Self-images project in mirror when we look at our leaders
Self-images project in mirror when we look at our leaders
By Julia Suryakusuma
JAKARTA (JP): Disillusionment can lead to illumination. Is
this what we feel now about Abdurrahman Wahid, the first
legitimately elected president Indonesia has ever had, after 14
months in power?
Currently, the common sentiment Wahid arouses is hardly of
illumination but rather -- deep disappointment, frustration, and
defensiveness on the part of his supporters. Anger at supposed
betrayals, confusion over suspected incidences of corruption, and
the feeling of being let-down, that not all of Indonesia's myriad
problems are being tackled, let alone solved. These emotions are
manifested by a range of actions -- both in the streets and
through the parliament -- to unseat him.
However, disillusionment can lead to illumination if we
attempt to understand the underlying processes and causes of our
problems with the current leadership. Why does Indonesia have a
greater need for leadership, and why do we have the leaders we
do?
This essay is not meant to be an examination of specific
leaders, but an attempt to understand, how leaders are
'produced', specifically in Indonesia. How do they emerge, how do
they maintain their power and rule, and why do they fall?
Given the felt need for leadership as a means to come out of
the crisis, we urgently need to comprehend this important issue.
Up to now, Indonesia has had four presidents: Sukarno, Soeharto,
B.J. Habibie and, since October 1999, Abdurrahman Wahid, better
known as Gus Dur.
Apart from Habibie, who was seen only as a transitional
leader, Indonesia's first two presidents ended their terms in
disgrace. Will Gus Dur wind up the same way as they did?
Besides presidents, other prominent figures who contended for
the national leadership included Megawati (currently Vice
President), Amien Rais (currently head of the MPR), Akbar
Tandjung (currently head of the DPR), and Wiranto (formerly
Minister of Defense and head of the Armed Forces). Perhaps we
could include also the Sultan of Yogyakarta (currently Governor
of Yogyakarta).
Among the infinite problems that Indonesia faces, the lack of
leadership is certainly one of them. Given the lack of systematic
means to unravel the chaos, leadership is particularly important
in its impact on the nation's ability to solve all other
problems.
Everybody knows there is a crisis in leadership, and in this
way, Indonesia is not unique, as there seems to be a leadership
crisis worldwide. However, the need for leadership is felt more
strongly in Indonesia because as yet we have no stable public
management system in place.
Even with a prime minister like John Howard -- not a
particularly strong, charismatic or visionary leader -- the
system in Australia works. Likewise in Japan, Italy, Israel, the
Netherlands, prime ministers and even whole cabinets may come
and go, but the institutions of governance and the integrity and
authority of the system, remains quite firm.
Leadership is needed in Indonesia to assist in moving the
nation's political system towards the type of institutionalized
democracy that will act as a bulwark against the inconstancy,
weakness and opportunism of (political) personalities, the
vagaries of politics, and the vicissitudes of 'fate' (i.e. any
form of crisis).
When one thinks of leadership, usually one thinks of specific
traits such as decisiveness, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, etc.
Some even look at specific physical traits, such as posture,
bearing, strength, attractiveness, but as we all know, leaders
come in all shapes and sizes and sexes, and some come even with
disabilities.
Depending on what position the leader is holding, some traits
are more desirable. Obviously, the traits that make for a good
military commander may not make a good headmaster/mistress or
spiritual leader. While it is true that there are specific
personal and character traits that are more conducive to being a
leader -- shall we say, the internal factors -- there are also
'external' factors which produce a particular leader, and in the
context of this essay, a political leader.
There are three main factors to consider. Firstly, the fact
that leadership is relational, secondly, that it is contextual,
and thirdly, that it is systemic.
What makes it possible for a leader to lead is the existence
of the led, that is the people. In this way, the essence of
leadership is in the relation, the dialectic, the connection. In
the same way that a teacher cannot teach without students to
teach, or a mother cannot mother without another to care for (it
need not be a biological offspring or even a child, for that
matter), and as a husband cannot be a husband without a wife,
neither can a leader lead without "the led".
In leadership, the quality and strategies for leading are not
only affected by those being led, they also stem from them.
Leaders are generally cut from the same cloth as the people,
after all, and for better or for worse, have the same roots as
they do.
As the saying goes, the people deserve the government they
have, often because they elected it, and this also applies to the
leader, But what happens if they didn't elect him/her?
Neither Sukarno nor Soeharto were elected democratically, even
though formally both were elected by the People's Consultative
Assembly -- although in Soeharto's case by virtue of unfair
elections. Nevertheless they were a reflection of the people,
certainly given the absence of any alternatives.
Sukarno was charismatic, flamboyant, romantic, emotional
(especially in his conduct of foreign relations), eclectic, and
passionate (in his nationalism and love of women).
