"A student, who's learning martial arts, was asked by his teacher to memorize the gravity's fourth law, sat under an apple tree, and, a few moments later, exclaimed, 'Aha!'He immediately reported his invention to teacher that he had found a new theory which he called, 'The Red Apple Tragedy'. The teacher demanded him to define it briefly.'It turns out,' explained the student, 'that the red apple, is not too different from its tree!'""Why do we ask question?" said Sansevieria while opening a photo album. "In everyday life, we often ask questions, even though they are not important, for example we ask our favorite satay seller a simple question about why he wipes his forehead with vein oil, and he would answer, 'I've been around offering satay but it hasn't been sold yet, my head is getting dizzy.'We live in a fast-paced, demanding, results-oriented world. New technologies place vast quantities of information at our fingertips in nanoseconds. We want problems solved instantly, results yesterday, answers immediately, says Michael J. Marquardt. We are exhorted to forget 'ready, aim, fire' and to shoot now and shoot again. Leaders are expected to be decisive, bold, charismatic, and visionary—to know all the answers even before others have thought of the questions.Ironically, if we respond to these pressures—or believe the hype about visionary leaders so prominent in the business press—we risk sacrificing the very thing we need to lead effectively. When the people around us clamor for fast answers—sometimes, any answer—we need to be able to resist the impulse to provide solutions and instead learn to ask questions. Most leaders are unaware of the amazing power of questions—how they can generate short-term results and long-term learning and success. The problem is, we feel that we are supposed to have answers, not questions.Too often, when we encounter a question, we already have an answer. But sometimes we must ask questions whose answer we do not know. People become leaders in organizations for many reasons, but one of the primary reasons is, says Marquardt, that they build track records as problem solvers and being able to get results.Each question a leader asks can provide a wonderful opportunity for the recipients to become empowered, to do something that they could not do before. Questions have the potential to create confidence, to enhance learning, to develop competence, to engender insights. Questions can move each person in the organization to become a better human being as well as a better contributor to the organization and to the community.One of the most difficult challenges you may have as a leader is to accept that you may not know what is right, or best, for most situations. We have become accustomed to having the right answers, so it’s hard to let go of the answer-providing habit.We want to protect our self-image and our image in the eyes of others; we also want to protect ourselves from uncomfortable feelings such as fear. Exposing ourselves with questions offers risks on all these fronts. But people rarely start out this way.Asking questions is a natural part of our biological makeup. Ask any parent of a child under the age of three about how children love to ask questions. Unfortunately, most of us are told by our parents, teachers, and bosses to stop asking questions. Not only are we told not to ask questions, but when we do ask a question not considered appropriate or correct, we are ridiculed. As a result, we become afraid to ask questions. We begin to think that smart people do not need to ask questions, as they already have the answers. We protect ourselves from being perceived as stupid by not asking questions. So when we become leaders, we of course want to be the one with the answers rather than the one with questions.According to M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley, questions require the person being asked the question to act in response. By our questions, we are saying to the person: I am curious; I want to know more; help me. This request shows respect for the other person. The questions exist to inform and provide direction for all who hear them. The point of your questions is that you need help to have a deeper understanding or appreciation of what is being said. Lots of experts are available to advise you. Opinions are cheap; anyone can have one of those. But which expert possesses the kind of knowledge that gives us an opinion on which we can rely?As a thoughtful person, you must make a choice about how you will react to what you see and hear. One alternative is to just accept whatever you encounter; doing so automatically results in your making someone else's opinion your own. A more active alternative consists of asking questions in an effort to reach a personal decision about the worth of what you have experienced.In this respect, critical thinking—which you can express in some critical questions— begins with the desire to improve what we think. As a citizen and consumer, you should find it especially helpful in shaping your voting behavior and your purchasing decisions, as well as in improving your self-confidence by increasing your sense of intellectual independence. The more information you absorb about the world, the more capable you are of understanding its complexities. One approach to thinking is similar to the way in which a sponge reacts to water: by absorbing. Knowledge you have acquired provides a foundation for more complicated thinking later.Our ability to find definite answers to questions often depends on the type of question that puzzles us. Scientific questions about the physical world are the most likely to have answers that reasonable people will accept, because the physical world is in certain ways more dependable or predictable than the social world. While the precise distance to the moon or the age of a newly discovered bone from an ancient civilization may not be absolutely certain, agreement about the dimensions of our physical environment is widespread. Thus, in the physical sciences, we frequently can arrive at 'the right answer.'Questions about human behavior are different. 