Leadership Criteria for Our Leaders

Like it or not, we are entering a political year. In the lead-up to 2024, increasing announcements of political “safaris”, consolidation, and presidential bids as political maneuvers are crowding the public sphere.

The movement of political parties to form alliances has produced surprising revelations, and they are starting to put forward the names of potential candidates. Unfortunately, the political dynamics are rolling without any direction towards a new breakthrough to confront the more advanced era.

What bothers people most is who are the candidates for the country's leader. They leave little room for substantive debate over what a candidate envisions for the life of the people. What makes this more crucial is that the development priorities are coming up against the complexities of global dynamics during their realization. We may have become too used to this unfortunate situation from one election to another. It's time for reflection. If the nation’s future is truly a concern, all practices heralding the power transfer based on democratic principles must not smack of deficit in their substance.

How should we start? Not only should we be concerned be about potential candidates, but we must be bold in arguing about our leadership criteria.

Figures, criteria & the nation

As surveys begin to calculate the odds of several prospective candidates and running mates, political parties and alliances are eyeing to back them and see how their nomination can boost their chances at winning power. Some remain reserved about publicly announcing a name, such as the United Indonesia Coalition consisting of the Golkar Party, the National Mandate Party (PAN), and the United Development Party (PPP). Some have explicitly indicated their choice, such as Gerindra and the National Awakening Party (PKB), which have thrown their support behind Prabowo Subianto.

Voting for the wrong name will lead to prolonged and doomed fallout.

NasDem, which has formed an alliance with the Democratic Party and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) to fulfill the presidential nomination threshold, has announced Anies Baswedan as its candidate. The nonaffiliated Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) has announced Ganjar Pranowo-Yenny Wahid as its candidate pair. Meanwhile, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), which is eligible to tout its own presidential and vice presidential candidates without forming an alliance, is still in a “wait and see” stance, its aspirations split between Puan Maharani and Ganjar Pranowo.

These are the names of figures that are currently on the country’s political horizon. In fact, beyond the horizon are hundreds of other names that probably deserve to be nominated for 2024. They include 542 provincial/regency/municipal leaders, 575 House of Representatives (DPR) members, 19,817 Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) members, and 136 Regional Representatives Council (DPD) members. The year 2024 will see the biggest election in the republic’s history. It will serve a democratic feast, with voting day as the defining moment staking the nation's future. Voting for the wrong name will lead to prolonged and doomed fallout.

A figure may have captivating charm. However, look at the vision they have, because it is possible that after they ascend to power, the figure will realize their campaign promises only minimally. Indeed, it is not easy to discern the sincerity of their ideas, because the contest of power often sees candidates simplifying many development issues and potential challenges, which are in fact much more complicated and constraining in reality. It is the same when it comes to governing the state. That is why we have to upgrade how we choose them, not merely based on personal charm, but on leadership criteria.

The main criterion for our leaders is they must have the capacity to envision and realize their ideas as action for the sake of the nation, as mandated in the Constitution. Debating over the philosophical foundation of Pancasila and the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, both based on national consensus, is no longer relevant.

The elections should not turn into an arena of identity politics, which will only lead to polarization and animosity.

The oresidential and legislative elections must be an arena for exchanging ideas, concepts, and work agendas to address challenges, so that the pledges of visionary ideas and development priorities are truly impactful for citizens. The elections should not turn into an arena of identity politics, which will only lead to polarization and animosity.

Within the limits of reflection, there arise at least four key challenges. First is the problem of upstream development, which is closely related to the quality of our human resources. It leads to low social mobility, which results in poverty, inequality, and uneven economic distribution.

This means that an effective strategy is needed to reduce poverty and address inequality through structured social protection schemes. Access to health care and education should be enhanced by reforming the national health and education systems. Those eyeing power in the country must understand these basic human issues.

The second relates to achievements at the downstream level to advance the country. When it turns 100 years old in 2045, Indonesia aspires to be recognized as one of most advanced and prosperous countries in the world. This dream will not be realized unless it pursues exploiting scientific and technological innovations, which not only play an important role in leveraging the country’s competitiveness through economic growth, but more importantly, also shape the nation’s character through a scientific mindset. There is no developed nation without supremacy in scientific knowledge. Prospective leaders of the nation must have a vision on how to capitalize on science and technology and drive innovation as part of the national development policy.

Third is to ensure that the key determinants of improving public welfare are maintained. This entails bridging the social gap that may have opened due to the different political affiliations that emerged during the regional and general elections; strengthening the economic base – formal and informal, large, medium, and small business units – to be more productive; creating added value to promote more equitable, just and sustainable growth.

This is important in the face of the impending environmental crisis due to climate change: The environment must be better protected and sustained to stem arbitrary natural exploitation, and our way of life and consumption habits should not overburden the earth. Democracy must be more substantive. The law must be upheld. The citizenry should be given more room to engage in more civilized political interaction. Freedom of speech should be respected so that the authorities do not resort to persecution in dealing with criticism.

Lastly is state governance and capacity. The collusion of businesses and political power, which is referred to as an oligarchy, is increasingly detrimental to various development policies. These days, our eyes have been opened to the blatant infractions within the police as a law enforcement institution. Similar legal depravities might permeate other law and state institutions. It’s only that they are yet to be revealed.

Without management and governance capacity, whoever leads the government will lose relevance.

That is why bureaucratic reform must be a key agenda, so that oligarchy will not further cripple the state’s capacity to serve its citizens. Without management and governance capacity, whoever leads the government will lose relevance.

