Golkar Party is in an intense public spotlight. The general chairman of the party that bears the symbol of the banyan tree, Setya Novanto, has been detained by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) as a suspect for the second time in connection with the e-ID case.
The mass media covers the case episode by episode like a soap opera; experts are busy evaluating the case.
In any case, the test that has befallen the Golkar Party is very heavy. When the future lies in public perception, its negative trend is a logical impact of political personalization, a reality that is prevalent in all parties. If the general chairman falls from grace as antagonistic figures, the party is hit by the law of "the speed of distrust", the snowball effect of distrust. Its peak is the decline in electability.
The Golkar Party is at a critical point. Even though Novanto will remain its general chairman if he again wins the pretrial hearing, he has been exposed to nearly perfect negative public perception. From this point forth, a change in party leadership may be an inevitable way out.
Public ownership
Leadership is an important key, if not the most important, in any political organization. Fortunato Musella in his book, Political Leaders Beyond Party Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), points out that political personalization remains a highly relevant issue among parties today. What frequently appears is an oxymoronic phenomenon when a party is in the condition of a “personality party” or "owner party" and a personalized party, or an open party that depends on a figurehead.
The consequence of such a phenomenon is that of leader’s image simply must be good in eyes of the public, but his leadership must also be effective in managing the party institution. What needs to be underlined from Musella is that a party leader is not simply an internal manager of the political organization he leads, and that his leadership goes beyond that: He belongs to the public. Therefore, it is understandable that the public participates in commenting and evaluating the actions and activities of the leader of a political party.
Once again, a party is a public asset. Its chairman also "belongs to the public". The people want political parties to grow healthily to become a vanguard of democracy. They do not want the parties to simply be a group of elites which, referring to Mancur Olson’s bandit theory, are like roving bandits. Because the parties have noble objectives, their elite is expected to be noble in their political function, in the sense that they seek the common good.
In the Indonesian context, it is necessary to think about political parties as highly strategic entities that determine many things in the life of the nation and state, and which are defined as public legal entities. The Constitution needs to emphasize this, in addition to the important context of party financing and that parties can be dissolved if they are unable to manage their finances professionally.
There is also a need to emphasize internal guarantees for the democratic process, aside from those for leaders contesting the legislative elections, presidential election and regional elections. If the Constitution emphasized such issues, the above mentioned oxymoronic problem could be either reduced or resolved.
Integrity
An important lesson from the above case, separate from polemic that accompanies it, is the importance of integrity in political leadership. Integrity is a sensitive issue in this virtual era. It can snowball wildly on social media and affect the public perception. Indeed, politicians are always faced with a dilemma, or are even harmed, when issues on integrity emerge and are fanned on social media. However, politicians are also surfing the realms of post-truth, where they compete to gain perceptional truth, not factual truth, as in the case of Donald Trump.
In the context of political elections, Indonesia’s current general election system – an open, proportional system based on majority votes – the stance and actions of party figures determine perceptional truth. Therefore, it is common that when the important party figures are in the public spotlight, particularly if they are connected to corruption cases, the party’s authority is affected: It tumbles!
There appears to be a common view that for a party like Golkar, because its system is considered to be very good, the party will continue to run no matter who its general chairman is. Such a view has to be criticized in a good system, as effective political leadership does not guarantee the party’s electoral survival. Of course, the main requirement of effective leadership is the moral strength of its leader. His charisma is natural, not artificial, so that its political magnet is stronger.
Effective leadership, even though this term is common in business organizations, in this context is also needed by political organizations. The effectiveness of a political organization’s leadership is ultimately measured comparatively and contestationally. Comparatively, a party survives among party institutions if its system is modern and well built, and is better and more advanced than its competitor. Meanwhile, its contestational effectiveness relates to its electoral achievements.
The quality of leaders in the political realm will always be determined by the extent to which the leadership elite exists and acts. The public will continuously monitor their personal quality and responsibility. From here onward, it is expected that the party elites will remind each other to maintain and advance personal and institutional integrity.
It is not easy to find ideal leaders, ones that do not have a mediocre mentality and become mere rent seekers, but the parties have the responsibility to groom their cadres. Those who do not possess leadership should not be forced to lead. This is important not only for the good of the parties, but also for the good of the community.
M ALFAN ALFIAN
Lecturer for the Political Science Postgraduate Program of National University, Jakarta
