National leadership: Illusion, disillusionment

Ignas Kleden, Sociologist, Director, The Center for East Indonesian Affairs, Jakarta

Indonesia seems to face not so much the problem of leadership per se as the problem of perceiving and expecting national leadership. History is apparently repeating itself when those who six months ago wanted Megawati Soekarnoputri to become president have started thinking and propagating the idea that she is not in a position to run her administration, and that people should begin looking for another candidate.

Golkar, the second biggest political party, which became a comrade in arms of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) some months ago in the campaign to install Megawati as president, is now in the hot seat after she approved the investigation into the alleged involvement of Golkar's chairman, Akbar Tandjung, the legislature's Speaker, in the misuse of Rp 40 billion of Bulog funds.

The Golkar politicians are now voicing systematic criticisms of Megawati even though the party is still an important element of the ruling coalition.

We are faced with a fundamental problem of political culture pertaining to the presidential election and national leadership. It is becoming increasingly obvious that people who elect the president are not aware of their obligation to bear the consequences of their choice.

Do they take the strengths and the weaknesses of their candidate into account when they are making up their minds during the election? Or do they rely on the illusion that their candidate can do no wrong? Of course they would be proud and happy if the president elect could do his or her job well, could stand aloof from corruption and resist the temptation of power abuse, while striving to improve the economy and encouraging democracy.

However, what should people do if the president showed no clear vision as to what he or she was aiming to achieve in their administration? Are voters and supporters prepared to bear this failure as a consequence of their choice?

In post-New Order Indonesia it seems that those who elect the president are not aware of the fact that making a choice implies being committed to bearing responsibility for all the consequences brought about by that choice, for better or worse. So if the president elect succeeds in meeting the requirements of the job, the credit will go to the voters. Conversely, if the president fails, all the voters and supporters should share the moral responsibility for the fact that the incumbent president is the result of their electoral intervention.

But, alas, what is happening in Indonesian political thinking and political behavior today?

When Abdurrahman Wahid came to power in October 1999, it was Amien Rais who was one of his main supporters. He was believed to be the brains behind the operation to bring Abdurrahman to the presidential office. However, within just a few months he was among the first to ask Abdurrahman to step down before the end of his term, this being done without the slightest feeling of responsibility for his support for Abdurrahman's election.

At that time it was only Nurcholish Madjid, the prominent Muslim scholar, who had the courage to ask for Amien's withdrawal from the position of Speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) as a token of his moral responsibility. This appeal was ignored by Amien on the grounds that he did not feel he had made any mistakes. Needless to say this was not a direct response to Nurcholish's appeal, which obviously had nothing to do with Amien's performance as MPR Speaker.

For the past two weeks, the same thing has again been happening. Golkar, among Megawati's staunchest supporters in the MPR session in July 2001, has started to continuously criticize her administration.

Golkar members say there are at least five policies that are worth questioning. First, why was Taufik Kiemas (the husband of the president) appointed as a presidential envoy to China while he was a legislator? Did this not set a precedent that members of the House are under the control of the president?

Second, why was the government not resolute enough to increase fuel prices on time, resulting in hoarding and an increase in the prices of other commodities before the hike?

Third, why did the government take no action against the use of voice over Internet protocol, which caused the loss of Rp 554 billion per month?

Fourth, why did the government not forestall the sale of shares in Semen Gresik, which was against an MPR decree?

The fifth question: Why did the government allow the trade between Telkom Regional Division IV Central Java and Yogyakarta and PT Indosat, which was very likely to cause losses to the state? (Tempo, Jan. 14- Jan. 20).

Even though all the criticisms could perhaps be defended in terms of substance, there are nevertheless two questions with regard to political correctness. First, if Golkar and PDI Perjuangan have established a ruling coalition, why did Golkar not feel responsible for all the above shortcomings?

In the second place, why were these criticisms raised after the president approved the launching of legal investigations, which declared Akbar a suspect? Is Megawati, as president, expected to protect the speaker? Even if she was capable of doing so, what about the national commitment to eliminate the practices of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN), which was demanded as part of the 1998 political reforms, and which was legalized by a 1998 decree of the MPR, whose members are largely from Golkar? Why is it so easy for high-ranking politicians to contradict themselves?

It is understandable that Golkar members are doing their best to save and protect the party chairman. The reason for this might be that Akbar's alleged involvement implicates Golkar in the financial scandal. To save Akbar would mean saving the party. However, this logic is apparently not shared by everybody within Golkar, both among leaders and the rank and file.

A senior adviser to the party, Arnold Baramuli, demanded openly that Akbar quit the post of party chairman -- because having a suspect as the party's top figure was not compatible with its political dignity.

No doubt there is a latent power struggle within Golkar because Baramuli is known as an important leader of Iramasuka, a faction of the party that is supposed to represent the political interests of Eastern Indonesia. Its members, however, are allegedly not always happy with Akbar's leadership.

Be that as it may, it is worthwhile for Golkar to give more attention to a second thought, namely, whether it is beneficial to the party if members try to protect Akbar at all costs or whether it is better to let him bravely face legal investigation.

If they take the second option the party will benefit from the legal investigation in one way or another. If Akbar is found not guilty, both his name and the name of the party will be publicly and legally rehabilitated. If, conversely, he is found guilty by an investigation, which is not hampered by Golkar, this will become solid evidence that Golkar is serious about its commitment to clean government, obviously improving its track record ahead of the 2004 general election.

In contrast, if Golkar members opt to save Akbar at all costs, it is very likely that the party will be tempted to pressure Megawati into a compromise, as a result of which the investigation into Akbar might be terminated or fail to reach a conclusion. However, to maintain political rationality, we must say that there is a substantive difference between the criticisms against Megawati and Akbar's investigation.

Megawati is criticized because of her alleged under- performance, whereas Akbar was allegedly involved in a transgression of the law. The decisive question is whether we can demand Megawati's withdrawal because of her alleged under- performance, while protecting Akbar who is suspected of committing legal offenses.

The underlying argument is: It would be better for us not to try to bring our presidents down because of poor performance, because this should be taken as a consequence of our electing him or her, whereas we should let somebody bravely face a legal investigation owing to offenses committed under the protection of political power.

If this question is not solved properly Indonesia will be condemned to oscillate desperately between the illusion of having a president who can do no wrong, and the disillusionment that not everybody is in a position to perform outstandingly as he or she was once thought to be. Infantilism is an initial stage that one must go through in development psychology -- but by no means in modern politics.