The man in the street wants change in leadership

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.