Indonesia needs strong leadership, says Wardah Hafidz

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.