'The right answer' might be a myth. The causes of human behavior are so complex that we frequently cannot do much more than form intelligent guesses about why or when certain behavior will occur. In addition, because many of us care a great deal about explanations and descriptions of human behavior, we prefer that explanations or descriptions of the rate of abortion, the frequency of unemployment, or the causes of child abuse be consistent with what we want to believe. Hence, we bring our preferences to any discussion of those issues and resist arguments that are inconsistent with them.Because human behavior is so controversial and complex, the best answers that we can find for many questions about our behavior will be probabilistic in nature. Even if we were aware of every bit of evidence about the effects of exercise on our mental health, we could still not expect certainty about those effects. We still need to commit to a particular course of action to prevent our becoming a 'hollow man' or a 'nowhere woman'. But once we acknowledge that our commitments are based on probability and not certainty, we will be much more open to the reasoning of those who are trying to persuade us to change our minds. After all, we may well be wrong about some of our beliefs. Even though you will not necessarily arrive at the 'right answer' to social controversies, you should to develop your best and most reasonable answer, given the nature of the problem and the available information.When you first encounter a conclusion, you do so with a history. You have learned to care about certain things, to support particular interests, and to discount claims of a particular type. So you always start to think critically in the midst of existing opinions. You have emotional commitments to these existing opinions.When we read or listen, it is so easy to ignore what was said in the previous paragraph. We often react to the images, dramatic illustrations, or tone of what was said instead of the reasoning that was intended by the person communicating with us. Each time we fail to react to the reasoning, human conversation has experienced a defeat. We are not connecting as the person who wrote or spoke to us intended. So, getting straight about the person's conclusion and issue is an essential first step in effective human interaction.Emotional involvement should not be the primary basis for accepting or rejecting a position. Ideally, emotional involvement should be most intense after reasoning has occurred. Thus, when you listen, try to avoid letting emotional involvement cut you off from the reasoning of those with whom you initially disagree. A successful active learner is one who is willing to change his mind. If you are ever to change your mind, you must be as open as possible to ideas that strike you as weird or dangerous when you first encounter them.Asking good questions is difficult but rewarding work. Some controversies will be much more important to you than others. When the consequences of a controversy for you and your community are minimal, you will want to spend less time and energy thinking critically about it than about more important controversies.Now that we understand why we ask question, let's talk about an overview of our question about 'term limits.' What could presidents do, if they decided to prolong their rule? According to Baturo, the menu of choice depends on a country's constitutional and political history, but there is ample room for constitutional imagination as well. In the case of the Russian regime in 2008, its president could have simply amended the constitution and allowed an additional third term ad hoc—as President of Namibia Sam Nujoma (1990–2005) did in 1998—or he could have dropped term limits altogether, as President Alexander Lukashenko (1994–) in neighboring Belarus did in 2004. The option of appointing oneself for life and abolishing elections was certainly rather archaic. Alternatively, the Russian president could have pursued a further integration with one of the former Soviet states and become the head of a new state. The president could have also reconfigured the political regime and empowered the prime ministerial office at the expense of the presidency and then become the head of cabinet.There were still other, more ingenious designs. The president could have stepped down but in fact retained executive control and ruled by proxy. Certainly there were historical precedents for the latter, albeit in different locales. For example, in Mexico between 1917 and 1936, political power was either intermittently shared between the president at the time and the national political boss, the head of the ruling party, or the latter ruled via proxies that occupied the presidential palace. In 1917–20 and later in 1924–28 the real power was yielded by