. (I'm not sure I like it myself though)
In my opinion the best leaders are inconspicuous.
Avoid spectacular, media-addicted bosses with mega egos. Apple may be a smashing commercial hit, but just read how the late, holy Steve Jobs treated his subordinates.
Nor would I want to live in a country with a prime minister or president who is epoch-defining. Either it means you’re in times of disaster when a manic-depressive genius like Winston Churchill comes in handy or you’ve landed in a tragic-comic opera like Silvio’s Berlusconi’s Italy. It’s telling nobody knows the names of the man or woman at the top of Qatar, Luxembourg, Norway, or Brunei – four of the five richest countries according to Forbes.
So generally speaking I prefer bosses and leaders who fly under the radar. Modest dullness is the next best quality – after professional integrity- I can think of for members of a ruling elite. An administration is not a Cirque de Soleil show after all.
Now, what about President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s leadership?
I bet ten year’s from now most people will hardly remember any awesome peak or devastating low of the present administration. It’s inconspicuous. Maybe , just maybe, therefore SBY’s presidency will be rated a reasonable “B” in hindsight. He perhaps will be perceived as a presidential under-achiever and a fellow blogger had a point calling him “spineless” in the face of FPI violence and chaos , yet Indonesia did become stronger and significantly more prosperous over the last five, six years.
Still at the present stage the President’s popularity is at an all times low. To many he seems already to be a “has been”. Pretty premature actually, because presidential elections are still far away. However discussions about his best possible successor has begun.
It would be nice if the discussion would be about contents first. About ideological differences. About right wing, left wing, centre policies. About safeguarding the secular state, about the building of a state of law, about creating a welfare state and redistributing national wealth. Elections are only worthwhile if voters have a choice between substantial policy differences.
Unfortunately it will probably be otherwise; as matter of fact the left is absent in Indonesia’s landscape - in civic society as well, I’m afraid- and the oligarchy of politics is practically void of traditional ideals anyhow. I regret to admit only some Islamic political parties come close to what might be called a consistent set of goals and ideals.
So in next presidential elections the Indonesian electorate runs the risk it will be mainly about persons. The worst case scenario being mastodons whose roots are in the Suharto area will be frontrunners. The fossils who unfortunately still to a large extent dominate the national political platforms. There is only a minuscule possibility the country will escape the usual culprits Aburizal Bakrie, Megawati Soekarnoputeri , Prabowo Subianto, Jusuf Kalla or the likes of them. The “union” of rulers of the Indonesian democracy have always been very able in preserving their “closed shop“. Outsiders, innovative mavericks, practically hardly stand a chance to get in.
There are ” Honest, Firm. Capable” ( quote Wimar Witoelar) insiders though. Not Boediono, whose spokesman said the VP would not run. Or Sri Mulyani, who may preside over the World Bank in the foreseeable future. But Dahlan Iskan and Jokowi could be running. Which would be comforting.
Moreover it’s not forbidden to dream. Why wouldn’t miracles happen? Why wouldn’t the next president show integrity, honesty, firmness and professionalism? And be dull as hell as well.
I thought that it’s because countries like Luxembourg and Brunei are rather dull (what are the typical local news headlines there?) a dull president would serve their interest better. Compared to them Indonesia is very.. lively, with the diversity and all.
But if Jokowi does run for presidency, that would be very refreshing.
In an unrelated note, I didn’t know that Elizabeth Pisani has a new blog–I used to follow her old one. Thanks for that link!
Joko Widodo and Dahlan Iskan may be good future national leaders but a bit early for 2014.
Some people are start talking of Djoko Suyanto the current Coordinating Minister for Politics, Laws and Security as a possible candidate. But his political supporters are not clear.
Except miracles happen, we’re dreaming the right man on the right place. By the way, have a great week ahead, Jerry !
@ masyhur: The ultimate goal is an dull country
. A smooth, well organized, dull country like say Switzerland for instance. You may be right: a dull president will be the logical result..
And let’s keep our fingers crossed the next Indonesian president will a be ( a kind of) Jokowi (even though he definitely and unfortunately doesn’t pass the dull-criterion).
@ Lex LSM: Do you think Joko Widodo and Dahlan Iskan still lack political experience?
@ Utomo: Never underestimate the power of dreams and- in cases of emergency- guna guna
.
And thanks. Wish you happy, cool, days in return.
What I heard: Hatta & Djoko Suyanto are the fore runners..
personally, I think Mega shouldnt run.. she tried and failed, Puan has not enough experience & under TK’s influence. Bakrie is not Javanese & connected with Lapindo.
@ triesti: Hatta Rajasa, Long time minister, Islamic party PAN, family ties to SBY – really really in-crowd. Djoko Suyanto, known for very right-wing leaning quotes on obedience and human rights and as a very military military-man most likely giving priority to “security”over “legal” ( and probably “political” as well).
So if they are leading in the polls, it’s nothing much the future has in store ( but a deteriorating democracy).
I don’t think that people’s beef with SBY is that he is indecisive, vacillating, morose, aloof, inspires little confidence, presides over a intellectually bankrupt party, caves in to religious nuts (my apologies for the redundancy), plays bitch to Bakrie, etc. per se, but rather that the scope and depth of the country’s problems call for a more interventionist, visible, vocal, energetic leader. Horses for courses.
@ Mauricio: So you don’t think he’s quite up to his job?
.
Well, I will not ague your objections yet I guess he deserves some credit (peace in Aceh, curbing frictions with Malaysia and then he at least took Clinton’s famous first words (’92) at heart: “” It’s the economy, stupid”).
