C

an one man change an entire political system? Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a famous 1939 political comedy film about just that: an idealistic '€œcountry boy'€ who is catapulted into the political machinations of national government and transforms it.

Jefferson Smith (played by Jimmy Stewart) is a wide-eyed Boy Rangers leader appointed by the state governor to replace a recently deceased senator in Washington DC. He is chosen over other candidates for two reasons: his morally clean image will please the voters, and his naïveté makes him easy to manipulate.

In the capital, he quickly discovers the many shortcomings '€” and utterly corrupt nature '€” of the political process. Smith'€™s earnest goals bring him into conflict with his state'€™s political boss, Jim Taylor. Taylor first tries to draw Smith into his corrupt scheme and, when that fails, attempts to destroy him by concocting a scandal.  

The film is seen as one of the greatest achievements of Frank Capra, its director. Nominated for 11 Academy Awards and winning Best Original Story, Mr. Smith is a classic. Stewart'€™s character has come to be seen as the embodiment of the good side of '€œclassic'€ American values of freedom, democracy and moral integrity triumphing over oppression.

But if Mr. Smith embodies classical political theory that links politics with higher moral laws, Niccolo Machiavelli'€™s The Prince is the exact opposite.

The most revolutionary idea of this book is precisely that politics should be separated from ethics. Most of us (including me!) haven'€™t read The Prince, but we all associate the term '€œMachiavellian'€ with
all that is  '€œmanipulative'€, '€œdeceptive'€, '€œruthless'€, '€œcunning'€ and '€œduplicitous'€ in statecraft or general conduct.

 Our new President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo takes pride in the fact that he is ndeso (a country bumpkin): simple, honest, unpretentious and earnest. Like Mr. Smith, that'€™s the key to his appeal. He has no connections to previous administrations or existing oligarchies. He'€™s not a military man and he'€™s not affiliated with any Islamic political group.

And no other Indonesian president other than Sukarno has been as close to the people as Jokowi, or embraced with such joy and hope. Of course, it helped that the electorate had become utterly disillusioned after 10 years of stalling by our procrastinator-in-chief, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono!

So, a clean break, huh? Well, Jokowi does not possess the same extreme naïveté as Mr. Smith and Jakarta politics is way more byzantine and treacherous than anything Mr. Smith had to face.

In fact, it is far more like the nightmarish world of Renaissance Italy that Machiavelli wrestles with in The Prince.  So will Jokowi have to dump his Mr. Smith persona and resort to more Machiavellian tactics to survive?

 There are four possible outcomes: first, the nice guy takes on the baddies using his bully pulpit and popular pressure to drive change. Second, the nice guy takes the baddies on and fails miserably (as happened to US President Barack Obama). Third, the nice guy tries to outmaneuver the baddies by borrowing some of their tricks, while keeping his eyes on the good outcomes (like Abraham Lincoln in the Spielberg movie) and fourth, the nice guy tries to outmaneuver the baddies by borrowing some of their tricks '€¦ and becomes just like them.

Which of these will Jokowi be after five years in the palace? Of course, he may not last that long. Many have predicted he will be lucky to get two years, but let'€™s not go there now '€” it'€™s too depressing.

 Jokowi announced that his Cabinet was to be called the Working Cabinet, but I think '€œCompromise Cabinet'€ would have been a better title.

With 21 of the 34 ministers either representing political parties or having links to political figures who back them, it'€™s obvious, surely? Oh well, as one political commentator pointed out, no one who becomes president of Indonesia can avoid the politics of accommodation.

The stamp of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), for example, is all over many of the more strategic posts. Only a few are '€œdie-hard'€ Jokowi people from his close inner circle, while a large number are completely under the control of PDI-P chair and iron lady, Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Let me name a few: Rini Soemarno, who last year was questioned by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in connection with Bank Indonesia liquidity loans, Ryamizard Ryacudu, who has a questionable human rights record from conflicts in Aceh and Papua, Tjahjo Kumolo, a PDI-P apparatchik, and of course, the deeply unimpressive Puan Maharani, Megawati'€™s very own daughter. Puan has operated from the start as someone '€œentitled'€ to political posts rather than earning anything. She'€™s never really championed anything either, despite the many powerful posts she'€™s held in the PDI-P.

Of course, there are some positives in Jokowi'€™s Cabinet. His eight female ministers (looking at quantity, not quality, for now) are a record for Indonesia. Anies Baswedan, as culture and elementary and secondary education minister, and Nila Moeloek, as health minister are star picks, as is Retno Marsudi, a seasoned diplomat, for the post of foreign minister.

The mandate Jokowi received comes with huge expectations, always a double-edged sword. The electorate is not really aware of the awful people and corrosive politics that Jokowi faces.

They simply picked him because they wanted him to take on the bad guys and bring change, come what may (see first option above). They certainly do not want not him to change and go over to the dark side (fourth option).

So, how much rope will the Indonesian people give Jokowi to adapt and adjust to the horrid rascals and thugs he must contend with before they decide he has compromised too much and hang him with that same rope?

Will Jokowi be as lucky as Mr. Smith? With the Cabinet lineup just announced, things ain'€™t looking too good, dear readers, but is there any chance for the third option at least?

Let'€™s hope!