TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
'Jokoway': New definition of Jokowi’s fluid leadership
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
"Jokoway" by Eko Sulistyo. (-/Paul Sutaryono)
A new book is trying to get inside President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s head to determine what type of leader he is.
A quick count by the Kompas daily newspaper, as of April 17, showed that the presidential and vice-presidential candidates -- Jokowi and Ma'ruf Amin -- have won 54.52 percent of the vote, while challengers Prabowo Subianto and Sandiaga Uno received 45.48 percent. This shows that most voters still find Jokowi’s leadership to be the better option.
A new book called Jokoway, written by Eko Sulistyo, reviews Jokowi's leadership by quoting the views of two Indonesian political experts -- the late Herbert Feith who was a lecturer of Indonesian and Southeast Asian politics at Australia’s Monash University and William Liddle of Ohio State University in the United States.
Feith divided the type of political leadership in Indonesia into two -- the administrator and solidarity makers.
The administrator is considered to have the technical ability to regulate the state and is mostly represented by educated figures that control certain fields.
Feith considered leaders such as Muhammad Hatta as representing the leader model of this type of manager, educated, analytical and rational in taking action and decisions. This type is also considered to be clever in managing the government system but lacks the support of the people and does not have the ability to unify.
Solidarity makers are people who have the ability to approach, influence and get mass support. Sukarno was considered capable of mobilizing support but considered a failure in managing the government system.
