Elections and Elite Example

Ferdian Andi

TWENTY-FIVE years of reform were not enough to produce exemplary attitudes among the elite. Constitutional amendments, changes to the political system, and changes in government governance do not mean that public space is automatically on the right track. Deviations in the form of legal and ethical violations in the public domain are demonstratively easy to find.

The public is treated to a spectacle of elite state administrators and other elites who are far from being a guide. Judicial authorities are actually caught in legal and ethical cases. Actors in executive power at the level of ministers and deputy ministers to regional leaders are also not spared from the vortex of corruption. In law enforcement agencies, the KPK leadership was also caught in an alleged bribery case. These various events occurred in the third largest democratic country in the world. Irony and anomaly. The 2024 election process displays many inconsistencies in the attitudes and statements of political actors.

The mental revolution that this government has been rolling out since the first period in 2016, as outlined in Presidential Instruction Number 12 of 2016 concerning the National Movement for Mental Revolution, has not significantly demonstrated the example of elites in the public sphere. In fact, the movement which contains these five things (Serving Indonesia Movement, Clean Indonesia Movement, Orderly Indonesia Movement, Independent Indonesia Movement, and United Indonesia Movement) has good values. However, unfortunately, recent events actually contradict the movement in question.

Democratic Leadership

The elite's example is actually compatible with a democratic system which requires a balance between the state and citizens. The state's actions and decisions are based solely on the blessing of the people through democratic-participatory instruments such as in drafting laws and regulations and in forming public policies.

The role of leadership in a democratic country has an important role in creating value in the public sphere. Sanghan Choi (2007) states that a democratic form of leadership is characterized by sacrifice, courage, symbolism, participation and vision. The values born from democratic leadership have an impact on the accountability of public officials.

Linear democratic leadership will provide leadership that provides an example for the public. James M. Kouzes & Barry Z. Posner (2013) stated that there are five leadership practices that provide examples. Namely, modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the soul.

Unfortunately, a number of recent events appear to have turned their backs on the democratic leadership model. The conversion of public affairs into private affairs and conversely private affairs into public affairs results in the potential for autocratic leadership to emerge. This model of leadership encourages authoritarian, directive, punitive, task-oriented, persuasive and closed practices. Although autocratic leaders are often praised for their ability to develop loyal followers and become authoritative figures in maintaining and building order (Bernard M. Bass & Ruth Bass, 2009).

In this context, there is no other choice but to develop and encourage the creation of democratic leadership in various branches of state power by making ethics and law the basis. Space for participation, transparency and accountability in state management must be created. Consequently, criticism from the public is seen as a manifestation of public involvement in better management of state administration.

Finding Exemplars

The example of elites has an important meaning for the management of good state administration (good governance). Good governance has fundamental principles such as participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus, effectiveness, accountability and strategic vision.

Good state administration will be useful in forming the character of the next generation. Leaders who inspire and encourage good things will become role models for the public, especially for the younger generation.

However, on the contrary, if public space is filled with despicable actions that are far from exemplary, it will actually delegitimize public institutions. In fact, at the extreme, actions that go beyond ethics and law actually inspire the next generation by making them the ideal standard that must be carried out. Situations that must be avoided and prevented together.

Elections are actually a constitutional instrument for finding role models in the public sphere. Elections can be interpreted as an arena for exemplary contestation which is manifested through a battle of ideas and track records through forums for debate, discussion and airing of ideas. Honest and fair elections are the gateway to the birth of role models in the public sphere.

Democratic institutions that are reflected through the branches of state power must represent a public example starting from how to obtain power well, managing power transparently and accountably, as well as accountability of power before the public. All of these stages are important assets for creating role models for the public.

State administrators who act on the basis of ethics and law, then naturally, exemplary will emerge from this authentic leadership model. In the same way, if political actors act in harmony between words and deeds, it will produce politicians who represent public ideas and thoughts (representation in ideas) if they later become public officials. Both in the executive and in the legislature.

Exemplary leadership is essentially oriented towards the good of many people. As stated by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (1993–2003 period), in the Toronto Star 7 June 1984, leadership means making people feel good. The public good in the context of a state is reflected through the constitution. In short, to find an elite example, the choice is none other than managing the country based on ethics and law, nothing else.

The author is a HTN/HAN Lecturer at the Faculty of Sharia and Law, UIN Jakarta, Executive Director of the Center for Public Policy and Legal Studies (Puskapkum).