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