Indonesia needs strong leadership, says Wardah Hafidz

One of the reasons why Indonesia is still dogged by the multidimensional crisis is because it has no effective, courageous and sensitive leaders, says sociologist Wardah Hafidz of the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC), the NGO that recently won the 2000 Yap Thiam Hien human rights award.

UPC focuses among others on political education of the urban poor, as indicated in Monday's rally demanding changes in the draft city budget for the next fiscal year.

Wardah graduated from the state-owned Teachers' Training Institute (IKIP) in Malang, East Java. She then became an English instructor at the Curug Aviation School. She later pursued higher studies in the United States.

The following are excerpts from an interview with Wardah by The Jakarta Post's contributor I. Christianto.

Question: How do you see the current situation in Indonesia?

Answer: Most of us want to see radical decisions taken. But the leaders are now reluctant to do that because they are inundated by numerous problems.

Our basic problem is elitism. The Dutch, during its colonization, tried to "compensate" Indonesia by launching educational programs for the indigenous people. Our founding fathers then tried to educate the elite although there were also campaigns on the national education program.

The New Order regime officially created the floating mass. So the nation has a mass of people who are totally ignorant and who can be paid and manipulated. They can also be killed with impunity when necessary.

There is only a small group of people, who call themselves the elite, who think that they are responsible to direct and make decisions for the whole nation.

Q: What's wrong with this group of people?

A: I think for a long time this group of people, or the elite, have been looking only at themselves. As a result, everyone is acting like them. We are only looking at ourselves. Policies are based on their own perceptions, for their own interests.

For instance, if I were to always drive my own car or take taxis, I wouldn't be able to understand the suffering others undergo when taking poor public transportation as they also risk being pickpocketed. My daily life would be totally different from the common man.

As an example, the pedicab (becak) was categorized as an "inhumane" form of transportation and so banned in Jakarta. The becak was regarded "inhumane" because it would appear so for the elite if they had to ride the becak.

They fail to see beyond themselves that some people do not have any choice but to ride the becak, as the government has not provided an suitable alternative mode of transportation. The elite judged that the becak was "inhumane" based on their personal experience.

Q: What other problems do you see in the elite?

A: The corrupt mentality remains a serious problem.

Indonesians realize that corruption, collusion and nepotism (locally known as KKN) has an all-round adverse effect as many policies and decisions are made to serve the personal interests of the elite.

Therefore, as Soeharto fell from power and political reform started, it was like opening a Pandora box. What we have now is total chaos. No authority, no rule of law.

In a situation like this, the leaders are not brave enough to take genuine radical moves to cut the practices of the old regime to let us start something anew, just like what we all want.

If the elite really wants to make a clean break from the past, the KKN problem must be their top priority.

Q: How does this relate to our culture?

A: We must admit that the New Order has strengthened the paternalistic culture. The term bung (brother) was replaced by Bapak (Father) and Ibu (Mother). This is a paternalistic symbol where the people are regarded as the children of a big family headed by the Bapak, and assisted by the Ibu.

Based on this concept, the father holds the power and the children must obey and follow him. Such a system was maintained so that those on top will have important and strategic positions.

However whatever the "father" does, "children" at the lower levels will follow. The leadership begins at the top and trickles down. When there is corruption at the top, it becomes the pattern for the whole nation.

There were rebellions in the past, but the New Order regime curbed them all. People then tried to save themselves, by keeping quiet, otherwise they -- as well as their friends, family, in- laws, grandchildren, and even neighbors -- would be hurt or killed. People would think a thousand times before they criticized the government of the New Order. There were only two options, to get involved or keep quiet.

There were "dissidents", including among students and the media, but they were scattered.

Q: What do you mean by radical moves?

A: The prevailing government must take the symbolic gesture of putting Soeharto in jail. But this has not happened. The military, the source of various violence in the country, must go back to the barracks immediately, but it won't happen for the next six years.

We should have been able to learn from Thailand, the Philippines and South Korea. The three nations have successfully initiated democracy in a transparent way when the military was forced to quit their roles in politics.

The government could have done that in 1998 soon after Soeharto fell and when the military was pushed to the wall. But it did not happen.

Q: Why is there no radical move?

A: Because the current government does not dare make the move. It instead made compromises. So it has become easy for the country to be terrorized. What we see is only pieces of actions which are not even taken seriously. This has only worsened the situation.

This shows that the current leadership is not stern or strict. It does not dare take radical actions. Meanwhile it has also started a new form of KKN.

Q: What is the government afraid of?

A: The government and the elite fear the large group of people who do not have critical awareness. This huge mass of ignorant people can be manipulated with money.

But actually the new bureaucrats are haunted by the creation of the former government: a nation without any political awareness. There's no single organized institution at the lower levels, except for the hoodlums. On the one hand, the current government wants to avoid bloodshed, but on the other hand they want to keep their interests and control over political, economic and other affairs.

