Tue, 02 Jan 2001

Let the young generation lead the nation: Budiman

The crisis dogging Indonesia is partly due to an excessive number of old generation leaders affected by past political trauma, says young leader Budiman Sudjatmiko who heads the militant Democratic People's Party (PRD), in an interview with The Jakarta Post's contributor I. Christianto.

Budiman and his family suffered greatly as a result of his antigovernment activities during Soeharto's rule. Budiman, 30, who was once accused of being the son of communist parents (a grave allegation during the New Order period) was sentenced to 13 years for subversion charges. He and five other PRD activists were granted amnesty by President Abdurrahman Wahid, after spending almost three years in prison. He was released in December last year.

Question: What does an ideal leader mean to you?

Answer: At the level of national leadership, a leader must have acceptability, capability and accessibility. I'm not saying that the leader must be accepted by everyone, rather that he or she can be accepted by the majority of the people. Capability means an ability to lead and manage, at least this must exist, though job delegation is common. Accessibility means transparency, and that the public will be able to access him or her.

Q: Some of the leaders do fulfill those characteristics, but why is there so much resentment?

A: For example, President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) is accessible, but he has low capability and acceptability. Very often, he is instinctive, and only his inner circle can understand him. This is also a defect as leaders must be able to be understood by most people.

Q: How does this dissatisfaction relate with the nation's past?

A: In the past we were always told that the military was the only institution which is most ready to lead the country. I don't buy this. Most organizations are so far functioning as career paths only. No leadership has been proven. Most leaders come from such a situation, where organizations have never grown independently for years.

This has created leaders who are never able to answer the problems inherited from the past government in a stern and strict way.

In addition, they (executives and legislators) are part of the past, so they do not want to make any change due to conflict of interests. Or, even if they are not part of those who had benefited from the past government, they do not have instruments in many situations, because (the instruments) are still controlled by the old regime. This includes the judiciary, politics, economics, social, cultural, as well as access to information and other propaganda tools.

The current authority does not have any ability to take over (those institutions); they are unable to make a breakthrough. They only play in a labyrinth created by the previous power. There could have been movements or policies, but the appropriate instruments do not strengthen them. So they are only partial, spontaneous, fragmental and reactive.

They probably have visions, but they do not have strategies or resources. They are stuck. People can only set strategies when they have devices in their hands. Otherwise they have just hopes, ideas and statements.

For instance, Gus Dur does not have any instrument to apply real democracy in Indonesia as the status quo still keeps its power in the legislature. Gus Dur has ideas of pluralism. But that is about all, only ideas.

Q: How would you wrap up the devastating impact of the New Order?

A: During the 32-year rule of the New Order, three spectacular things occurred: politicization of the bureaucracy; politicization of the military; and devotion to an economic oligarchy.

Now we see the bureaucracy is still politicized for the interests of an economic oligarchy. The military is also still politicized.

Soeharto may have stepped down, but the network he established is so strong that it can impede the reform agenda and many other things.

Q: Can the New Order regime return to power?

A: It can consolidate itself in five years. (Golkar executive) Agung Laksono said in a news broadcast that some people already felt they missed Golkar.

This is understandable because Soeharto left a damaged car as his legacy. However, he keeps the spare-parts, so anyone who wants to repair the car will need to see him to get the spare- parts. So Soeharto and his men will be able to take the car back. But there are two options to make a better condition: seize the spare-parts or create a totally new vehicle.

Q: Which one of the two options is feasible?

A: The latter sounds better, as it will be able to create something new, including a new political system. So we can also have more democratic constitutions and decrees. If necessary, we can also create a totally new constitution. Every aspect, including the military, intelligence institutions, legal system and economy, will be recreated.

The religious institutions also need to be refurbished. For years they were merely a tool to give spiritual legitimacy to the New Order.

Q: What other characteristics are needed in a leader?

A: If we are talking about figures, I'm sorry to tell you that I haven't found any, especially in the old generation. But I believe that there is someone in the younger generation.

Q: What do you mean by old and young generations?

