The search for leaders

The search for leaders

Frank Feulner
State -- Civil Society Adviser
United Nations Support Facility
for Indonesian Recovery (UNSFIR)
Jakarta
frank.feulner@un.or.id

2003 has started amidst many uncertainties. The gloomy
prospect of unemployment and poverty, of insecurity and war is
frightening us. It is no surprise that we long to hear the
promising and confident words and visions of national and
religious leaders. Their messages seem to be much closer to our
hearts and minds than the dry analysis of researchers and
scientists. We all want more charismatic and moral leaders. But
where do those leaders come from and how do they emerge?

Charisma is defined as a personal magic of leadership arousing
special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a statesman or military
commander. Not many national leaders are reported to have
possessed such charisma. Nelson Mandela had this personal quality
that makes a leader feel at home in any crowd. Winston Churchill
was another leader with such a special magnetic charm or appeal.

Some might quote historic leaders and the "great man" theories
of the early 20th century focusing on the innate qualities and
characteristics possessed by great social, political, and
military leaders like Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln.
However, what might be a special gift and successful in one
historic situation does not always work in changing environments.
Sukarno during the time of Indonesian independence relied on a
personal magic of leadership arousing popular loyalty and
enthusiasm, but his presidency was overshadowed by economic
slowdown.

The question which emerges is whether we can predict if a
benevolent or dictatorial leader emerges? The answer lies in the
strength of the political system of a given country. Free and
fair elections are simply not enough to guarantee sufficient
leadership qualities. In democracies leaders emerge by taking up
public issues and promoting them through party programs or
political initiatives. Their qualities are developed by dealing
effectively with problems and the creation of parliamentary
majorities for decisions. Checks and balances ensure the legality
of actions and the use of powers. These are legitimate leaders.

No doubt, strong leaders may bring about short-term economic
success. But sustainable development embracing wide sectors of
the population demand a system which is more capable of dealing
with differences and disparities than a single leader can
possibly provide for. Here, a decentralized system which ensures
that powers are diffused amongst different branches of government
is important. The risk to place the faith into the hands of one
leader is simply too high. For this, there are also enough
examples in history.

The fact that strong political systems support democracy and
stability much needed in countries to cope with eventual economic
and social problems is highlighted for example by Italy. Here,
despite the collapse of many governments the task of governing
was often left to a series of caretaker administrations. Since
1945, Italy had not less than 59 governments and 25 premiers. The
constitution and political institutions of the country, however,
ensured that even when leaders lost their popularity, the country
made economic progress. The administration even managed to pass
reforms to fiscal and regional autonomy, privatization programs
and successful anti-corruption measures.

In East Asia, the example that comes to mind for an efficient
political structure is Japan. In 1955, with the formation of the
Liberal Democratic Party which has ruled the country either alone
or in coalition for most of the years since, the political system
strengthened. Although cases of high level corruption and
scandals involving senior party figures created a volatile
political scene and led to the resignation of leading members of
the government, the separation of powers with a House of
Representatives constitutionally superior to the upper house and
an independent Supreme Court always provided for a stable state.
Despite the absence of prominent leaders, Japan became one of the
most developed countries.

In Southeast Asia, there is Thailand where only in 1973 the
last military strongmen were removed in a student-led uprising.
With subsequent civilian governments weakened by rivalry almost
invariably ending in brief and bloodless military takeovers, the
country's strong civilian bureaucracy lend an element of
stability to the system. Beginning in the late 1980s, constant
faction fighting between coalition partners did not hold back
political and legislative reforms and even the endorsement of a
new successful election laws in 2001.

In a nutshell, blaming elected leaders of a country for poor
leadership and lack of coordination, communication and
indecisiveness falls short of looking at the underlying
structures and institutions within which these leaders operate.
Moreover, it seems a paradox when such statements are made by
leading government members who are themselves been regarded as
national leaders. Particularly in situations like in Indonesia
where national leaders try more or less ambitiously to confront
the challenges of a systemic transition, a common inclusive
effort to build and strengthen the political system is crucial.

A strengthened political system with decentralized structures
of power and sufficient checks in place would create stability
and security. The search for a savior in the form of a Ratu Adil
or just king is delusional and dangerous.

The opinions expressed in this article are strictly personal.