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.