The man in the street wants change in leadership

A deadlock in the presidential election has been predicted by politicians and analysts. As the election nears, J. Soedjati Djiwandono reflects on the understanding of the common citizen.

JAKARTA (JP): It is just further evidence of the serious defects of the 1945 Constitution: even with an unmistakable winner of the general election, members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) are at a loss not only as to who should be the new president, but also as to how the presidential election should be conducted with such a vague Constitution as a guide.

This is particularly true considering the number of presidential candidates put forth well before the election. This is something unprecedented, and not addressed in the Constitution.

After all, the 1945 Constitution has succeeded only in sustaining dictatorships. No way could it sustain a healthy democratic system. It only suits those in power. If the experiences of the combined periods of almost four decades of both the Old Order and the New Order have not convinced Indonesian politicians, I don't know what will.

Further evidence of how unsophisticated Indonesian politicians are is that they have not learned to accept defeat gracefully. They have their usual explanations and excuses: it suits Indonesian culture to be accommodative, cooperative, nonantagonistic and nonconfrontational, and, by contrast, to be consensual.

That is only another way of saying that no one is to lose face, never mind the costs to be borne and the sacrifices to be suffered by the people that elected them to the legislative body to represent them.

Yet the logic of the man in the street may be simple: he wants change. And a change of leadership is what he understands best. His understanding of democracy is also simple: the new leader is to be the one whose party won the largest number of votes in the general election. He does not want to feel his vote was for nothing.

He does not want his trust betrayed. He does not understand the complex and confusing political game and the maneuvering in the legislature. The person who meets those demands is none other than Megawati Soekarnoputri, leader and presidential candidate of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan).

Indeed, if the MPR fully implements the sovereignty of the people, as the 1945 Constitution rules, then it should give voice to the aspirations of the people.

It should not ignore them. It should implement the spirit, not just the letter, of the Constitution. It should not blindly adhere to its legalities.

What about President B.J. Habibie? Surely not. He is part and parcel of the Soeharto New Order regime. Again, as the simple logic of the common man understands: He is just a runner-up in the election, never mind the financial scandals; the continued practices of collusion, corruption, cronyism and nepotism; the unfinished business of prosecuting former president Soeharto and his family and associates; the failure in explaining, let alone overcoming, the riots in May and the first Semanggi tragedy in November 1998, the second Semanggi tragedy, the riots in Ambon, the killings in Aceh and the mess he created in East Timor.

With him as the next president, the elections would have been a waste.

And Gen. Wiranto? He did not even take part in the elections. His elevation to the presidency, even the vice presidency, would be a mockery of the general election. It would also be contempt of the so far unaccounted loss of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human lives that were victims of violence across the country.

What about Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid? I love and respect him as a courageous and consistent, moral and religious leader. And those who love and respect him as much as I do should not push him too hard or too far. They should not push him into a corner. He seems, at the same time, to be a man of uncertain health, never mind his loss of sight.

And have I not heard from my Muslim friends that a man is not supposed to be a political leader, an umaroh (ruler) and an ulema at the same time, or in the Javanese language, a pandito ratu, or in Plato's language, a "philosopher king", who exists, according to Plato, only as an ideal, not of the real world?

Why should his followers and disciples pay seemingly blind loyalty to him? No human being is infallible. A position of political power might destroy him. Let him be what he is: a well- respected moral guru for everyone in this country, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, language, culture or social status, majority or minority. He belongs to the whole nation, but not as president.

Who knows, however, what is really in his mind? If he does not care about himself, at least he should know that the majority do.