This country needs a visionary leader, not simply a ruler

Benny Susetyo, Cultural Observer, Malang, East Java

The 2004 general election is close at hand. With all its ups and downs of late, preparations have been made by the General Elections Commission (KPU) for a national event that will be a decisive moment in this democratic process.

The level of democratization implicit in the general election, however, is itself very much determined by whether or not the election system is done fairly and orderly.

Apart from determining a number of items in the national agenda for the future, the general election is deemed important as it will determine who will become the leaders of this country for the next five years, with the task of pulling Indonesia out of the present crisis. Experience has shown that general elections here have produced only rulers with little or no respect for the problems that the people are facing. These rulers, instead, have produced a variety of problems for the people at large. Previous general elections were not able to produce a leader with the qualities that the nation needs.

In what respects does a ruler differ from a leader?

A ruler is a figure who regards power alone as his one and only goal. He is largely unconcerned with the problems that his people may be facing, and that is why a ruler will usually side with a group of people who are economically established in order that he may retain power.

A leader, on the other hand, is a wise figure who will endeavor always to side with the majority of the nation, in this case, the poor. He will always assume a reasonable attitude toward national problems. He will always be very careful about making policies that will have serious social ramifications.

A ruler only intends to rule, a leader wishes to lead the people toward a common goal. The Javanese believe that a leader must adhere to the principles of ing ngarso sung tuladha, ing madya mangun karso (always set good examples and motivate people by creating positive initiatives) and tut wuri handayani (keeping track of the people's progress, giving guidance or direction if necessary). This is the difference in character between these two types of authority figures that is supposed to come out of a democratic election.

Unfortunately, the mentality of most of the political parties participating in this election seems restricted only to an interest in power. They are involved in a rat race to become rulers. Most will make no sincere effort to adopt the good character traits of a leader, which the public desperately yearns for. Therefore, in the upcoming election, the public needs proof of whether the election will produce an authoritarian ruler or a wise leader!

A free and fair election is a defining moment for a modern democracy. Indonesia, once in the grip of an authoritarian regime, is, in theory, now undergoing a transition to democracy. The 1999 general election was considered the best of many undemocratic elections in Indonesia's history.

Unfortunately, the success of the 1999 election did not produce a truly democratic leadership. That is why it is only proper for us to wonder whether the 2004 election will be able to take Indonesia further down the path toward genuine democracy.

On the other hand, we must be aware that we could well remain mired this transition to democracy for some time. The problem is whether the quality of our democracy today and in the future will be better than that of the past. Awareness must be raised among the populace that they are also responsible for what happens during this transition toward democracy.

In Indonesia, debate on the transition to democracy has gone on since the early 1990s and really began to command attention for the past three decades. Within that timespan, countries in Latin America, other parts of Asia and Eastern Europe have busied themselves with political undertakings known as the transition to democracy.

Within this framework of understanding referred to above, the political reality in Indonesia today, just before the election, amounts to a political undertaking aimed at thoroughly solving the problems entailed in the transition to democracy. In reality, however, the reform movement, and the current "reform era", is still mostly about empty rhetoric. That is understandable, and maybe even quite natural, given that in a community in transition, irregularities are inevitable.

Sociopolitical development here is really in a messy state, so the end product is a series of possibilities and uncertainties. This period is consistent with the theory of abnormality. According to this theory, everything is unexpected and possible. That is why such a situation appears to be chaotic. At certain points, everybody will think that things used to be better during the period of "normality" and, as a result, will regret what has now happened. In fact, the expressions "used to" and "period of normality" actually refer to a situation in which everything was rotten. It was this rottenness that hastened the demise of this "period of normality."

Therefore, the main focus for voters in the 2004 election must be to repair and reconstruct this messy sociopolitical situation by electing wise statesmen and women with real vision for the nation. So, if the participants (voters and candidates), knowingly or otherwise, instead contribute to an absence of calm, the 2004 general election will be useless as it will simply become a meaningless festival that just sort of looks like democracy.

What we hope to gain from the 2004 general election is a leader who can provide protection for the people. This leader must be able to secure economic empowerment. That should be a key post-election indicator to determine whether the election has been successful or not. The 2004 election will have failed if it simply produces a despotic ruler concerned only with himself/herself and his/her primary supporters. It will also have failed if it does not produce a leader who can solve national problems and pull this country out of the protracted socioeconomic crisis.