He had a magnetic charm and possessed great oratorical skills.
He was a populist, and referred to himself as the "mouthpiece of
the people" (penyambung lidah rakyat), just what the people of a
newly independent state "needed" to give them an identity and a
revolutionary unity.
Soeharto, on the other hand, was aloof and bland, oriented to
family rather than the people. He was perspicacious (in his
conduct of foreign relations), passionate (i.e. greedy) only in
his love of power and money (never women), vengeful, vicious, and
in the end, ruthless to a fault, cunningly uniting the nation by
dividing (and in some instances, killing) the people.
While most posit Sukarno and Soeharto as distinctly different,
even opposite leadership types, they were a continuum, a
continuum of the people's need to have "strong" leaders, even if
strong meant authoritarian. Because despite their vastly
divergent styles, authoritarian both they were. And ambitious.
Although their ambitions were aimed at very different goals,
in the end, their ambitions were pursued at the expense of the
people.
Why did the people comply? Some because they felt they had no
other option, given the low political awareness, some because
they benefited from the power structures and relations.
In fact, it was only after the beneficiaries of the New Order
started feeling the pinch, and then the crush, of the crisis,
that they started to squirm and squeak, and then "roar", in the
endless demonstrations that have become a daily feature of life
in Jakarta, and now also in the legislature, the "roar" of the
newly "empowered", which provoked Gus Dur to liken the
legislature to a kindergarten.
And the continuous violence in the regions? The powder-keg of
(over)centralized government finally burst, not in one single
explosion, but in a prolonged sputtering of destruction,
devastating both the personal lives of the people and the
country's infrastructure: a response to over 30 years of
discontent and injustice.
Leadership is contextual: historical, social, economic and
cultural. None, not one of our leaders could be truly democratic,
because Indonesia has never been a democratic society, or not
yet, at least. When did we ever have a chance even to learn to be
democratic?
Centuries of foreign, colonial rule, followed by various forms
of authoritarianism, and then a multidimensional crisis which has
diminished us to being more than poor (suddenly reduced to having
one of the lowest per capita incomes in the region after having
been a showcase of a developing nation), but also narrow-minded,
contentious, egotistical, self-serving, directionless, power-
hungry, irresponsible, anti-reform entities, oriented towards
petty primordial interests and personal advancement.
Nevertheless, the drive for democratic change definitely
exists in Indonesia, manifested by, among other things, the
emergence of a number of civil society organizations (CSOs), many
of them small, striving for more permanent, structural changes,
but which do not seem as yet to have any broad mass appeal, not
even to the politicians.
At the same time, there is also a global neo-conservatism
which is also very apparent in Indonesia, notably in
fundamentalist religious movements. When these movements become
politicized, and ride along class and ethnic sentiments, in the
context of the most severe crisis Indonesia has ever had, this
results in upheavals and short-term measures such as violence,
which at the same time have long-lasting, perhaps permanent,
damaging effects.
Ambon is a case in point. And Aceh? And Papua?
Indonesia has never had a renaissance. Indonesia has leapt
directly from being a rural, agricultural nation to an
industrialized one. Technically Indonesia has features of an
industrialized nation, also making a quantum leap into the
information age, but most people are still rural, certainly in
their mentality.
The speed of change was simply too much, the contradictions
too many and too great. This has resulted in people retreating
into defensive, self-protective, and hypocritical behavior, and
resorting to primordialism, reductionism and aggressive-defensive
courses of action, often knee-jerk.
Socially, we are a plural society, and despite the political
domination of the Javanese, in fact there are no ethnic
majorities (the Javanese are barely 40 percent of the total). We
are all minorities. Is this what gives us the mentality of
(persecuted) minority groups?
Economically, our development paradigm of over 30 years has
been geared to benefit the rich, and those at the center or in
the inner circles of power, both geographically as well as
politically and socially.
Why then be surprised that Gus Dur asked recently that the
legal process concerning three tycoons be delayed? Or that he has
been so wishy-washy in his treatment of the trial of Soeharto
which would in one blow mean exposing most of Soeharto's
cronies?
Culturally, we are still a feudal, hierarchical society,
secretly still living in the world of kings, queens and sultans.
For example, Soeharto's stepping down in May 1998 was referred to
as lengser keprabon mandeg pandito (dethronement). The shift from
Soeharto to Gus Dur has been likened by the political tabloid
DeTAK to the psychological warfare between Raden Patah, the
leader of the newly emerging kingdom of Demak and Brawijoyo,
the last king of the crumbling Majapahit empire in the 13th
century.
