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)