Leadership change not a utopia

By Ikrar Nusa Bhakti

JAKARTA (JP): Political hope may become a political reality even though political reality and hope are different from each other.

Hermawan Sulistyo is right in his article "No room for political utopia" in the Jan. 8 edition of The Jakarta Post, saying that there is a clear difference between political reality and political hope and that political analysis is based on political reality, not political hope. .

However, there are still many possibilities for political hope to become political reality.

Independence, for example, was a political hope for many Indonesians during the colonial period and it has become a reality since Aug. 17, 1945. During the 1950s and 1960s, there was also political hope that one day most of the Indonesian people would be free from communist threat and this became a reality at the end of 1965.

Nowadays, there is still political hope among most Indonesians that their political system of Pancasila democracy will be able to conduct political succession peacefully. Such a hope is expected to become reality, and based on the current political reality, this idealistic argument is not a utopia.

Indeed, any theorist builds a theory or model based on reality or phenomena in society. Political theory is, therefore, a simplification and an abstract construction of the complex political reality or political phenomenon.

Based on their perspectives, political theorists are generally divided into idealists, realists, structuralists, institutionalists, reductionists and so forth. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli, for example, who were political theorists who focused their observation and analyses on the power relationship between the dominant power, the ruler or the prince, and the people and society, for example, were regarded as realists.

But Emmanual Kant, who focused his theory on ordinary people or human beings and recommended that any political and economic powers or any political regimes or international agreements should be based on the people's interests and that people must become a subject and not an object in the political arena, was regarded as an idealist.

The basis of Hermawan's statement and arguments in his article are partly similar, namely political reality in Indonesia and its neighboring countries. The difference is that Hermawan based his argument on the realist perspective and this article on the idealist perspective.

In analyzing political reality in Indonesia, particularly the leadership change, this article uses not only a domestic political theory but international relations theory as well.

Hermawan's two succession scenarios are questionable because based on political reality, President Soeharto has been in power for more than 30 years. If he is willing to reduce his power and transfer the day-to-day decision-making process to the vice president, why did not he do it in the previous five-year term or the term before?

In addition to that, during this 30-year period, particularly in the last 10 years, he has not prepared any vice president or minister to become his successor. Does the country have to wait for political succession until he is too old and too ill to govern this country? Does he have to transfer his power to the vice president or the new president when the country is at the peak of political and economic crisis?

There is also no guarantee that the next vice president, who might be regarded as the "crown prince," will be elected by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) as the new president in March 2003 because he/she will have to face many political challenges. So why should Indonesians wait for another five years to take political succession peacefully? Do they have to wait for another political and economic crisis such as that which happened in 1965?

What Indonesians need now is a new "pilot", even though he or she is not fully capable yet. The most important thing is that he or she is willing to learn how to govern this huge country with all its complexity. He or she should be accepted as "first among equals" by the people and by the political elite.

The country needs a new leader who can be accepted domestically and internationally. It does not need an experienced "pilot" who is already too old and not trusted by the "passengers" anymore. If it still uses an old pilot, even though he is very well experienced, it may go bankrupt. Much polling undertaken by university students in Yogyakarta, Bogor and Bandung shows that most of them do not agree with the renomination of Soeharto.

Another example is the currency crisis in Indonesia. It is true that a currency crisis is also hitting other Asian countries, but not as badly as Indonesia. The rupiah plunged to a record low of Rp 8,450 against the dollar in the morning trading on Jan. 7 as financial markets gave a cool response to the 1998/1999 state budget. It means that the people no longer trust the government under Soeharto's leadership and that most of Indonesian people, except the 1,000 members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), will not trust Soeharto after March 1998.

Soeharto was capable of handling political and economic crises over the last 30-year period because he, as a "pilot", could use "auto pilot".

He could use "auto pilot" because he was accepted as a hero by Indonesians; he governed in the Cold War period between 1967 and 1991 when it was easy for the government to generate foreign aid from Western countries and international institutions; he, until 1991, could use the Armed Forces as a guard to maintain political stability without any sharp criticism from domestic and international human rights activists; he could use Golkar as a political vehicle to maintain political legitimacy; industrial relocation from the United States, Japan, Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong helped boost the Indonesian economy; economic growth in Australia and Asian countries had a positive impact on the Indonesian economy and the country still earned a lot of money from oil and gas exports.

Since July 1997, the Indonesian leader can no longer use the "automatic devices" anymore but has to rely on manual ones. To be a good "pilot", he/she must be very healthy, fit, confident, intelligent and credible.

The next president should not only be able to direct the "airplane" (Indonesia) for economic takeoff but also to maneuver it manually through air turbulence (economic and political crisis) and to bring the passengers on board (the Indonesian people) to their destination safely. He/she should know that economic crises in other Asian and Western countries will have a negative impact on the Indonesian economy. And during a difficult period, Indonesia cannot get foreign aid as easily as before.

Indonesians do not want to have the economic and political crisis prolonged or to see "people power" topple President Soeharto in a situation such as that of the Philippines in 1986.

Today's economic crisis has reached its peak and might be followed by a political crisis.

Unless Soeharto makes a statement that he does not want to be renominated for the seventh consecutive term, Indonesia's political history of the post-communist coup attempt in 1965 could be repeated.

The writer is a researcher at the Center for Political and Regional Studies at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

Window: What Indonesians need now is a new "pilot", even though he or she is not fully capable yet. The most important thing is that he or she is willing to learn how to govern this huge country with all its complexity.