To rule...to govern...to lead

Patrick Guntensperger Business Consultant Jakarta ttpguntensperger@hotmail.com

At this critical turning point in the history of Indonesia, it's crucial that those who have the ultimate responsibility for selecting the government -- the voters -- keep some distinctions firmly in mind. Calling attention to the differences in meaning among words like ruling, governing and, leading is not mere pedantic hairsplitting, but has some very real implications for a country that is trying to grow into its role as a modern democracy.

Indonesia has had all the rulers she's ever needed. She has had the Dutch, she has had the Japanese and she's had some of her own. She doesn't need to empower any more homegrown aspirants to autocracy. What is needed now is a vision that Indonesians can share and leaders to take us there. But in our efforts to help Indonesia move away from her long history of enduring heavy- handed power wielding, let us not confuse leadership with authoritarianism.

To lead is not to bully. To have attained office is not to have demonstrated leadership, it is merely to have acquired power; and democratically acquired power is fundamentally an opportunity. In a fledgling democracy like Indonesia's, we elect someone because we believe that person worthy of being granted an opportunity to demonstrate his or her ability to lead.

When a democracy is as young and untried as Indonesia's is, those whom we elect to govern must prove to us every day that they have what it takes to lead us. Governing is managing; it's a tough job, but it's routine. It is caretaking, ensuring that things run as efficiently as possible, it is admirable if it is done well, but it is, at the end of the day, a static exercise in maintaining. What Indonesia needs and what the elections are essentially an audition for, are leaders.

Think of the campaign period leading up to the elections as one of those Pop Idol search shows. The process is, and should be, grueling. It is intended to separate the serious from the dilettantes, the talented from the hacks, those who thrive under pressure from those who crumble.

It is intended to help us decide between those with a vision to share and those with visions of personal wealth. It tests and examines the abilities of the candidates and the public's response to their performances. It winnows out the totally hopeless and retains the one that, in the estimation of the public, is most likely to rise to the occasion and meet the expectations of a demanding public.

But the important parallel is what happens after one of the aspirants gets the nod. Merely having survived the process isn't enough...it only means that now the candidate has a chance to show the public that their trust was not misplaced. Does the act have legs or was it just a flash in the pan, the flavor of the month? Once a candidate has been given the spotlight, the hits had better start coming.

A candidate, once elected has to begin to lead; ruling is unacceptable and governing is insufficient. And most significantly of all, for someone to claim to be a leader, people have to choose to follow. And despite the assumption of all too many politicians, we are not newly hatched geese; we don't just follow the first large object that moves in our field of vision. We are human beings who expect to be shown a good reason to put decision-making power in the hands of an individual, before we buy into the vision that is being sold.

In the 21st century, a ruler won't last long. In a country as populous and diverse as Indonesia, a head of state who tries to exercise autocratic power -- in other words, tries to rule -- will be the cause of mass rejection and quite likely violent confrontation, if not actual revolution. Indonesia could survive with a head of state who is merely an effective governor. In fact Indonesia needs a good governor. But what Indonesia really needs is a leader.

A true leader will govern; the routine management of the day- to-day affairs of state will be taken care of with a minimum of disruption and there will be time and resources available to implement the vision that is what distinguishes a statesman from a politician, a leader from a manager.

When we select that leader, the choice will have been made because we are able to share a belief in the vision. We will happily make sacrifices in order to achieve that vision and coercion, lies and deceit won't be necessary to persuade us to follow. What defines a true leader? The willingness of people to follow.

That's what we must look for as we sort through the hyperbole, and weave our way through the crowds and flags and banners and sift through the rhetoric. Out of this chaos we ought to be trying to find a person with a coherent vision of Indonesia's future, and a plan to get us there.

Once we've found that person we have to ask ourselves: Am I willing to put decisions that will affect my life and the life of my family in this person's hands? That's a lot of trust to put in a stranger. Surely that stranger should be known to be of absolutely impeccable integrity before a decision of that magnitude is taken.

So before we vote, let's look at the candidates and ask ourselves the toughest questions of all. Do I trust the candidate I am considering to lead me? Do I trust that person with my life and the lives of my family?