In essence, both are acting as kings, not as leaders of a
modern nation. In the same way, ever since the June elections,
Megawati has also carried on like a "queen" for the most part,
just waiting to receive her title which she sees as her birth-
right, and not something to be won in a political fight.
Psychologically we are immature, lacking in self-esteem,
always pointing the finger of blame at others, very seldom
engaging in self-reflection, introspection, self-correction and
learning. Whilst priding ourselves on being a land of smiling
faces, at the same time Indonesia documents a bloody history, so
it is not surprising that there is so much violence now. This is
traditionally how we have resolved differences, which is an
indication of our weakness, not our strength.
We are a group of mediocre people who are full of envy and
jealousy: we cannot stand people who excel and who are prominent
because of their achievements, and would chop their heads off if
they appear to be taller or greater or more talented or creative
than we are. How can good leaders ever emerge in this crippling
atmosphere?
We are unable to compromise when we have to, and compromise
when we ought not. Compromise in life is common, sometimes even
necessary, and a key ingredient in every peaceful and democratic
community, but the kinds of political compromises Gus Dur has
made, coupled with his dismal performance, has eroded him of much
of his moral authority and legitimacy.
But to what extent in fact, was Gus Dur's election really
legitimate? He was elected by the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR) -- not one of whose members were actually elected by the
people. At best they were indirectly elected by having the public
vote to determine what proportion of an electoral cake each party
gets and then allowing party leaders to determine which of them
they actually put into the DPR.
Gus Dur was not one of the candidates "chosen" by the
electorate, but in the end he was chosen by the members of MPR as
the figure "most acceptable" for all groups.
He was also regarded as the candidate who could deliver the
"sweetest" political deals. His election was due to a series of
political maneuverings, horse-trading and agreements. The
conclusion of any such agreements, made after the elections,
means these arrangements are unaccountable to the public.
As a result, given the stresses of real politics here or
anywhere else, the wider interests of the public are ultimately
easy to disregard.
Given the context, Gus Dur is precisely the "right" leader for
us -- he is a reflection of the people and an epitome of our
times. He is more than half-blind -- many of us are, not
visually, but to our faults, to the nature of our problems, to
the need to change in fundamental ways.
He is unpredictable, sometimes damagingly so -- we, the
people, accuse wildly, go amok, and engage in wanton destruction.
He is stubborn -- this is a quintessential common trait of the
ignorant, the weak, as well as the "powerful" (i.e.
authoritarian). He is irrational -- much of our culture, and
certainly our political culture is irrational, based on
personality politics and ethnic and religious sentiments, relying
on underhanded tactics and devious maneuverings.
He scapegoats, as he did recently with his "Singapore sting" -
we are a nation of scapegoaters par excellence, for example the
recent spate of U.S. bashing, blaming them for many of our
problems, even accusing them of trying to break up Indonesia
(totally oblivious of the fact that we are doing a fantastic job
of doing that ourselves. And while the U.S. historically does
have a tendency to interfere, how on earth would they benefit
from our disintegration?).
He is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, changing his
views or decisions every other second -- we are inconsistent --
examples abound, but to cite two cases, we demand freedom of
expression and the banser (militia of the Nahdlatul Ulama) go and
ransack the office of the Jawa Pos for an article which they
considered an offense to their religion.
We preach "morality", and the Defenders of Islam smash up
nightclubs and restaurants that serve alcohol to preserve our
precious morality (and in the process deprive the people working
there of their livelihood).
He is ineffective, little of his policies translate into real
social and economic improvement in people's lives -- we are
ineffective, wasting so much of our energy on so many
unconstructive activities and so much infighting when we should
be assiduously and cooperatively rebuilding what seems to be our
God-forsaken nation.
He is a back-stabber, cutting in on his erstwhile partner
Megawati, when he saw the chance to be president. Given the
indirect nature of Javanese culture which dominates the
Indonesian political culture, back-stabbing is routine (and
perhaps not even distinctly Indonesian) -- something I have
personally experienced on many occasions.
He is sexist -- initially considered as having a higher
feminist awareness than even his wife who did women's studies at
university. As it transpired, he was not averse to using his
sexism in a politically pragmatic way against Megawati, without
whom he probably could not have become president.
We are a sexist society, even our intellectuals, activists and
pro-democracy figures are guilty of gender bias and serious
sexual harassment. He engages in KKN -- let those of us who have
not, cast the first stone. He is accused of being involved in
corruption (Buloggate, Bruneigate, cronies in the new cabinet) --
Indonesia is regarded as one of the most corrupt nations in the
world, motivated by need or greed, so why is a surprise if it
turns out that our President is also?
He commits blunders -- too many to list, his first serious
error being the offering of an Aceh referendum and then
backtracking.
