M

any Indonesians have expressed their admiration for some of the illustrious leaders of contemporary Latin America, saying that they wish we had a president as bold and as courageous, if not in style then in policies.

While most talk about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and to a lesser extent Evo Morales from Bolivia, because these two stood up against the United States, Indonesia should really be looking at Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil as the model of a successful leader. Or if real modesty and honesty is what we crave for in a leader, then Uruguay'€™s Jose
Mujica is our man.

The fact that we are turning our eyes to a far away continent across the Pacific Ocean to search for a model leader speaks volumes about the quality (or lack thereof) of contemporary Asian leaders, which once boasted its own colorful figures of international standing, like Sukarno and India'€™s Jawaharlal Nehru.

Chavez, who ruled Venezuela for 15 years until his death in March 2013, drew the most attention in this country because he was able to push his own socialist policies of promoting the prosperity of his people, even as he fought recurrent battles against the US.

Chavez, of course, had oil money that he used very effectively to buy the support of his people. Now that Indonesia no longer exports oil, the comparison with Venezuela probably holds far less sway.

All Latin American countries live under the constant shadow of the big and powerful US, so when any of their leaders stand up against it, like Cuba'€™s Fidel Castro for decades and Chavez more recently, they win admirers around the world for their courage; an essential quality in any leader, though not always necessarily for their policies.

Morales is another figure that draws admiration in some quarters in this country because he has nationalized Bolivia'€™s oil and gas industry and the utilities sector. He is now targeting the natural resources industry. He, too, antagonized Americans, particularly the giant multinationals, and is always picking fights with Washington.

The socialist camp in Indonesia loves the idea of nationalizing industries. They would invoke Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, which requires the state to control economic resources that can result in the maximum benefit for the people, as grounds for nationalizing vital industries in the country.

With socialist ideology gaining ground in this year'€™s elections, their wish may just come true, at least partially, in that Indonesia may start nationalizing companies or industries in the coming years, irrespective of who is elected president in July.

We all romanticize leaders who stand up against the powerful, but leadership should not only be about courage and decisiveness. Leadership should also be about common sense and, most importantly, the ability to deliver real prosperity for the people. And we should add honesty, decency and humility into the package, too.

Time will tell whether Morales'€™ bold nationalization policies will lead to disastrous consequences for Bolivia, now rated the poorest country in South America. In the case of Venezuela, we will know in a few years whether the regime'€™s socialist policies can survive, first without Chavez and, much later, without the oil money.

Because of our infatuation with David versus Goliath battles, we have overlooked the leadership style of Lula, who as president between 2002 and 2011, successfully led Brazil toward prosperity, political stability with freedom and democracy, and higher international standing reserved for a country of its size.

Here is how The Washington Post described his presidency: '€œUnder Lula, Brazil became the world'€™s eighth-largest economy, more than 20 million people rose out of acute poverty, and Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2016 Summer Olympics, the first time the Games will be held in South America'€.

We'€™ll get a greater glimpse of Brazil'€™s economic progress this summer when it hosts the 2014 FIFA World Cup, but certainly '€œBRICS'€ would have been left with '€œRICS'€ had it not been for Lula.

It is baffling that few in Indonesia pay attention to the man who earned the nickname '€œthe most popular politician on earth'€ and who, when he stepped down from power, enjoyed an 80 percent approval rating.

Lula stuck rigidly to his socialist policies of distributing the fruits of development to his people through programs to end hunger, giving out cash subsidies to the poor and farmers, and even ending teen pregnancy. But, unlike Chavez and Morales, he worked with the international system, and even cooperated fully with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The comparison with Brazil, rather than Venezuela, is more relevant for Indonesia, given the similarities in terms of the size of the country, its population and wealth of natural resources.

Since modesty and humility are widely touted as leadership qualities in the current search for a new president in Indonesia, we should also perhaps take a closer look at Mujica, dubbed '€œthe world'€™s poorest president'€.

Here is a man who has not succumbed to the temptation of the wealth and privileges that come with the office, and has continued to live in the way he always had: the way of the majority of Uruguayans.

In the end, however, any comparison with all these colorful Latin leaders may be irrelevant for Indonesia. Lula, Morales and Mujica had humble beginnings and rough upbringings: Lula was an orphan who never finished school; Morales came from a poor farming family, and Mujica fought as a guerrilla fighter. They battled their way through the political system, some even went to jail. Morales and Lula failed in their first bids for the presidency, but these failures along with their struggles only strengthened their characters.

Now, can we name any Indonesian wannabe leader who did not lead a privileged life, who struggled their entire life and worked their way to the top?

The writer is senior editor at The Jakarta Post.