|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| The Prospect is published by The Indonesian Institute. Our messages are unity, democracy and prosperity. | ||||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
More
than nine months since Abdurrahman Wahid was ousted from presidency, his
actions at the critical moments still remain a mystery. Highly regarded
as a moral figure - a character that is badly needed by the morally sick
nation – and has no greedy children or spouse, Wahid was fit to the
image of a leader who would commit to combat corruption and nepotism,
two practices that have paralyzed the nation. Right after his election,
in an article published in Suara Pembaruan, I praised him as the right
man to unite the country and bring new fresh air to an already stuffy
nation. However,
the best pick does not always mean a good choice. Although there was no
clear cut indication that the President failed to fulfill his duty as a
moral figure and his responsibility as a leader to fight corruptions, at
least to some extend Wahid fell short in demonstrating his best
character, an open-and-candid-spoken person.
That was the origin of the main problem. When
it came to Bulogate and Bruneigate investigations, Wahid was apparently
trying to avoid traps and at the same time hiding the truth.
He forgot a lesson from Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal that no one
can hide the truth forever. The events, the financial scandal
investigation and Wahid’s response, were very critical to the future
of the nation. Wahid could have set a truly magnificent example to the
history of the nation by revealing the truth to the people. Even if he
committed a scandal and regrettably admitted it, he at least had set a
legacy that the future leaders and generations will strive to follow
that is a legacy in which a leader really acts as a real example,
admits openly his mistake, regrets it and learns from it without fear of
losing his position. Wahid
apparently forgot that, as a president, one small step he made could
mean a big step to the nation. But why he forgot about it? Whatever
the motivation behind the investigation, he could have done better by
candidly explaining everything about the matter at whatever cost.
The highest cost was his presidency.
By rejecting the results of the investigation and accusing the
legality of the special team of the investigation, Wahid clearly showed
that he wanted to remain in power for some more years. For majority of
people that was nothing but a plain indication that he was more
interested in his personal agenda than in the nation’s interest. Time
has gone by and Indonesia has missed a golden chance. But one thing
remains mystery for us is why Wahid did not tell the truth openly, even
if he would loose his job. Involve
the young people Already
he made several blunders prior to the scandal investigation such as
appointing incompetent people in his Cabinet. Then he committed another
terrible blunder afterwards by issuing a president decree to dissolve
the House of Representatives. People
may think that the decree did not have any effect and it has been almost
one year, so why bother. But it has been done anyway. There is nothing
on earth that can erase it from the nation’s history. It will be a bad
precedent for the future generation. It is an example where a national
leader does not understand the potential power of his decision. And
again, a small step he made could mean a big jump to the nation. The
nation has been really desperate of real example from its leader. A
resignation at that time would be far more elegant and Wahid would have
been remembered as a leader who really put the nation’s interest
beyond his main personal agenda. In this regard, Soeharto was much
better. It
will be a terrible mistake for Megawati and future national leaders not
to draw lessons from that tragedy. One thing is clear that the
president at that time, just like his predecessors, did not employ
young, independent and skilled strategic consultants or advisers.
Instead, he was surrounded by his dependent ‘old’ colleagues and his
less skilled and knowledgeable domestic advisers. Somewhat unnecessary,
he invited Lee Kuan Yew and Henry Kissinger as his international
strategic advisers. He lacked focus and agenda. The
problem of employing old colleagues as economic and political advisers
is they tend to be less courageous, less strategic and less direct in
communicating their ideas with their boss and the people as well.
They tend to maintain a status quo. Their main priority, if not
the only one, is how to keep their jobs. They have built their career on
that for quite sometimes and it’s time to reap the harvest. In sum,
they tend to be totally dependent individuals who are willing to do
irrational actions in order to keep their position. No wonder if they
are unable to produce creative ideas and policy. When
Clinton started his campaign in 1991, he recruited a young George Stephanopoulos, 28 years
old at that time, as
his political adviser, Gene Sperling in his early 30s as his economic
adviser, Paul Beggala and James Carville, both in early 40s, as his
political consultants. All are independent individuals in a sense that
their lives and job security did not depend upon Clinton because they
could always get attractive jobs elsewhere. Their mind and ideas were
fresh and straight to the heart of the matter with the famous collegiate
but visionary term: it’s the economy, stupid! The team and slogan were
proved to be successful. When there were strong disagreements, his
advisers just quit, got more attractive jobs and never bother to blame
his former boss. Their independency, skills and ages enable them not to
cling their entire lives to their boss. Give
the real works to young people and they will show you that they are the
most creative organizers of events and the best formulators of policy.
In a business world, this has proven to be real with the successful
stories of young energetic entrepreneurs. Instead, Wahid used the young
people as merely pawns. He used only the young people’s muscles, not
their brains and minds. The death squad was still fresh in mind.
Strangely enough, Soeharto when he came to power did work together with
the young people. However, as time went by, he used the young
generations as no more than pawns.
All youth organizations were nothing but a big joke. The
people around Megawati are most her colleagues who are mostly in their
50s, late 40s and 60s. It is not clear who are her political advisers
and consultants. As far as economic advisers, she apparently relies on
her economic team in the Cabinet which up to this day has not been able
yet to produce a long term and integrated approach to the economic
recovery and development. It
is time for Megawati to recruit fresh, young, clean, independent and
skillful advisers. This government needs fresh and strategic ideas. The
‘old’ dependent colleagues will mainly think of the next election
and forget the very fundamental fact that any bold and clear move by the
government, as long as it is for the benefits of the people either in
the short-run or in the long-run, will be viewed by people as good
qualifications of the current government. The
Limit of Stubbornness A good leader has to be a strong mind individual otherwise
he or she could easily be persuaded by any advices flowing around
him/her from every corner. In his interview with Alan Keyes, Dick
Morris, former Clinton political adviser who just published his book Power
Plays — Win or Lose, How History‘s Great Political Leaders Play the
Game, said that “You‘ve never worked right with a president.
Everybody around him tries to control him. They try to structure
him……. Reagan had the happy facility of being partially deaf. So he
would stop listening to people when they were selling him a bill of
goods.” Although he was talking of the US president, it certainly
applies to most national presidents. But
a strong mind does not mean stubborn. Being a strong mind implies that
there is a room for flexibility and negotiation when it is necessary. In
fact, great decisions inherently embraces flexibility. During the last weeks of his presidency, there had been
rumors that Wahid was impossible to be persuaded. Compromise was
impossible. There was no flexibility and the result, as we have known,
was far from satisfactory. While to some extend stubbornness is
important, there is a limit to it. A good leader cannot cling to his/her
stubbornness forever otherwise he or she will be no different from
dictator. A
Sense of Direction A
good leader also has to have a clear direction. Her/his compass needle
has to point to a clear direction otherwise she/he will bring the nation
to a limbo. During his less than 2 years presidency, Wahid had traveled
to more than 30 countries. The explanation for the extensive trips was
that he wanted to attract foreign investors to the country where in fact
it is the domestic investors that need to be convinced (It's
the INVESTMENT, Stupid!).
In addition, his comment on the Sampit tragedy seemed downsizing the
importance of people’s lives in his leadership agenda. In sum, even
before he was ousted, Wahid has apparently lost a sense of direction of
his leadership. The
lesson for the current and future leader is people and domestic affairs
are far more important than any other policy options. Any national
leader who is neglecting those two issues will severely undermine his
leadership, unless he builds his power on a totalitarian basis. Revised: August 23, 2007 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2002 The Prospect and The Indonesian Institute, All Rights Reserved. |