For centuries our leaders have committed blunders, from the
sultans who conceded to colonial powers, the demagogic ultra-
nationalism of Sukarno, to the distorted development paradigm of
Soeharto's regime, and the people (rakyat) who took it all,
virtually unquestioningly.
He is an opportunist -- for example using his new position as
president to travel all over the globe, with the excuse to
attract foreign-investment (what? When there is limited
infrastructure, no guarantee of political or social stability, no
transparency of bureaucratic procedure?) and has incurred the ire
- and jealousy - of many at home.
But how many of us would not kill for such an opportunity? It
is common knowledge that civil servants go on escapist jaunts
abroad, ostensibly for seminars or training, but end up engaging
in shopping sprees and visiting obligatory night-clubs, sans
wife and avec girlie-shows.
In using the logic that all our leaders are reflections of the
people, then when we look at the faces of Soeharto, Megawati,
Amien Rais, Akbar Tandjung and Wiranto, in fact we are looking in
the mirror, at ourselves.
If we cast aspersions at them, we are criticizing ourselves.
If we denounce their negative tendencies, then we are pointing
the finger at our own, because they are us and they embody the
traits of the people of Indonesia.
Now it seems that for the time being we have to go through the
leaders we have presently -- after Gus Dur, most likely we will
have Megawati for President. But by setting up a proper system, a
system which takes into account the characteristics and features
of the nation, one by one we will weed out these leaders we are
currently stuck with, and pave the way for better ones.
In modern societies, leaders are created, not born. They are
created by a system, a political and governmental system. A
proper system could even contain the flaws of leaders. An
effective system will also contain the capacity of their human
failings to damage seriously the nation.
Currently, it is unclear what system we adhere to -- we are at
best, pseudo-parliamentary. Presently Indonesia suffers from the
constitutional weakness of not having a real and independent
President who can not concentrate on policy making because s/he
is under constant threat of removal, as an important source of
weakness in governance.
To ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes we made in the
past, we have to create a system which can withstand abuses of
power, and which truly reflect the characteristics of the nation:
a plural society with no single majority, socially hierarchical,
uneven human resources, uneven natural resources, in a
geographically large and spread out area.
Our democratic system has to reflect the realities of our
nation, in order to ensure appropriate representation and
therefore the needs and interests of the people.
The system should also be able to reflect the ideals of the
society: what are our hopes for our political system? What do
we want to see? What do we want to avoid?
Between all of these issues will, of course, be compromise,
but if the debate is based upon these kinds of issues, they will
be honorable compromises, not merely deals to advantage personal
interest, that have a chance to emerge.
The new democratic system should also be able to produce local
leaders at all levels and in all areas. We have tended to
concentrate too much on national leadership and not enough on
regional and local leadership which, after all, will also be
part-and-parcel of the success of regional autonomy.
We already have a very strong tradition of self-help which
helped the country to survive the crisis better than anybody
could have expected and there is also a tradition of democratic
structures at village level and below.
Initially, we need a national leader who has the long-term
vision to know what the country needs, one who can be involved
and detached at the same time.
In deciding on a system, it is also important to be consistent
and not pick whatever components we feel like picking from
disparate systems, because each has its own means of checks and
balance.
Once a system is in place, we need not rely on the mercy of
the heavens to drop a Ratu Adil (a just King/Queen who can act as
a savior) into our midst, and can heave a sigh of relieve that
even if our leaders are not perfect -- as invariably they are
not, being human -- that the needs of the people and the nation
can continue to be assured, because we have a system not only of
checks and balances, but also one that hopefully can
systematically produce leaders -- many, many leaders -- who can
follow the will of the people, not out of the goodness of their
hearts, but because they are forced to do so, by the system.
A robust system can make up for the inadequacies of individual
leaders. There are two ways to run a country the size and
diversity of Indonesia -- as an absolute dictator, or as a
constitutional leader in a system subservient to an ultimately
incorruptible law.
Thailand is a good example. Chuan Leekpai is not a charismatic
or prepossessing leader, but he has always been determined that
the democratic system shall prevail and that in any matter the
process of law should be properly followed, even to his personal
inconvenience. He lost power before, came back, and is set to
lose again. However, he has gone a long way towards socializing
and cementing a democratic system.
In the U.S., what happened during the elections has elements
of farce, but no-one is in any doubt that ultimately the problem
will be resolved in the courts. Law is pre-eminent. No one is
above it.
In Indonesia, anyone with enough money can be above it. And it
is too easily manipulated any which way, for political
convenience.
Unless law achieves the pre-eminent position as the strong arm
behind democracy, the default position is that Indonesia will
revert to subjecting herself to the control of the next strong
man (or woman, though that will be much harder culturally) who
comes along.
The writer is a sociologist and executive director of the API
Foundation for political research, information and publications