The
party-agent President
Wawan Mas’udi ; A lecturer in Politics and Government
at the Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta
|
JAKARTA
POST, 26 Januari 2015
In the classic Il Principe (The Prince), Machiavelli
describes that they who arrive at the princedom with the aid of others and by
good fortune will have much trouble maintaining their position, as opposed to
the prince who acquires the power by his own arms and by merit. Aid is a
political liability and therefore the prince is forced to pay back support,
or to apply his power in favor of the aid provider.
Matters will be much more difficult for the prince when
aid comes from different, and even conflicting, groups and interests.
If the prince resists the debt, he has to develop his own
arms and political machine when in power — in turn causing more resistance
from earlier supporters.
For a prince of good fortune, when seizing power, he might
not have enough skill and capability to run complex affairs and therefore he
has to prove to be a quick learner and/or to assemble around him
intellectuals and technocrats with strong capability and knowledge.
This group of intellectuals and technocrats is unfortunately
not always from the same boat, and even this group may have sharp contrasts
of interest and vision compared to the political patrons of the prince.
The contrast could end with conflicting power relations
between the office of the prince and the camp of his political creditor.
We are all aware that President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo
acquired political princedom in an unusual form of Indonesian
president-making.
He didn’t have political arms, as he is not a patron and
does not control a political party.
He was not part of Jakarta’s political circle and dynasty
— just a new kid on the block.
But he was a figure starting his political career from the
local level, who became popular due to his way of effective government by
managing some very basic public needs in his non-elitist style.
But in spite of his populist muscle, he preferred to place
himself under a cloth of established political power rather than proving
political capacity by organizing his own political arms, as many populist
leaders have done.
In this sense, Jokowi is a pragmatic politician.
At the same time, he enjoyed unprecedented political
voluntarism from various segments of society. The political voluntarism is
the source of his moral debt to the public. A dilemma is surrounding Jokowi
who, in Machiavellian logic, acquired princedom with the aid of others and by
good fortune.
He runs his authority under political debt to his patron
and parties, while he has to prove that the public reasons for voluntarism
are earnestly converted into a moral ground for his political decisions.
Unfortunately, his political debt, the conditions of supporting parties and
the moral debt to the public, are colliding.
The saga of the sole candidacy of Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan
for National Police chief, even after he was declared a graft suspect, is a
crystal-clear reflection of this collision between cruel patron interest and
pure public reason.
Previously, collisions between the interests of the
parties and public morality also showed during his appointment of ministers,
wherein Jokowi could veer between the parties’ recommendations, the
involvement of the national anti-graft body and public opinion.
The selection method was eventually appreciated by diverse
political segments as it reflected Jokowi’s commitment to public morality, in
spite of disappointment from party elites who expected more Cabinet
positions.
The case of officer Budi Gunawan shows how the parties’
(or patrons’) agenda is being imposed on the prince they brought to power,
but Jokowi’s decision to postpone the inauguration only happened after the
public forced him to consider his moral debt.
Jokowi’s flip-flop decision to appoint and then to
postpone Budi’s appointment may be politically smart, but it also clearly
reveals difficulties in defending his authority as President to political
parties, patrons and the public when making strategic political decisions.
One thing that is unclear, however, is which political morality has been
chosen by Jokowi.
For the prince who came to power with aid from diverse
political segments and also with the skills and capability to manage dilemmas
prompted by conflicting visions and interests, it is necessary to struggle to
stay in power.
And in doing so, the prince may be pragmatic and
inconsistent in his political beliefs and morality.
But a great leader is not often known for his skills in
managing dilemmas, as he is usually prone to political pragmatism. A great
leader is the prince who holds on to tight political beliefs and public
morality, though the cost is sometimes bitter to others, including the
patron.
Let us be
witness to which way Jokowi chooses to forge forward. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar