Leaders with moral values needed to guide the nation

One of the most frequently cited reasons for Indonesia's continued inability to overcome its numerous crises is that its leaders are busy snapping at each other. Emmy Hafild of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment says the country lacks leaders who have the high moral standards necessary to guide the nation into the future.

JAKARTA (JP): Emmy Hafild says she was a victim of politicization up to the time she began high school.

There was a time, she says, that she admired Soeharto. She collected aid for East Timor without realizing the territory had been annexed by Indonesia.

She was a victim, she says. But luckily she received information at home. Her father was critical of the government and jailed without being charged. He provided her with the critical point of view that was lacking in the classroom.

Emmy, who is a freethinker, says the informal education she received from her family played a significant role in forming her personality. Her father is a democrat. As a child she had the freedom to disagree with her father. And she enjoyed reading his books from Marx and the Bible to many others,

Emmy says her father, who told her not to remain silent when being scolded, taught her to speak her mind and argue. "I think this is rather rare in most families in Indonesia, but it was good for me."

Emmy studied at the Bogor Institute of Agriculture. She enrolled at the institute in 1978 and enjoyed her first few years because of the great sense of idealism present at the time. In terms of extracurricular activities, she joined a number of social and religious organizations. She also became involved in outdoor activities because this was regarded as nonpolitical.

Following are excerpts from a recent interview with her:

Q: What kind of leaders does Indonesia need, given the current condition of the country?

A: Indonesia desperately needs leaders who have morals. What I mean by morals here relates to democracy, pluralism and autonomy.

These kind of leaders would also respect civilian supremacy over the military and cooperatives.

I do not want to blame the period of "democracy" under Soeharto (for the current state of affairs), but Soeharto did play a large role in damaging the nation's morals. This actually began during the era of Sukarno. Before 1959's Guided Democracy, Mohammad Hatta had decided to resign as vice president because he did not see eye to eye with Sukarno.

Bung Hatta showed he had good morals in guiding the nation. In this one case, he was willing to resign because his principles differed from those of Sukarno.

Meanwhile, under Soeharto, most Indonesians became accustomed to seeing morals only related to money, income and development. By then pragmatism was the platform.

Neither do we have figures like South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela and Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel.

Q: What qualities do Mandela and Havel exhibit as leaders?

A: They apply moral values to their leadership and authority. They are the patrons of their nations. They showed how to put the nation first rather than personal interests.

Mandela was jailed for years and for the sake of his African National Congress, he had to divorce his wife soon after his release. Mandela can be strict but is still able to respect everyone. This was seen when he became president and the white people (of South Africa) were not forced out of the country as occurred in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), which has seen bloodshed.

The same goes for Havel. In Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were formed without any bloodshed because Havel is able to lead many different groups democratically. He is able to lead the nation without violence.

I admire Havel. I was in Prague in September for a conference attended by the IMF and the World Bank. There were clashes among students, police officers, anarchy groups. It was very tense.

"Havel invited the different groups, including those from the street, to sit in on a forum with the IMF, the World Bank and George Soros. Everyone was acknowledged as the state's guests. Those who were arguing sat together. Actually it was a short meeting filled only with rhetoric, but the students staging the rallies sat together with top officials from the IMF and the World Bank. It was amazing. I miss leadership like that.

Q: Why do our leaders in Indonesia lack morals?

A: No one is able to uphold morality in Indonesia because no one is clean from the New Order.

Soeharto stepped down because of the student rallies and the IMF, not due to real grassroots opposition against him. We borrowed the ammunition from the IMF to make conditions bad enough that Soeharto had to fall.

Now one of the main problems in Indonesia is that there is nobody who is really free from the New Order culture.

When we are talking about national leadership, we are talking about the President, the speaker of the House (of Representatives), the chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly, the deputies and leaders of political parties as well as mass organizations.

But no one can draw a line to differentiate (between the New Order and the reform era).

Q: What makes you say this?

A: Many cases have proven this. For example, the Bulog case. There are rumors that Golkar got billions of rupiah from Bulog during (election) campaigns, including the one last year. No one in the House wants to get to the bottom of the Bulog case or the Yanatera (the foundation set up by Bulog employees) case, because everyone is involved. There are vested interests.

Q: So you think no one is really free from the New Order?

A: In terms of organizations, most mass organizations in Indonesia have never been the real opponents of the government.

Take for example Muhammadyah. This organization, consisting of bureaucrats and entrepreneurs, is politically close to the government.

Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) was also part of the government, joining the government during Nasakom (the Indonesian acronym for Nationalism, Religion and Communism, conceived by Sukarno in the late 1950s to justify the communist presence). It also collaborated with Golkar during the New Order.

