Leadership changes and challenges

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.