party boss Álvaro Obregón, who himself had been the president in 1920–24, rather than by Presidents Venustiano Carranza and Plutarco Calles. From the assassination of Obregón in 1928 until 1936, when President Lázaro Cárdenas finally became the sole ruler, a duality of power existed. Similarly, in his fascinating account of life under the regime of Rafael Trujillo (1930–61, formal terms in 1930–38 and 1942–52) in the Dominican Republic, Vargas Llosa described how the latter, in order to deflect international criticism, designated four different successors including his own brother to serve between his own terms, while himself remaining the de facto ruler of a country.Such situations whereby the de facto ruler 'does not always occupy the position that is constitutionally the most powerful, a policy called politique de doublure, or ‘politics of understudy’.Such an arrangement does not always work however. Anastasio Garciá Somoza of Nicaragua (1936–56) who had to formally step down in 1947 under US pressure, installed the figurehead 72-year-old President Leonardo Argüello. The latter, however, turned on his master and tried to govern unaided. He was ousted only 26 days after inauguration. Somoza then placed another figurehead that proved more compliant, yet in 1950 decided to return to office formally as the president. After his assassination in 1956, his sons Luiz and Anastasio took turns ruling the country.Vladimir Putin maintained suspense until October 2, 2007, when he announced his decision to lead the list of the party of power, United Russia, in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, which were promptly won by that party, gaining the legislative super-majority. Then, on December 10, 2007, he endorsed deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, a close member of his circle, to become his successor. The day after the succession plan was revealed, Medvedev, in turn, invited Putin to become his prime minister following the March 2, 2008, presidential election. Also, seemingly straight from the Caesar's vocabulary, in the last two years of his second term President Putin was frequently referred to as the 'national leader,' whether in presidential office or not. There was no surprise when President Medvedev, having won elections by a landslide, indeed appointed Putin as prime minister on May 8, 2008, the day after his own inauguration. From that moment, the configuration of Russian executive power was to resemble the earlier described situation in Mexico, with the powerful jefe maximo alongside the president. Yet it was not immediately clear whether Putin would remain the de facto leader with a proxy president, effectively prolonging his tenure, or if he would share political power with the latter and possibly retire after making sure his successor's hold on power was secure. While Dmitry Medvedev occupied an all powerful presidency with extensive powers and formal authority over appointments and dismissals, at the same time his predecessor retained control over the executive in the capacity of prime minister and was also able both to impeach the president and to change the constitution, given the legislative super-majority in the Duma if needed.The practices of contemporary world presidents provide the menu of possible options for political survival beyond constitutional term limits. Presidents can also combine several changes at the same time, usually by lengthening the term while simultaneously discarding time already served.When new constitutions are drafted, many articles are inserted automatically, without much thought or deliberation. Term limits almost always appear in contemporary national constitutions, either after independence or after introduction of multiparty democracy. They become very salient, however, when the time to depart looms large before the presidents. In such times, rulers perform interesting feats of constitutional engineering—their second terms become first, or their third terms become second, or a number of years served in office are erased, or extra years become necessary in order to carry out a particular policy. Presidents rewrite and reinterpret their constitutions, often imaginatively; but they also encounter opposition from other institutions, from their own parties, civil society, international donors, and allies. They persist, however, and are often successful in staying beyond their designated mandates.We have gone through our sessions starting from Monarchy, Feudalism, Aristocracy (including Oligarchy), and in the next session, as the final episode, let's talk a little bit about democracy from a certain perspective. Bi 'idhnillah."Afterwards, Sansevieria sang Anita Sarawak's song,Mungkin kau belum merasa gelisah[Perhaps you don't feel anxious yet]dan terlepas dari rasa ragu[and let go of doubt]Namun dirimu itu tersimpan jua[But you also have ]seribu tanya, seribu sapa *)[a thousand questions, a thousand reprimands]
Citations & References:
- Michael J. Marquardt, Leading with Questions: How Leaders Find the Right Solutions by Knowing What to Ask, 2014, Jossey-Bass
- M. Neil Browne & Stuart M. Keeley, Asking the Right Questions, 2007, Pearson College Div
- Alexander Baturo, Democracy, Dictatorship, and Term Limits, 2014, The University of Michigan Press
- Stanley M. Caress & Todd T. Kunioka, Term limits and Their Consequences: The Aftermath of Legislative Reform, 2012, Suny Press.
*) "Tragedi Buah Apel" written by Dani Mamesah & Irwan S Samosir
