid of social changes
while he struggles to retain power.

In addition, not one person out of the hundreds of House
members has a vision. They don't even have any projection.

Having a vision is the basis of looking at how changes will
take place, how to reach those changes and how to project the
future as a plan and a goal is another matter.

I have had some experience in discussing this issue with the
legislators and government officials. I got the impression that
they do not have any vision at all. They do not have any idea
what Indonesia will be like in the next 10 years. I think they
apply repairmen politics, meaning they fix a problem temporarily
without knowing that it may cause other problems.

Q: Is a lack of vision being applied across the nation?

A: No. I don't believe our nation and people commonly lack new
ideas for changes.

I also don't believe that the nation's cultural aspect is
prohibiting the appearance of a strong leadership. It's a reality
that the public really wants to have social change. I think they
are more than ready to have changes than the elite.

In the cultural myth created by Soeharto, we did not think
that ordinary people would be able to lead movements like we are
seeing nowadays. The culture for resistance and change is quite
strong in Indonesia. We may not have noticed that serious
violence has been so far directed mostly at common people in the
lower group. This is because that is where the power for
resistance usually grows.

Q: What do you think about the education system in Indonesia?

A: Students are being educated to become instrumental and
pragmatic people. But in general, the process of education has
always had two contradicting aspects. On one hand, it is a medium
to make people accept everything like it is designed in
Indonesia; on the other hand, people can learn something else
beyond the scheduled subjects.

Q: What factors drive leaders to the surface?

A: Leaders appear because of acknowledgement. They are being
acknowledged because their ideas are attractive to people.

It's a bit hard for leaders to survive if they do not have
ideas. The history of the Legal Aid Institute (LBH), the only
organization I've been working with for a long period, shows that
critical figures were kicked out because it was once infected by
bureaucracy. Meanwhile, aging figures could not lead the
institute because their ideas are not acknowledged (by other
members) due to the dynamism for change.

The same applies to the organizations of commoners and
workers. The leaders survive because their ideas are
acknowledged.

The most egalitarian place for leaders to appear and survive
in is nonformal organizations free of bureaucracy, for instance
in student organizations.

Q: In our current condition, who will be able to lead the nation?

A: Whoever the President is, he or she will have a hard time
because of the huge problems left by Soeharto and the unfinished
transition process.

The long debates between Abdurrahman and Amien Rais, for
instance, are the result of the transition process. If Amien
becomes the next president, he will face challenges from other
"Amiens". There will always be complicated challenges. In
addition, there will also be challenges from the military.

Q: What is your experience in politics?

A: I think I owe a lot to my family. My father is an
entrepreneur, and everyone in my family is accustomed to
discussions and debates. Everyone counts and their opinions are
sought in any given problem. I was still a young child when my
brother asked for my opinion about his marriage.

As my father met various people in line with his work, I also
learned to cherish pluralism, and did not perceive differences of
opinions on the grounds of ethnicity or religiosity, for example.

For me, the family is the first place to learn about politics.

I was active in student organizations during my studies at
Brawijaya University in Malang, East Java. I learned that rivalry
was already rife to grab positions in bureaucratic slots and by
no means in a democratic way. I think that formal student
organizations were a tool of Soeharto's to retain power.

I learned about democracy from the workers. I conducted a
research on workers and had wonderful experiences working with
them. Formal student organizations taught me nothing about
democracy.