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.