Presidential succession needs prudence

Presidential succession needs prudence

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): One of the most debated political issues since
the early 1990s has been the topic of political succession. It is
worth noting that Indonesia has never experienced a peaceful
succession of its leader. Therefore, many people wonder how the
succession of President and Vice President in 1998 will take
place. Will it proceed smoothly or will it lead to a political
fiasco?

It seems the more our politicians speculate on this issue, the
more uncertain the situation becomes. The more the issue is
discussed, the more the problems remain the same. Whenever our
politicians talk about succession, they tend to repeat what they
have said earlier and their statements present nothing new.

Several senior government officials have been named for the
position of Vice President, but the statements are not more than
pure political speculation without a well-founded argument.
Sometimes politicians just drop a name to see how the public will
react.

In developed democracies we can easily assess the situation in
the lead-up to an election. Opinion polls conducted by the mass
media, for instance, are an indication of how much support a
candidate can win.

But in Indonesia, the situation is much more complicated.
There are certain idiosyncratic variables that should be taken
into account. Some government officials suggest that open
discussion on the election chances of each political group is
unethical. How can we rationalize the alienation of the public
from a political domain in which they are constitutionally
entitled to participate? Presidential succession should be
considered a topic fit for public discussion.

Prudence is absolutely necessary in managing political
succession. Prudence exists when we act only after careful
thought and planning. We cannot pretend to ignore the disastrous
consequences that might occur if we don't handle the agenda
carefully and prudently.

There is a high cost involved if people remain in a state of
political uncertainty. It would be unwise to keep everybody
guessing regarding the future leadership of our political system.
Political groups should give priority to wider interests instead
of personal or sectarian political ambitions. Of course, we
should not allow our political system to degenerate into "a kind
of anarchy with everyone maneuvering for position" due to the
absence of effective political management (M. Vatikiotis, 1990).

There are several reasons why the government should take the
initiative in managing political succession in a prudent way.
As a society in transition we are not yet mentally prepared to
proceed with open political competition in the election of our
political leaders. As many groups in our society are still
committed to their primordial loyalties they can be easily
manipulated by irresponsible political elite.

A strong government should ensure that the political system is
not jeopardized. This may not mean that the government should
suppress political freedom for the sake of its own interests.
Effective political management in developing societies always
presupposes the presence of strong but prudent political leaders.

Second, our ambition to become a modern industrialized state
in the 21st century will obviously necessitate the presence of
political leaders capable of managing politics in a more
transparent and accountable manner. Such political leadership can
only be established in a long and well-designed process.
Singapore's experience in managing its political succession
should be an important lesson. It demonstrates how the process of
economic modernization can only be guaranteed if we develop a
well-planned political system.

Singapore is one example of a workable congruence between
industrialization and political management. Economics cannot be
based on professionalism and primitive political management at
the same time. A combination of industrialization and primitive
leadership will only lead to a society suffering endlessly from
social and economic injustice. We should learn how to develop
democratic political life in order to provide a conducive
atmosphere for the evolution of technological and cultural
innovations in our society.

Third, a series of riots in several places recently was a
clear indication that political harmony in our society cannot be
taken for granted. Indonesia is well known for its hospitality,
friendship, and peaceful environment.

If we consider how easy some members of our society turn to
violence then our pride would be baseless. Indeed, having too
much pride in our peace-loving culture without any critical
attitude will only tarnish the good reputation of our nation.
Unfortunately, some government officials think people's loyalty
to the political system can be engineered.

Honesty is apparently lacking in our political culture.

Fourth, we should be aware of the fact that the three
political groups are preparing for the 1998 succession. In such a
situation, political maneuvers made by those antagonistic groups
can be very destabilizing because they will tend to focus on
their respective short-term interests without giving priority to
wider national necessities.

In addition to this, ambitious politicians could manipulate
the "floating mass" for their own political goals. Partisan and
sectarian political maneuvers can be prevented if the government
is able and willing to give a clear indication of where the
desirable change should proceed. Change which is not managed will
only lead to political unrest emerging out of social and
political frustration which can destroy the whole system.

The unpredictability of political life is one clear indication
of political instability. Political stability suggests the system
could continue no matter who the leader is. Political stability
must be tested by a transition of power. This is exactly what has
taken place for many years in advanced democracies.

The unpredictability of the political system notwithstanding,
there are some critical points that need to be taken into account
in order to ensure a smooth and peaceful political transition.

First, there should be an open and honest national dialog in
order to build a genuine consensus regarding the succession
dilemma. We cannot wait until 1988 for such a dialog. A peaceful
and smooth succession should be carefully planned. Major
political groups could arrange a national meeting to establish a
consensus which is binding to everybody. Such a consensus can
reduce the political tension prior to the 1998 succession.

Second, it is unwise to prohibit people from expressing their
opinion regarding the eligibility of the contenders for the 1998
succession. Any prohibition or restriction can be self-defeated.
Indeed, there will no political gain from the so-called
"succession secret". The more we keep everybody guessing, the
more the public becomes suspicious of the government's intention.
It is the government's task to explain to the public all policy
issues which might entail critical consequences for the nation.
Being honest with the people is one of the best methods of
political education.

Third, the existence of formal procedures for the election of
the President and Vice President may not automatically mean that
the succession will run smoothly. Unfortunately, this has become
the standard answer given by certain government officials when
asked about the succession. Politics is largely determined by
power and interest rather than abstract ideals. Instead of
referring to the formal procedures, it is far better if the
government explains the real situation and how it might try to
produce a progressive change in the future.

Fourth, we ought to know by now that the 1998 succession is
not an end in itself. It is not more than a critical point in
this nation's long historical process. There are still many other
important agendas to be worked out in the year ahead. Let us not
become captives of our own history. There is still a long way to
go before we achieve our national goals stipulated in the
preamble of the 1945 Constitution.

In this time of delicate transition we do need serenity to
accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things
we can, and wisdom to know the difference. Such a prudent
attitude may be the key to a smooth and peaceful succession in
1998.

The writer is a lecturer in the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan,
Bandung. He obtained his Ph.D. in social sciences from KU Leuwen,
Belgium.

Window: Prudence is absolutely necessary in managing political
succession. Prudence exists when we act only after careful
thought and planning.