Mega (Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri) can be said to be free from the New Order, but she has not showed strong leadership.

I am worried that she is now too close to the military. It seems that the military uses Megawati to stop the President from intervening in their institution.

Q: What is your opinion of President Abdurrahman Wahid, House of Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung and People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) Speaker Amien Rais?

A: I think they are all smart. But again, none of them are free from the New Order.

Amien Rais is closely associated with ICMI (the Association of Muslim Intellectuals), which is part of the New Order. He is also close to former president B.J. Habibie (who is also part of Golkar).

A case in point was when Gus Dur approached (Soeharto's daughter) Tutut in 1997. Once he opposed Soeharto, but he used very polite tactics (to approach him). I believe most of his followers are also involved. He cannot make a clean break (from the New Order). There is a conflict of interest.

Also the MPR/DPR. As an example, the plan for elections at the district level was rejected and the system of representation maintained.

The proposal for direct presidential elections has also been rejected. The same goes with direct elections for regents, mayors and so on. This means the military can remain in the House for a longer time.

It is so weird that those who want the military to remain in the House are the very people who used to support the end of the military's dual function.

Several corruption cases also are good examples of the House and Assembly's ties with the past regime.

Members of the House, for instance, want to investigate the Yanatera case, but not other cases. I'm sure everyone will be affected if other cases are revealed and investigated.

The Rp 190 billion corruption scandal at Kostrad has also not been investigated. No one has the morals to look into it. They are all playing tricks and politicking. Yes, I think we are guided not by morals and values but by politicking among the political parties. Everyone is involved.

Q: Will a moral leader appear?

A: I believe that someone with good morals will eventually appear in Indonesia.

But we have to continue waiting. This relates to the performance of the government, the DPR and MPR, which do not have any priorities or platforms.

For instance look at South Korea, where an "ideal figure" in the person of Kim Dae-jung finally came to the fore after a protracted period of time-wasting.

After the fall of Chun Doo-hwan, an election was held in 1987, one year after the revolution in the Philippines. By that time, the opposition was divided. Kim Young-Sam and Kim Dae-Jung wanted to be president, but Roh Tae-woo was elected. Then Kim Young-sam became president and was succeeded by Kim Dae-jung.

If in 1987 Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung had agreed to share power, South Korea would have seen democracy earlier. Roh Tae-woo was part of the old regime, so there was no democracy under his administration. Kim Young-sam was more democratic but he reached the top due to a coalition (with the former rulers). Kim Dae- jung, who was not involved in the economic circle of the past, was morally able to set the reform agenda. He could instantly enact reform because he had the authority.

Q: What about the military?

A: In Indonesia, the president, whoever he or she is, will not be able to reform the military because it is always strong.

Gus Dur is conspicuous for reforming the military, but the elite have widely criticize him (for this). He does have the right to be involved in the appointment of the military's top commanders, but he is weak.

Compare Gus Dur with the former president of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino. She came to power when the country was under martial law and a new constitution had not been implemented yet. She then established a presidential council on clean governance and amended many laws. Under martial law she had the right to do this.

Gus Dur is free to act without any intervention from political parties. But he is weak, so he compromises with people. And he is unable to control his cronies.

In addition, Gus Dur confuses people. We cannot understand Gus Dur, why he cannot separate his personal and official aides. I think he engages in the same sort of politicking from his days as the chairman of NU.

Gus Dur was once someone who was accepted by many groups, but now he is very different.

He now relies on people who are far from statesmen. This is messy. I have to admit, though, Gus Dur is our best chance (to implement) democracy and human rights. He really understands such issues. If only he prioritized and made a plan to eliminate KKN (corruption, collusion and nepotism) and had an action plan for economic recovery.

Q: Is this a matter of the complicated nature of the country's multifaceted crisis or the capability, or lack thereof, of the leaders?

A: I realize the problems are complicated, so we must separate the problems that were inherited from the previous regime and the ones that are new. For example, the MSAA (Master of Settlement and Acquisition Agreement) was reached when Habibie was in power.

Do not blame the current government for everything. There should be a clear divide. It is unfair if we blame Gus Dur for everything. At least he should receive some credit for what he has done for democracy, human rights and demilitarization.

However, our current leaders are also complicated.

Amien Rais has the idea of a federation. He is a hardcore Islamic politician who tried to be a nationalist. But he has the idea of a federation while most of our leaders want Indonesia integrated physically, not ideologically.

Akbar Tandjung is a low-profile figure but will be able to take over power if he gets the chance.

(If this occurs) we will not be able to have a clean break from the New Order. It is not true that Golkar is a new Golkar. We cannot believe he has really cut ties with Soeharto.

