The good and bad points of one-man-show leadership
The good and bad points of one-man-show leadership
YOGYAKARTA (JP): The ongoing leadership conflict within the
National Awakening Party (PKB) has revived the old debate over
why major political parties here tend to rely on charismatic
leadership figures.
The PKB, which has Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus Dur as he is
familiarly known, as its paramount personality, is not the only
party which believes in a one-man show leadership style. The
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle has Megawati
Soekarnoputri as its central figure, National Mandate Party (PAN)
has Amien Rais and the tiny Democratic People's Party (PRD) has
Budiman Sudjatmiko.
Observers see it as reminiscent of the Golkar party in the New
Order era under former president Soeharto, who was also chief of
Golkar's board of patrons.
Political observers Bambang Cipto of the Yogyakarta
Muhammadiyah University and Riswandha Imawan of the Gadjah Mada
University (also in Yogyakarta) discussed the issue with The
Jakarta Post. Below are some excerpts from the discussion.
Bambang Cipto:
Political parties relying on charismatic figures are found
everywhere, not only in Indonesia but also in other parts of the
world.
Some parties need a charismatic personality to attract would-
be voters, especially those at the grassroots level, at a general
election.
As such parties will not be able to rely on the same
personalities forever, regeneration of the leadership should be
properly prepared, otherwise they will lose their grassroots
support.
This cadre development has been largely ignored by the new
politicians making up the ranks of most of our parties nowadays.
These politicians ignore leadership development within the party
because their party can do well in elections thanks solely to
their charismatic leaders.
This explains why it is difficult to find politicians of the
caliber of Megawati, Akbar Tandjung or Amien Rais at the
provincial level.
Unless the leadership development problem is properly
addressed, many political parties will eventually lose their
grassroots support.
Old faces would probably quit the parties because they are
unhappy with the leadership while younger members would probably
prefer to establish their own political parties.
If such a weak multiparty system were to come to pass, it
would allow the military to come back and take control of the
political scene.
Riswandha Iwawan:
Most of the political parties in Indonesia cannot be called
"modern". Their existence is attributable solely to their
charismatic leaders.
There are no parties in the country which have clear working
mechanisms. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, political
parties in Indonesia embrace the principle that they should
accommodate diverse interests in order to survive.
This principle is often distorted. Political parties do not
serve as vehicles for channeling the people's aspirations, but
rather to manipulate those aspirations in the parties' own
interests.
Politicians use political parties as vehicles to gain
political legitimacy -- both in the legislative body and in the
administration.
Secondly, most political parties find it difficult to become
inclusive parties. They remain traditional and often resort to
sectarian norms. That is why patronage becomes important.
The only advantage of such a condition is that the "target
market" of the parties becomes clear. But this makes it difficult
for the parties' leaders to move beyond their own groups. It is
difficult for them to become national leaders.
The sectarian leader will remain the leader of his/her own
group.
What is disheartening is that party leaders tend to be content
with what they have achieved. They do not realize that they
should give political education to their supporters. (swa)