What kind of leaders are we looking for?

What kind of leaders are we looking for?

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): When in late 1964, Indonesia's first president
Sukarno's political power began to show signs of decline, many
wondered whether there was another leader in sight.

We were looking for a "replica" of Bung Karno, as he was
affectionately called by his people, to take over his role as a
guide in the nation's search toward a dignified place in the
family of nations.

Of course, there was no such person. A person of Bung Karno's
stature and caliber is not born once in every generation, and
maybe not even once in every century.

The same is true for other great personalities like Nehru, Mao
Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, or Gamal Abdel Nasser.

In our case, the one who emerged and filled the political
vacuum at that time was a general by the name of Soeharto. No
matter what one may think about Soeharto, this man succeeded in
establishing himself as Indonesia's leader for 32 years.

In the words of a prominent intellectual at the time, "at the
beginning he was a very humble soldier", and this was because --
according to another intellectual -- "he was still learning how
to be an effective president of the country."

He did not know many political tricks yet. But about four
years after he consolidated his power, his self-confidence began
to grow steadily, and increasingly he began to act like a
Javanese King, creating an image rather remote from the image of
a president of a supposedly democratic republic.

History has shown that he was a leader of a type quite
different from that of Bung Karno.

We are now living amid rumors and gossip that the country can
no longer afford to have Abdurrahman Wahid as our President. His
hobby of traveling abroad with a large entourage is too costly
for a country that is almost bankrupt.

The oft-repeated allegation that he is implicated in several
murky business deals has made his government lose much of its
credibility. And his political statements that are quite often
contradictory have unnecessarily increased the confusion and
frustration.

It is on the basis of such circumstances -- alleged or real --
that those proposing that Abdurrahman be replaced have been
building up their arguments. But every time this idea is launched
it faces stiff resistance from opposing camps.

They ask, "Who can replace Gus Dur? Who has the courage and
the capability to stand up to Muslims inclined towards
fundamentalism? Who has the guts to try to 'tame' the Army?"

The mere idea of replacing Abdurrahman is aborted by the
argument that there is no second Gus Dur.

Here we see a repetition of a "political play" exhibited in
1964. While back in 1964 we claimed "There is no second Bung
Karno", now we assert "There is no second Gus Dur!" While this is
effective to end the campaign to replace Gus Dur, it is not a
very good way to think about the nation's future.

Soon, regeneration must take place. We will be moving into a
new situation where we will meet new challenges and new
opportunities, but also new problems.

To survive, and also to advance, we will have to generate a
new national strategy to be executed by younger generations and
under the leadership of those familiar with those new challenges,
new opportunities and new problems.

This kind of leadership can be provided only by a generation
born in the new era, or by members of older generations capable
of transcending the boundaries of their respective generation.

Perhaps the Gus Dur issue is merely a climax of intensifying
dissatisfaction with our political leaders.

People have a negative image of most of the present political
elite. These politicians are perceived as leaders without genuine
interest in public welfare, their primary concern limited to
securing important positions. They have created the impression of
being opportunistic, having no serious commitment to moral norms
in conducting public affairs.

So is it wise to continue to support leaders who reward their
supporters with lucrative business deals or with positions within
national or local executive or legislative bodies?

Will this kind of leadership bring about social, economic, and
political changes that satisfy people's real needs?

Perhaps we should ask whether it would not be better to start
adopting "transforming leadership", one which seriously pursues a
"relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation" between
leaders and followers.

This kind of leadership will, according to the scholar James
McGregor Burns, convert "followers into leaders and may convert
leaders into moral agents."

It is this kind of leadership that will likely be capable of
generating national actions that will pull us out of this social,
political, and economic morass.

This is a very sensitive question. Discussing it may hurt some
leaders; but it is also a very important one. To act as if it did
not exist would be fatal, leaving the younger generation
neglected and victimized.

Yet it would not be fair to shove all the responsibility of
our present messy condition on to political leaders alone.

The public also has some responsibility to shoulder. Our
mistake has been to allow ourselves to think that it is only
political leaders that really count. Experience has taught us
that such leaders alone cannot bring about comprehensive changes.

We also need leaders in bureaucracy, in business, in sciences,
in arts and communications, and education, to name a few.

A powerful political system cannot do much to move the country
forward if not supported, among others, by a solid bureaucracy.
And a splendid system in arts and sciences without support from a
solid economic system will not offer us a pleasant life either.

