Let the young generation lead the nation: Budiman
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.