The essence of hero worship

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): In the past, the relationship between the noble and the commoners or the lord and the slaves was basically constitutive in nature. The German philosopher Hegel once made it clear in his study, the relevance of which can be seen nowadays.

A noble man is there as long as there are enough commoners who are subject to him; a lord exists as long as there are enough slaves that he can treat as part of his possession.

The one constitutes the other. If one party is abolished, the other party's legitimacy -- or even existence -- terminates.

In the same way, a political leader can only emerge if there are enough people who treat themselves as his or her followers. The same holds true for political heroes. They can only exist if there are adorers heralding them wherever they go.

A political leader attracts his followers, and the followers in turn make or even create their leader.

In the beginning, there are only human beings equal to one another. But once there are enough people who proclaim somebody as their leader, he or she turns distinguished, different and finally, begins leading. A hero is created by his followers in the same way.

People become heroes because they are sorted out from among the common people and attributed to a status which transcends the normal capabilities of human beings.

A hero is a sort of superman in the Nietzschenian sense. He is beyond strength and weakness, beyond good and evil.

Of course, there is no social contract whatsoever between leaders and their followers, between heroes and their admirers. There is, however, a sort of tacit psychological agreement between the two parties. The supply of loyalty and admiration from one side is exchanged for the responsibility, the courage and even the perfection of the other.

The more the loyalty and admiration professed by the followers, the greater the expectations and claims faced by the leader and hero.

The tacit psychological agreement is quite apparent in the case of noted human rights activist Adnan Buyung Nasution, who opened his law office on July 10, 1996 here. After his return from abroad in 1993, Buyung was leading the Legal Aid Foundation of Jakarta.

He resigned after two years in order to rid the foundation of being independent of him, its founder. He was the lawyer of Sri Bintang Pamungkas, the sacked legislator whose case involving state defamation is still pending, while giving lectures at various seminars.

The founding of his new law firm might not have instigated so many critical responses from his friends and followers had this not coincided with the rumor about the possibility of his becoming a legal consultant to the IPTN state-owned aircraft industry under Minister of Research and Technology B. J. Habibie.

The rumor gained ground when IPTN general manager Hari Laksono revealed last month the company's attempt to have Buyung as its legal consultant.

The "coincidence" has prompted vague critical responses about what Buyung should do. It is not clear whether the critics object to Buyung's decision to set up a law firm or to the prospect of his becoming a legal consultant to IPTN.

What is wrong with going professional? After all, Buyung was a professional lawyer for quite a long time.

Many of Buyung's supporters seem to be very much concerned about this, because working under a powerful figure such as minister Habibie will make him easily co-opted by the state. For a man who once stated his intention of becoming a locomotive for democracy, this move will only make him more aloof from the struggle for democracy.

Buyung's answer to these responses is threefold.

First, in order to develop a democratic attitude which respects pluralism, one has to be able to differentiate matters in which one cannot cooperate with one's political opponents from those in which there is an opportunity to negotiate.

Second, the concern about his being co-opted can only be proven in the course of time and cannot be decided a priori. Buyung said he has never diverted from the course of his political struggle in the last 30 years, and hopes to stick to his ideal in the years to come.

Third, it is his responsibility to earn a living for his family, since it is impossible to rely on somebody's aid all the time. Though he was once the most expensive lawyer in the country, he now has to rebuild his career from scratch.

However, a professional job and handsome income will not be the most important thing in his life. As a professional lawyer in the 1980s, he also defended many political cases including those figures considered critical to the government. This had caused many of his clients to write him off.

The ongoing polemic about Buyung reminds us, however, of the fact that the traditional millenarianism can reemerge even among modern men and take on a different form.

The essence, however, remains the same. The more rigid the political system, the greater is the hope for the advent of a political savior who would change the situation with extraordinary power, or even with supernatural and superhuman abilities. The traditional idea of Ratu Adil (savior) can easily beset the political mind of modern people.

The relationship between a hero and his followers is characterized by a strange psychology. The more powerless the followers, the greater will be the expectation of the powers of the hero. The greater the belief of the followers in their leader or hero, the less the freedom a leader will have.

This conflict seems to befall Buyung vis-a-vis his critics, who were his followers and admirers before.

His statement: "You cannot turn me into a hostage" (Tiras, July 18, 1996) is fairly typical of this relationship. This statement is parallel with another statement regarding his prospective cooperation with B.J. Habibie: "I won't be manipulated by Habibie" (Tiras, July, 18 1996).

However, Buyung might have forgotten the main difference between his relationship with Habibie and his relationship with his political followers.

The former is basically a technical one, an exchange of interests which can be solved through negotiation. The second, however, is basically a psychological one, an exchange of trust which is tacit in nature.

In that sense, Buyung perhaps could keep from being manipulated by Habibie (though many doubt it), and he has so far taken some measures to do so by making it a condition that he not be in charge of legal cases of IPTN pertaining to labor, environment, land and human rights.

However, he certainly cannot keep himself from being "abducted" by the expectations and claims of his political followers. The reason is that such expectations and claims are, at least to a certain extent, the result of his political measures and political statements in the past, which have attracted quite a number of people to stand behind and around him.

In that connection, no negotiation will help. Buyung, just like some others, has chosen to go professional and political at the same time. As far as the relationship with the followers is concerned, the easiest way would be to take one of the two, since it will terminate the unnecessary expectations and claims which might arise.

However, it is also his right to attempt this double course. In that case, however, one cannot get rid of the expectations and claims, which will keep arresting one in the exchange of trust or distrust.

The writer is a sociologist and researcher at the SPES Research Foundation, Jakarta.