Leadership changes and challenges

Kavi Chongkittavorn The Nation Asia News Network Bangkok

This will be an extraordinary year for Southeast Asia. With many countries holding elections, changes of leadership are to be expected. Those leaders who are already in place are still untested.

Obviously, the transitional situation in the region will help define the kind of leadership people are yearning for. Certainly, of all these new leaders, there will be one or two that catch the public imagination. Will they be the same as Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir Mohamad and Soeharto, all strong leaders who set the agenda for their followers? These leaders all had the same mantra of economic prosperity being the ultimate goal.

Will the new leaders follow the style of their predecessors or take a different route by becoming more democratic and espousing universal values such as human rights?

Given the region's diversity, especially in terms of political systems and ideologies, leadership styles are plentiful. The region is indeed a miniature political jamboree: It has political institutions based on democracy, semi-democracy, absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, socialism, semi-socialism and dictatorship.

With such a broad political spectrum, the only thing that has held the countries in the region together has been the desire to promote economic cooperation. All countries in the region have come under one roof known as Asean, hoping that their economic well-being will improve through collective action and bargaining. They have cooperated politically, but so far avoided anything that would diminish the grouping's principle of non-interference.

As such, the region's leaders are very much left to do their own thing, without peer pressure. Not surprisingly, Southeast Asia has been used to long-ruling and iron-fisted leaders. Before people's power erupted in the Philippines, former president Ferdinand Marcos reigned supreme. Both Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad chose to step down and passed on the baton to the next generation of leaders.

In Singapore, Lee's successor Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is expected to pass on leadership to Lee Hsien Loong this year, depending on the state of the economy. Goh has said that it would unfair to his successor if he leaves his position during economic recession. As this process takes place, public feedback in the island republic shows a yearning for more openness in public and political space. They want a Singapore that is kinder and gentler.

In a strange way, new Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has been able to display this sentiment. His non-confrontational, conciliatory style, soft-spoken words and manners have already won kudos from the region. His visit to several Asean countries in the past week has already distinguished him from the rest of Southeast Asia's leaders.

During his one-day visit to Thailand last week, he came across as a breath of fresh air. His willingness to listen and his ability to articulate bilateral issues have won praise from the Thai media. Suddenly, his three-month-old charisma is being compared to Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's three-year-old leadership.

Thaksin's leadership style is the most problematic due to his personality and the ways he exercises his power. In the past three years, he has employed strong state-control measures in all spheres of our lives -- economic, political and social. He has ignored the constitutional framework and silenced critics.

Thaksin has what experts would describe as a transactional leadership style. A leader with this quality knows how to make deals and practice horse-trading with great efficiency. He makes decisions based on his own intuition and confidence. A transactional leader believes that he is the savior of his nation.

But such a leadership style commands fear rather than respect because it lacks the much-needed interchange between leader and followers. Subordinates dare not reveal their true opinions. It is the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome.

The prime minister's strength comes mainly from the absolute authority he possesses. He can command Cabinet members, police, soldiers and bureaucrats without dissent on the issues of the day. Normally, the ranks obeyed their superiors; now, the prime minister is the "super commander".

As democracies burgeon and grow in strength, citizens might not want to be bossed about. Even Singaporeans and Malaysians want their societies to be more open so that they can take a more active role in participatory democracy.

Both Indonesians and Filipinos value their hard-won democracy and will move forward with their multi-party system. Whoever wins the elections in Indonesia and the Philippines, they must convince their people that democracy will bring freedom, prosperity and stability.

Certainly, Thailand will be a test case. After three decades of democratic struggle, it is the only country that is currently going backward in its democratic aspirations.

During the height of democracy in 1997, which was epitomized by the drafting of the new people's charter and a free press, the Thai economy collapsed and shattered the hearts of all democratic aspirants. Three years into the crisis, they became disenfranchised and more unaffiliated. As they turned inward and atomized, they looked for some strong guidance in their lives. This is precisely the condition and state of mind that has helped Thaksin's rise to power.

It will be sooner rather than later that the region will finally get to know whether its newly emerging regional leaders are kinder or meaner.