A: This has nothing to do with age. The young generation includes those who are free from the political trauma of the past. They know how to support the reform process and how to face the old regime. We have many people with bright ideas, but they always fail to stand up, to mobilize their ideas and to assert massive pressure.

"Young generation" means those who have a fresh idea in solving the problems of the nation. They are also able to see what potential for change there is in a way different from how people in the existing system see it. They are able to keep a distance with the old system.

Q: Will the young generation be able to make any change?

A: We can't let everything go down the drain, as we are still part of the past anyway. The old generation can be asked to participate but only as a reference point. However, the team, which will formulate everything and set the strategies and policies, must be from the young generation.

Q: You sound so sure about the young generation.

A: I'm not saying that everyone in the young generation is good and everyone in the old generation is bad. This is not about black and white. I'm looking at this matter based on common sense and the tendency of progressive and regressive things. There is a complicated inter-connectivity, but don't let this make us pragmatic so as to let us focus on only short-term political goals.

I think all of us want to see a nation that is fair, prosperous, democratic and pluralist.

Q: Are any of the current leaders from the young generation?

A: Sorry, again, to say that they (the current leaders) still retain the old values. Some of them, including Gus Dur, may be visionary, but they do not have any instruments or tactics, as they are surrounded by those who are very close to the old regime (New Order).

Q: Is that related to feudalism?

A: The New Order regime has sophisticated feudalism. I think feudalism has been inherited since the era of the kingdoms in Indonesia during Dutch colonialism.

Q: Any other thing leaders must be aware of?

A: The leaders must trust the capability of the people to develop the nation under such difficult conditions, like we are in. We must realize that the lower ranks of society consist of hard- workers, while the upper level have turned into a consumeristic lot whose only obsession is to live in a cosmopolitan style.

We want to have leaders who care about, and want to see, the grass roots people develop. They must also have the vision on how to make Indonesia a player in the globalization era.

Another thing is about the military. We haven't seen any strategic move on demilitarizing the politics and depoliticizing the military. Military and militarism are still strong in Indonesia.

Q: What do you think about the role of educational institutions in supporting leadership?

A: Generally the educational institutions have yet to integrate with the social institutions. Students are not taught to be innovative. This means they are not taught to have the ability, will and courage to achieve breakthroughs. I think it is possible to make the schools closer with social realities. For instance, there is a school near a plantation but its students do not get practical education on how to interpret an economy which will be able to improve the life of plantation workers.

Schools must be able to teach the students how not to be alienated from their environment. I'm not a pedagogue, but I think it is important for the students to get a curriculum that allows them to achieve breakthroughs.

Q: What option is available to get such a system in which students or anybody else can achieve a breakthrough in their activities?

A: Fortunately there are non government organizations. I think an NGO is one of the places for a leader's apprenticeship. There are also political parties and labor unions. I understand that labor unions usually hold schools for workers to study in the evening.

There are also other social institutions like those set up by intellectuals who are concerned with common peoples' educations.

Q: What is your personal experience in studying?

A: I am critical of formal education. I always questioned my teachers on the subjects they taught. I also liked to learn something beyond the school subjects. I like to read. I have read various books since I was in elementary school. Though I did not always understand what I read, the knowledge accumulated.

It was probably the first time when I found myself to have a political awareness, and I disputed the history of Indonesia to my teacher after reading different things from the texts he gave. This happened during junior high school. I obtained different ideas by reading various books.

Then I formed a study group with my friends at my high school and later at the university. Sometimes I skipped some classes to participate in various discussions.

Q: What did you get by "educating" yourself?

A: I got to be more independent. The previous government once had a dreadful framework on how to treat people like me, but I could survive as I am independent.

Q: What is your next goal?

A: I want to see civilian supremacy in Indonesia, pluralism and justice for all. I think we have just been freed from an authoritarian regime, but there's a serious threat for us to fall into another authoritarian situation.

The things we witness now are only about evolution in the same continuity and system. We may be in an era of reform, but it's only about a change of the format. We only see change of shape, not substance.

Q: How would you get to a change of substance?

A: I believe in interparliamentary combined with extraparliamentary system, meaning there must be organized dynamic politics beyond the parliament.