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.