National leadership: Illusion, disillusionment

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.