Megawati has won wide sympathy from the public, but her recent moves are also confusing.

I once was sympathetic toward her, but now she is so conservative. She is close to the military. I was saddened to see a photo of her on a tank wearing a military jacket. She smiled just like a child with a new toy. Is she so desperate for power she has to get support from the military? We know the military was the reason for much of her father's sorrow in the past, which also affected her. I don't understand her.

I am worried that if she became president the military would be even more dominant. She should approach Golkar or PKB if she wants to be president.

Mega has not proven her capability, but this does not mean that she is not capable. She has morals, legality, which is a good quality. She also brings ethics to politics.

Another complication is that nobody in the MPR will come out and say Eurico Gueterres violated human rights in defending Indonesia.

Q: Do you think Indonesia tends to follow charismatic leaders?

A: Indonesia has to this point followed charismatic figures, but there was a period when paternalism was trivial. It was during this period when the PKI (the Indonesian Communist Party) was able to become a significant organization.

I am not sympathetic toward PKI. Despite its philosophy, the party was against paternalism. PKI did not have personal leadership, but a proletarian. It grouped farmers and women. There were no charismatic leaders. The way they were grouped was based upon their class interests.

I would like to reject the concept that Indonesia is culturally paternalistic, that leaders must be charismatic and come from nobility. I do not believe this. If the competition for leadership was free, leaders would rise not based on paternalism. The nation would be able to unite because of common interests, not because of leaders. PDI-P (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) grew big because of the figure of Sukarno (behind Megawati).

The phenomenon of the PKI showed that it was possible to succeed and become a strong organization. That is why the government feared and banned it. Again, I do not like PKI and its ideology, but I admit it was a successful organization.

Paternalism is not proper for a modern nation. Paternalism has hampered most aspects of the nation, including the education system. Indonesia has never seriously attempted to improve human resources by increasing the education budget.

Our education budget per GDP is much less compared to other developing nations like India, Sri Lanka and China. This means we are losing the opportunity to prepare our human resources for globalization. Over the last 30 years we gained so much from oil and gas, but we never invested in human resources. Most of the money was lost through corruption.

Compared to Malaysia, Indonesia is lagging behind. Several years ago, Malaysians would come to Indonesia for undergraduate programs, but now Indonesians are going to study in Malaysia.

Q: How far does education relate to leadership?

A: Education is significantly related to leadership.

Most generations during the Soeharto era were indoctrinated; students and children were the objects of politics.

There were some students and others who dared to voice their opinions, but the number could be counted on your fingers. Consequently, we now have leaders who do not have their own opinions. People with new ideas would have enriched Indonesia, but now we do not have anybody like that. We need new ideas.

Q: What will become of Indonesia if moral leaders, as you define the term, fail to appear?

A: I hope we will not have to wait as long as South Korea, but I am afraid that in 2004 Golkar will regain power. I am also afraid Indonesia will become like Poland, where the old regime has regained power.

I am involved in the Group for the Future of Indonesia. I would like to share what I learned from the group, that there are four scenarios of what is likely to take place in Indonesia in the future.

One of the scenarios is "slow but safe", which means the nation will be unable to resolve the crisis immediately, but is still heading toward a better future. This scenario assumes the current President stays until 2004 and comes up with an action plan to overcome the country's various problems. Then there will be a new president in 2004, and the government will continue to address the crises with real action and policies to eliminate corruption and maintain democracy. Then Indonesia will take off by 2010.

The worst scenario is a return to power by the military. This would mean a return of the New Order system.

Both scenarios put Indonesia on the edge. Because in the first, Akbar and Mega will likely set up a coalition. This will allow democracy to exist, but the market will become impatient so the economy will be more market oriented and focused on economic growth. Civil societies, representing labor unions and so on, will quarrel among themselves and urge the government to increase GDP.

The other scenario will be no better ... PDI-P will likely set up a coalition with the military. There will be an autocracy that will enact popular legislation like land reform and so on. But the system will be authoritarian, like a dictatorship, because the military is involved.

Q: What did you gain by taking part in outdoor activities?

A: I learned how to express my opinions freely. I survived and developed my leadership skills there. I decided not to work either in the government or the private sector, but joined an NGO.

By taking part in outdoor activities, I learned how to reach goals by taking a tactical approach, through a thorough understanding of my own physical strength and by overcoming my physical defects.

I am not a physically strong person, but I have the determination to reach the top of the mountain whatever the barriers, because I can control my pace in accordance with my ambition.

I have to avoid the ravines by taking the long way and not being tempted to take a shortcut. The lesson I learned that is relevant to what I am doing now is how to survive; to be strong but not to break the law. (I. Christianto)