More fundamentally, the aspiration for Indonesia 2045 will only remain a dream. Therefore, it is relevant that any discussions about the nation’s future include the criteria that prospective leaders must fulfill. Their capacity to respond to these four challenges is imperative as the country’s top executive.

Consequential leadership

Leaders who make an impact are what Mac Pier calls “consequential leaders” (2012). Consequential leaders do not let themselves overwhelmed by position and power, but are engrossed in their work to leave an impactful legacy. Being in power is indeed important because it provides them with the opportunity to control and create the structural and institutional frameworks necessary to bring about impact. However, consequential leaders are often not awarded with positions and institutions, let alone facilities.

They dive into the fundamentals that affect the lives of the people they lead. Blair Sheppard (2021) has delved further into the criteria for consequential leaders. He says they must be effective as a leader and a worker in a team, brilliant as well as humane and humble, sharply analytical and holistically steadfast.

Consequential leadership is needed in what Anthony Giddens refers to as an era that is increasingly frenetic (1999). We live in the VUCA era: volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. In this situation, leaders must provide direction and guidance towards the aspired goals. It means speaking with their mind and heart, having the sensitivity to know when and how to convey truths in difficult times and relate realistic hopes to the people.

The executive’s sincerity helps the people understand the situation (literacy) and become motivated to be involved in anticipating or even participating in finding solutions

For instance, when the world is hit by a recession and we are sure to experience an economic slowdown, how should a leader convey this difficult situation? The government should have the capacity to deal with it by taking an unpretentious approach without concealing it from the public. The executive’s sincerity helps the people understand the situation (literacy) and become motivated to be involved in anticipating or even participating in finding solutions, at least in their community (participation). Such sincerity is called upon when state officials or institutions are to blame for failing to protect and provide peace to the people, as in the deadly Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster.

In fact, taking the blame and apologizing for mistakes are not taboo, let alone being reproached. It just elevates their dignity. However, in this country, the government is hardly inclined to issue apologies. Instead, they try to find excuses and run from responsibility.

Consequential leaders are not only outspoken about what is needed, such as decent wages, comprehensive health insurance, inclusive education, gender equality, environmental protection, but are also aware of how to harness the available resources, such as diversity, togetherness, courage, faith, mutual cooperation, and other values. Consequential leaders listen to their citizens' voices in designing policies and implementing them to benefit all.

Perhaps it sounds like a cliché that former United States president Barack Obama is often pointed to as a model of a consequential leader. Through his eight years in the presidency, he left a very meaningful legacy. He made a simple but powerful pledge, which was to return science to where it belongs. And this, he did. His administration fostered research, innovation, basic and applied education to restore integrity to the process of making policies and decisions based on science and evidence, not ideologies.

The result? Not only did Obama achieve 100 legacy of expanding science and technology and innovation capacities (Impact Report, White House, 2017), but also the ObamaCare health insurance reform, an innovative governance platform that “works better, costs less”, access to over 180,000 federal government datasets for students, academics, employers, and the public, and more.

We often hear about “leadership changes, policy changes”.

Are there any examples of consequential leadership at home? There may be many if viewed only from their impacts. In addition to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, there are many regional heads – governors, regents and mayors, as well as Cabinet ministers – whose leadership has left meaningful impacts for their people.

However, these impacts are often short-lived. We often hear about “leadership changes, policy changes”. New regional heads tend to ignore the progress made by their predecessors. New ministers negate the policies of previous ministers, and even a new president may rescind key decisions of their predecessors.

This happens not through rigorous study and assessment of the dynamic challenges of development, but simply because of differences in their political ideology and sentiment. It’s simply born out of a “like and dislike” attitude towards their rivals. It is so widespread, this deserves to be called "cancel culture", which seems to occur not only among entertainment fans, but in our government.

Looking ahead to the future

Future leaders should be as consequential as possible. We have to start discussing and debating leadership criteria. The election committee holds a key role. It must ensure that the format and substance of the electoral contest clearly demonstrate the ideas the candidates put forward and how they envision realizing those ideas.

Debates and campaigns must be curated in such a way that the people become aware of how to apply the leadership criteria in voting. Do not let them end up in “buying a cat in a sack”. The debate topics must be factual, on point, and directly relevant to the main challenges of development. The campaign format should focus more on targeting groups of citizens who have been heavily marginalized and ignored by development policies. Discussions on a candidate’s political vision can be presented to indigenous communities, civil society, workers, women, youth, persons with disabilities, and so on.

This is the duty and responsibility of the election organizers. They have a tough job ahead of them, given the fact that it is almost certain that not even one political party will be willing to leave its comfort zone in nominating a presidential candidate by avoiding discourses about leadership criteria. It may be difficult, but this is a challenge and an opportunity to show that we are serious about this country’s future.

We cannot risk the nation’s fate by allowing the people to vote based only on their inculcated affinity to a figure or on a figure’s charm shrouded by emotional sentiment. The people must open their eyes and hearts so that when they are in the voting booth, they will pierce the ballot paper guided by their knowledge of leadership criteria. This is because who they choose will determine not only their own fate, but also the country’s destiny.

ARSIP PRIBADI

Yanuar Nugroho ARSIP PRIBADI

Yanuar Nugroho

Lecturer at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy, visiting senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) Singapore, advisor to the Center for Innovation Policy & Governance (CIPG), and Founder of the Nalar Institute

This article was translated by Musthofid.