The elite are also competing among themselves to seize power in 2004. I don't think the elite are keen on what the people want. Instead of discussing how to resolve the worsening problems, they are only arguing: what my men will get and what are my shares.

Q: Can we expect something better from the top leaders, including President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri, House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung and People's Consultative Assembly Chairman Amien Rais?

A: Gus Dur always tries to compromise. We could have seen the abolishment of Golkar, the return of the military to the barracks and the execution of Soeharto. But the momentum has been lost because there has been too many compromises.

The current top management is more or less involved with the New Order regime.

Another of Gus Dur's weakness is that he often changes his statements. Once he gets new information, he rephrases his words. He is impulsive. He does not like to be regarded as being not well-informed, so he tries to answer every question. He does not like to say "I don't know," or "Wait, I'll check that first."

Gus Dur has leadership capabilities but not managerial skills. He was an NGO activist before becoming president. He's not used to discipline. His style in governing has being influenced by him being a cleric. This weakness is targeted by his opponents.

I am just worried that he is becoming manipulative. Once he said that there was no KKN in his government, but everyone knows that is not true.

Meanwhile, Megawati's political skills are poor. Akbar Tandjung is part of Golkar. Though Golkar has been trying to cleanse itself of its (New Order) image. It's even trying to be the partner of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI P).

If Golkar had been abolished, it would not have been able to contest in the election, so it would not have been able to influence the decision making process. Golkar needs a political punishment, not just a social punishment.

Amien Rais is famous for his zigzagging moves. I can't understand why he said that Eurico Guterres (leader of the pro- Indonesia East Timor militia) is our brother who defended our flag. Do we need to violate human rights to defend our national flag?

It's clear that Guterres is a hoodlum trained by the military to terrorize and slaughter his own people. Amien's statements are based on pragmatic calculations and narrow mindedness.

Q: How should we select a leader?

A: Leaders should be, ideally, directly selected by the people.

But there's no system for that. I believe the people must be heard on what change they want and how they want the change to take place.

Q: What are the qualities of a good leader?

A: A good leader is one who works hard and is committed.

I think we want to see leaders who have strong principles, who are able to see clearly that we really want to get rid of the problems we have now. We have to believe in the people, together we can nurture a leadership with commitment and ethics in a clean political system.

Q: Can good leaders come from the military?

A: Yes. But military officers can only be leaders in the military, not in the civilian's domain.

But the military has also been tainted by corruption. The military is also notorious for being irresponsible. We know there is a hierarchy in the military, the soldiers obey the orders which come from the top.

The lower ranking soldiers, however, have always been victimized. They have been penalized for killing others although they were only carrying out orders. That's why the military is today fractured.

I was in the Semanggi area (near the Atma Jaya University in Jakarta when student protesters were shot) two years ago. I heard a commander ordering his troops to move back, but it was not obeyed.

Q: Will Indonesia have leaders capable of bringing the nation to a better state?

A: I'm convinced that Indonesia will have the right person to lead the nation. I don't think that we are short of capable leaders though the New Order has successfully destroyed our social asset.

Some may be pessimistic as the formal education system, and informal education at homes are contaminated by KKN practices. Bribery is rife among civilians, politicians and the military.

The common people are also having the same problems. Only few are safe from this social disease. But I don't believe that there's no one out of the 210 million people who can become a good leader.

However, the main problem is, again, how to cleanse the elite from practicing policies that serve the interests of their inner circles.

Q: How can we improve our condition while waiting for better leaders?

A: Control is something urgently needed.

There is an advantage in the current reform era: press freedom. So the media has a role to play in the selection of leaders and be more critical of the elite.

But I see that the tradition of rumor mongering of the New Order still exists. For instance, some media are reluctant to publish the names of ministers who are allegedly involved in fund scams.

The elite must be put under a spotlight, controlled. If they are committed to change, it's okay, otherwise they will be cast aside by the people.

But, what we see now are people pointing fingers at each other. I hear that some people are now attending "the evening Cabinet meetings" at the State Palace to seek opportunities. I agree with Sri Mulyani (economist and member of the National Economic Council) who told me that those close to Gus Dur now are only the opportunists.

Those who want to genuinely support and help him have become sick and tired of what has been happening at the palace. They have left Gus Dur alone. Those who remain include those who are ambitious and manipulative. Now we hear rumors that Gus Dur will be forced to step down, and many people (the opportunists) have indicated that they are ready to hold important positions.

Q: Is the condition now that bad?

A: The damage is quite severe.

It's like a big old tree. It would be difficult to uproot it but if we do not do this, the problems will remain. Just like when you have a serious injury, you would need to undergo surgery; applying lotions will not help.

