The paradox of Yudhoyono’s leadership

The paradox of Yudhoyono’s leadership M Alfan Alfian  ;   A Lecturer of Social and Political Science at the National University, Jakarta

JAKARTA POST, 04 April 2013

  

The Democratic Party finally confirmed in its extraordinary congress the appointment of its chief patron President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as the new party chairman. Yudhoyono now holds the four most powerful posts in the ruling party. Apart from the top executive and chief patron posts, Yudhoyono also chairs the supreme assembly and disciplinary council. Yudhoyono’s decision to accept the chairman’s job only affirms political centralization in the Democratic Party.  It is difficult to imagine the institutional development aspect of a modern party like the Democrats, because the recent congress has strengthened the traditional pattern of patronized leadership. Under the pretext of the state of emergency that followed the resignation of Anas Urbaningrum as the chairman after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) declared him a suspect in a graft case, the elite of the party seems to have lost its creativity in finding an alternative successor.  The elite simply resorted to Yudhoyono as the only figure capable of salvaging the party, despite his warning that the party should rely on systems, not individuals.  The party elite resembles a Yudhoyono fan club. As the country’s largest party, the Democrats have failed to emerge from the crisis and that may inspire other parties. On the contrary, the concentration of power in the hands of Yudhoyono, who is also President, shows a serious leadership crisis.  Yudhoyono did set certain conditions so that his party tasks would not distract his focus on state duties in the remaining 19 months of his term. Yudhoyono named Syarifuddin Hasan as executive chairman and EE Mangindaan. Executive patron board chairman, being both party chief and President does not reflect the spirit and discipline that modern statesmen should comply with. There is no formal prohibition to taking both jobs except for ethical concerns that state duties and party commitments are very much prone to conflicts of interest.  Yudhoyono may look to the practice in the past, when presidents also held party posts to justify the move, but this is irrelevant and marks a setback in the Democrats’ aim to build a modern party. Claiming himself as a champion of democracy, Yudhoyono should have left the nation a legacy that would have earned him the credit of being a great statesman — if only he had followed the words of Manuel Luis Quezón: “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins”. Unfortunately that hope has now faded. Quoting James MacGregor Burns in his book Leadership (1978), a leadership crisis is especially characterized by a deterioration of political leadership qualities in an organization.  Not all leaders today are capable of matching the quality of their predecessors, let alone setting an example of a democratic model of leadership.  Burns does not bother debating whether leaders are born or created, but rather he underlines the responsibilities of leadership.  He says the structure of motivation, values and objectives distinguishes leaders in terms of influence and quality.  Burns emphasizes transformational leadership and the importance of collectivity in political leadership.  The explanation is quite rational — that one-man leadership or centralized leadership is a contradiction in terms.  Political leaders work by taking into consideration the potential and the needs of their supporter base.  A single and centralized leadership by itself would be fragile, precisely because the leader ignores the potential of collectivity. In this context, collectivity precisely reflects the factions that grow naturally and are managed. Centralized leadership is a denial of the natural conditions of organizations, which consist of factions. An organization may be without factions, but single and centralized leadership itself is a manifestation of a political faction in the midst of potential factions.  Political factions can be strengthened and weakened in line with personal power. Burns inspires us to realize political leadership that minimizes but not eliminates contradictions. Democracy should not be exercised for manipulative intent just to maintain influence and power, as evident in the behavior of our current leaders.  Many leaders often speak about democracy, but their attitude and policies run counter their statements.  They instead accumulate power for themselves. Political democracy allows political leaders to maneuver to centralize power, but is also full of risks. Accommodating factions within an organization also means anticipating the regeneration of leadership. Real political factions can be managed with an emphasis on developing a political system based on meritocracy.  Unfortunately, oligarchic political or elite-centered organizations usually ignore the principles of democracy when it comes to a state of emergency and rescue measures to salvage their political groups.  They inhibit the natural regeneration of political leadership. They preserve the traditional patronage leadership that benefits oligarchs and elites. That, unfortunately, is the real picture of today’s Democratic Party and the paradox of Yudhoyono’s leadership style. ●