While there are common themes and principles underlying
leadership in varying branches of life, there is also a unique
repertoire of techniques of leadership for each kind of endeavor.

Leadership techniques cannot be simply transplanted into the
arena of academic leadership. And techniques for grooming
graduates to become good scholars cannot be deployed without
modification in a research institution aimed to nurture dedicated
researchers.

Thus there is really an urgent need to diversify our stock of
leaders and leadership. There has been a very visible imbalance,
among others, between the military and civilian aspects of our
national life.

There is also an imbalance between our academic life and our
business life. This is a sign, according to Burns, that we lack
the very foundations of knowledge about leaders and leadership as
a phenomenon that "touches and shapes our lives."

Without such knowledge we will not be able to "distinguish
leaders from rulers, from power wielders, and from despots."

One source of unhappiness with our leaders may lie in the way
they perceive power and leadership. Most do not realize that
leadership is nothing without collective purpose.

Many do not even try to identify the motives and aspirations
of their followers, assuming that people will just accept what
they say about their agendas.

This is the main reason why our political parties and their
leaders have not been able to move their followers toward
concrete actions that would meet their needs and expectations.

This is why people at the grass roots have become very
disappointed with the elite. "After we helped them secure their
places up there, what is left for us? We still live in the same
conditions as before the 1999 elections. And look at our
political leaders. Their lives have improved considerably."

This is a common complaint heard everywhere, every day.

The leaders do not seem to realize that effectiveness of
political leadership depends among others on the interplay
between the call of moral principles and the necessities of
power. They pay scant attention to the moral aspects of securing
and using power.

There are three important traits of leadership that takes
moral principles into account.

First, leaders and followers are bound together not only by
power, but also by mutual needs, aspirations, and values. Second,
to ensure informed choice, followers must be given the
opportunity to accumulate knowledge about leaders and programs.
Third, leaders should not make empty promises -- if they have
promised economic, political, and social changes they must assume
leadership in fulfilling those pledges.

Our search for new leaders and new leadership will be futile
if we do not possess the right concepts, and if we do not improve
our observation and evaluation of our political leaders and their
leadership.

Do we really want leaders who are sincere about improving
conditions? Do we really want political leaders who can guide us
toward a society in which human rights are jealously guarded,
meritocracy is put into real practice, and restoring legal
supremacy is really pursued?

Such sweeping changes will come only if we have leaders who
can persuade and mobilize people to carry out relevant and
realistic programs.

This means we need leaders who can feel what the ordinary
people feel. We need leaders who share their longings, their
burning desires, and their values -- leaders who do not talk
"from above", but who can express their thoughts in the language
of the lay man.

Leaders act according to their true personality. Manipulating
or coercing people to benefit one's own interest is not part of a
leader's personality. Instead they engage their followers, which
is only possible after they succeed in building trust and deep
relationships with their followers.

Manipulation is done primarily by leaders who rely on brute
power, leading to the domination of their people. At the other
extreme are those who carry out reciprocal leadership
excessively, developing leader-follower relationships in such a
way that followers simply adore the leaders and lose their
individuality.

The kind of leaders we want are between these two extremes.

Burns beautifully describes the fatal consequences of these
two extreme types of leadership. He wrote, "To watch one person
absolutely dominate another is horrifying; to watch one person
disappear, his motives and values submerged into those of another
to the point of loss of individuality is saddening." Leaders
that behave in the way outlined above are executing
'transforming' leadership."

Political leaders who embody "transforming leadership" are, to
quote Burns again, "leaders inducing followers to act for certain
goals that represent the values and motivations of both leaders
and followers." At one point transforming leadership becomes
'transcending leadership', and this means leadership with
commitment.

Do we see such leaders now or in our distant environment?

I do. But they do not belong to the "star studded world" of
the present elite. They are quiet workers who focus themselves on
one specific goal in their labor. Whether they can become leaders
of national importance depends to a certain extent to us, the
followers.

If we consistently refuse to be led by pseudo-leaders and
demand genuine leaders, these quiet workers will one day come
into the public's vision.

But if we simply follow and swallow what members of our
political elite say, they will be forever in the background.

Thus in the end we will get what we deserve.

True leaders do not come out of nowhere. They do not become
leaders instantly either. True leaders have traveled a long and
arduous intellectual and emotional journey. And frequently,
during that long journey they have experienced abuse of power.

But this is exactly what made them great. According to
Frederick the Great, "The passion of princes is restrained by
exhaustion."

He who had been abused by power bore it with equanimity.

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.