You really think poverty, education and un-/under-employment levels have been substantially improved within the last eight years? Let’s imagine that Jusuf Kalla had won in 2004. You think poverty, education and unemployment would be drastically worse than they are now?
Peace in Aceh came before the 2004 Tsunami focused the world’s spotlight on the problem, and Jusuf Kalla deserves more credit. By the way, peace has not yet come to Aceh, if by peace you mean more than the absence of fighting. The Indonesian government, SBY’s administration has reneged on some key obligations under the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding. Peace in Aceh means more than signing a piece of paper. The “peace” has begun to come undone. With elections season between now and 2014, and the fragmentation/decay of Party Aceh, I would not be surprised if the “peace” comes undone.
@ Mauricio: Don’t you agree a consistent growth rate of over 6% is good?
Economic policies essentially were ( are) neo-liberal – be it with a few heretical traits. That’s sad and regrettable. Anyhow, taking that economic ideology for granted there is hardly room for the necessary redistribution of wealth to provide for improved social-security, healthcare, education.
Assuming other administrations also would have been dedicated to the Friedman’s gospel, they would not have done any better .
Papua is worse, but I agree Aceh still is a major problem indeed. Of course it is. However I do think “the absence of fighting” is better by far than the guerilla warfare before Helsinki.
Is a consistent growth rate of 6% a good thing?
I don’t know. It could be good, very good for some. Or it could be large irrelevant or a case of running to stand still for most. Your fixation with growth and the growth rate is a bit like Friedman’s fixation with macro-economic fundamentals and indicators, don’t you think?
There’s good-quality growth and bad-quality growth. Growth is only helpful or good to the extend that it improves human capability and increases options. My suspicion is that Indonesia’s growth has not been good quality growth. In fact, in a country that relies largely on digging things out of the ground and selling it to foreigners, that should be the default assumption.
Six percent growth only seems high and impressive if you compare it to the growth rates of mature economies, but that’s apples and oranges.
@ Mauricio: Disagreement is a necessary ( though not sufficient perhaps) condition for an inspiring discussion
.
No, I don’t think I’m a bit like Friedman ( God forbid) and his alleged fixations. And I don’t believe in free market economy, trickle down and other neo-liberal myths.
To put things straight: I’m not an admirer or fan of the present President either. Yet I try to keep an open eye for nuances.
As for GPD, yes actually I think it is a relevant indicator (and the main criterion to participate in G20). Not an absolute truth, but an useful indicator.
And even if Indoneia’s economic results have been reached mainly by exporting timber, coal, gold, tin, ferro and exploitation of the poor etc etc etc, 6% is not bad.
Indonesia’s growth rates shouldn’t be matched with rich, low growth countries in my opinion. But rather with African countries also exporting the huge, valuable treasures of and in their soil.
“…6% is not bad”
Bad in relation to what? To other countries? What I am trying to get at is that the growth rate is a macroeconomic, aggregate indicator that says little if anything about personal income, household income, access to health, education, jobs, etc. If this is the best you can say about the economy of Indonesians then we are indeed in trouble. Get me the unemployment, child mortality, productivity growth, household income growth (and their Gini coefficient), etc. figures during the same period, and then we can start having a more informed discussion.
@ Mauricio: You almost tempted me to enter this informed discussion. I was on the verge of writing PPP* is nearing $ 4500 now.
However just in time I realized I can’t tell you anything Google didn’t tell you already ( or will if you try).
* Purchasing Power Parity
Don’t take it from me. Take it from Simon Kuznets, the inventor of the “GDP” measure which unleashed the obsession with GD growth.
“the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from measurement of national income.”
“distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long run.”
Brave New Math, a fantastic article about people’s fetishism and obsession of growth. It makes the points that I made earlier on this thread.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/spring2012/brave-new-math
@ Mauricio: I do take it from you. Or, if necessary from, mr Kuznets. As for me economy is a drastic reduction of reality. GPD doesn’t tell about the distribution of wealth and hardly correlates with welfare, let alone happiness. Economic growth doesn’t take into account the effects on nature in any reliable way. Econometrics is based on assumptions which most of the time don’t really reflect human behaviour ( which is everything but rational).
I know. The science of economy is actually still in it’s toddler’s stage. If it can be called a science at all.
Given all that, GPD – which also largely leaves out informal economy- and PPP are the best measures for comparison between countries I can think of.
I am dying to know, Meneer Colson, whether your appreciation for the president and your judgement of his leadership ability has changed in the last month with the gas price hike fiasco and all. The Glengarry leads are still for closers, you know…
@ Mauricio: Like one can expect from an ‘old immovable object like me’, I still prefer dull presidents ( and prime ministers) over the spectacular ones. And I still think the alternatives at the time SBY was chosen in office ( first and second term) were worse.
Yet, his presidency is disappointingly weak. Starting with the building of the coalition. He didn’t do what he should done in my opinion: a coherent coalition with a vision for the future, in stead of a (very) broad and fragmented one.
Next, except for foreign relations, his wait-and-see style is confusing and counter-productive. He lost a lot of authority. He lost huge part of his political control.
The failed fuel hike of course didn’t do his administration any good in the short run [though the hike actually is a case of postponement - a scheme that to me seem to be a politically apt move. So probably it isn't a decisive blow ( a coup de grace) either]. Yet the measures were extremely poorly communicated. It should have been the President’s job to take up responsibility for direction. Factually he practically ( and even literally) was absent.
So, no not a brilliant President. But still way better than a number of his predecessors ( poor, poorer, poorest) and his possible successor (Prabowo).