The New Order created this pattern intentionally. It's so sophisticated. Some people say Soeharto learned from many places, and perfected it to be applied here. He is an expert in strategy and is cold-blooded.

Soeharto also devised various tactics in terrorism and intimidation for the military. This resulted in an effective system to halt any attempt to touch him. He carefully studied how to control the nation. He is a fascist.

Foreign affairs minister Alwi Shihab once told a meeting in Berkeley, "I was a scholar who prioritized the truth although it contradicted with my inner voices. Now I'm a politician who has to say that something is true although it is not." I think that's the principle of the current government.

Q: What kind of leaders do we need?

A: The people now expect leaders to have leaders who really understand the direction the new Indonesia has to take.

They must know the nation's priorities and what action to take. The people want to see themselves coming out of this crisis. This may need courage on the part of the leaders, as these unpopular moves may put them in peril; but it will save the nation.

Q: How can we groom leaders like that?

A: There are certain factors to consider when grooming leaders, such as their personality, expertise, and knowledge.

Their informal education at home, formal education at school then in the society has to be taken into consideration.

Since people having been experiencing deceit and falsehood in school, in the society and at home, they might feel that to survive, they have to be manipulative too.

In addition, it is important to remember that there's the rule of law, and that everyone is equal before the law. We have to really apply this.

I once heard a police officer, during a land dispute in Karang Anyar, Central Jakarta, shout, "I am the law. I am not afraid of the law. What do you want?"

The officer did not think that he was the law and order's arm. So what the officer conveyed was, "You can make your own law as there's no law." This shows that the government has failed to control the attitude of the bureaucrat and the rule of the law.

In addition, Indonesia does not have an open and transparent system of selection.

We have to work hand in hand to select good leaders, starting from our neighborhood, provinces and so on, with the direct participation of the people. Just begin with a transparent system. We don't have to wait for something big on the national scale.

In some places, there have been protests against appointed mayors. But the protests could have been mobilized by certain groups. So we really need to have a transparent system and public participation.

Q: How would you describe yourself?

A: I'd describe myself as individualistic as I enjoy working by myself.

In the mid-1980s, I felt that many NGOs were fighting for a piece of the field. I joked at that time I was not an NGO activist, but an NGI, non-governmental individual. Now I am in the UPC as I do not have any other choice. I can also say that if you have a dream, you have to try your best to make it come true.

I socialized with the common people. My parents, particularly my father, were informal leaders who often gave advice to the people in the neighborhood.

My parents taught us that education is very important. My sibling and I competed to be the best at school. We were also encouraged to become members of organizations. Once my sister introduced her boyfriend to my parents. He received zero marks from my parents as he was not in any organization.

Interestingly when the Masyumi and Nahdlatul Ulama broke up, there was also Muhammadiyah. This created factions in my family.

Q: What was your experience when working as a civil servant?

A: I felt that I was not fit to be a civil servant. I found the system was a means to produce corrupt robots. I thought that I would get wet if I dropped in the river. My friends told me to stay afloat and not to drown. But I said it was not about drowning, but getting wet.

Then I joined the NGOs, dealing with academics, seminars, trainings and research. I learned about many things and got acquainted with new ideas. In the early 1990s there was an economic boom which adversely affected the poor in Jakarta. There were numerous land appropriations but no one assisted or advised the poor.

My friends and I thought we had to do something for them. At the time, there were only a few NGOs dealing with urban affairs as they were mostly concentrated in rural areas. We had to offer advocacy and empowerment. Our first project was in the poor area of Jelambar, West Jakarta. When the project ended, we established UPC as we wanted something that would have a greater political impact. UPC is a kind of NGO which is empowered by the people.

Q: What do you think of NGOs?

A: During the New Order regime, the NGOs, just like the media, was quarantined. We were so happy to be heroes though only inside a glass room, so to say.

NGOs are part of the culture and the development of the society.

However the NGOs are not free of corruption. But compared to the bureaucracy, NGOs are much more transparent in terms of decision making and financial issues.

NGOs have a strategic role in the society. One example was when groups of farmers staged rallies at the House of Representatives' building shortly before the fall of Soeharto. This showed that there was an attempt to make the public politically aware.

I believe the reform era is the momentum people need to implement the people's sovereignty. We need to see the strengthening of civil society, so the people can be more well organized and well-informed.

Q: One of UPC's project was to organize the pedicab drivers. What did you learn from the pedicab drivers?

A: Firstly, the regulation banning pedicabs was not a message from God which can't be questioned. Regulations are usually made to improve lives. Otherwise, we can always disobey them.

Most of the pedicab drivers are free men. They are democratic but they can also be anarchic. It takes time to train them to be cooperative, to work in a team ... I've also learned that we should have the sensitivity not to push our own likes and dislikes, but listen to what the people want.