Image: Australian Institute of International Affairs
Despite being a small country that struggled for many years to achieve liberation, Timor-Leste’s political landscape is deeply fragmented. Personal rivalry between major political figures has become a defining feature of our national politics. Disunity, distrust, and a lack of consensus among the political elite have hindered meaningful progress, creating an environment where cooperation is rare, and self-interest and partisanship dominate.
This fragmentation is not only between different political figures and parties, but also within parties. Most of the major political parties are split into competing factions, with internal conflicts further weakening their ability to govern effectively. A critical factor in this disarray is the failure of current leaders to groom the next generation of leadership. Without coherent leadership to provide a long-term vision and promote successors, individual party members are forced to compete to secure their own future while waiting for the moment when the old leaders are no longer in power.
The political division we witness in Timor-Leste today is not a recent development but has deep roots in our nation’s history. Indeed, from the very beginning, Timorese politics was marked by disunity. Tensions between UDT and Fretilin escalated into a civil war in 1975, just before the Indonesian invasion. This internal conflict not only enabled the Indonesians to justify their invasion but also left lasting scars that have continued to influence political divisions long after independence.
While Fundasaun Mahein (FM) believes it is essential that we learn from the mistakes of the past, particularly our internal divisions, we can also draw important lessons from wise decisions made by political leaders during critical moments in our history. In the late 1980s, Timor-Leste experienced a rare moment of political unity, thanks mainly to the visionary leadership of Xanana Gusmão and José Ramos-Horta. Recognising the need for cooperation in the face of a common enemy, they made the strategic decision to establish the National Council of Maubere Resistance (CNRM), later becoming the National Council of Timorese Resistance (CNRT). This move unified the Timorese resistance factions and was a crucial factor in ensuring the success of the independence movement.
Unfortunately, the spirit of unity that emerged during the later resistance years did not carry over into the post-independence period. Beginning during the transition to independence and continuing after 2002, political leaders failed to cooperate for the good of the nation. Instead, disunity once again became the defining feature of Timorese politics. This was exemplified by the 2006 crisis, where the state’s collapse into chaos was largely the result of rivalry among political elites who prioritised their personal ambitions over the greater good.
Despite the apparent “resolution” of the crisis after 2008, the pattern of elite infighting has persisted. Political leaders continue to compete aggressively for power and privilege, distributing benefits to their supporters when in office and using every opportunity to block, insult and undermine their opponents when out of office. While healthy political competition is a normal aspect of a democratic state, in Timor-Leste many are tired of the elders’ constant attempts to undermine and insult each other. Interminable power struggles and rivalry have eroded public trust while arguably hindering stable and effective governance.
Nonetheless, despite several problematic incidents, Timor-Leste has remained relatively stable and peaceful. Some attribute this stability to the rapid expansion of the annual state budget, enabled by the arrival of petroleum revenues. By distributing benefits to potential spoilers and providing basic social security to citizens in the absence of a thriving economy, those who control the state have maintained peace. However, this strategy is both financially and politically unsustainable. Not only are the petroleum resources, which provide the bulk of state revenues, finite, but “buying peace” is also a short-term fix that allows elites to avoid the more complex work of political cooperation, which is essential for building long-term stability and resilience. Many in this country are disillusioned with political elites, as they see state benefits disproportionately favouring connected families and political allies. As the fiscal situation worsens and the government is forced to cut spending, social unrest is likely to increase.
There is now a growing sense of uncertainty about what will happen when the current political elders are no longer here. As the 1975 generation – the Maun Bo’ot of the independence struggle – begins to retire or die, many people ask: who will guide this country in the future? Despite their flaws, these leaders have provided a degree of stability and continuity, and they are still deeply respected for their roles in securing independence. The absence of clear successors or unified political groupings raises concerns that political fragmentation will intensify as competition for leadership increases. The divisions within and between political parties could grow into more serious conflicts, which could lead to instability as rival groups compete for influence in an increasingly polarised environment. The continued weakness of security sector governance and illegal weapons storage by politicians also remains a major concern, particularly if the political situation becomes more unstable.
This situation highlights the urgent need for a new elite consensus: a framework for the future development of the country that goes beyond individual ambitions and partisan interests. Timor-Leste cannot afford to be left without stable leadership, and it is crucial that political elders take responsibility for ensuring that the next generation of leaders is adequately prepared to lead the country. This requires not only a commitment to power-sharing and cooperation but also a genuine focus on political succession, national development, and inclusive governance.
Despite the clear and growing need for a consensus around political transition, most of the older generation of leaders seems focused on the wrong priorities. With one or two exceptions, there has been very little effort to prepare the next generation to lead this country. Instead of addressing the urgent question of how Timor-Leste will be governed in the future, much of the political discourse remains fixated on the past. For example, leaders have spent a great deal of time discussing reconciliation between pro-independence and pro-Indonesian factions, and even between Timorese leaders and figures from the Indonesian military, such as Indonesia’s new President, Prabowo Subianto.
Although Timor-Leste is nominally a democratic republic based on the rule of law, informal relationships and traditional practices continue to dominate decision-making. Personal relationships and traditional hierarchies outweigh formal rules and procedures. Rather than fading away as the state consolidates and modernises, nepotism and informality seem to be increasing. From basic administrative processes to the distribution of jobs and state contracts, many decisions are made based on personal connections and informal “deal making” rather than on formal procedures or merit.
Furthermore, traditional cultural ceremonies – or lia – which honour the past continue to be fundamental in shaping decisions and practices, even at the highest levels of leadership. Political leaders focus vast amounts of time and energy on honouring the past through elaborate ceremonies and spending. The emphasis on heroes and sacrifice is understandable given our history; however, by focusing so much on the past, there is less energy and fewer resources available to invest in future-oriented areas such as education, economic development, and political transition.
Thus, although leaders claim to uphold democracy and meritocracy, in practice traditional and cultural status command more legitimacy and respect than official institutions. This has maintained a quasi-feudal socio-political system in which Maun Bo’ot continue to dominate decision making across all levels of society, including political parties, government offices, educational institutes, villages, families and even NGOs. This has serious implications for the country’s development, as it often means that capable individuals cannot apply their skills to relevant areas, while people without capacity are appointed to positions for which they are not qualified simply based on their personal status or connections. At the same time, the system of elder-dominated and status-based decision making reinforces the power of entrenched elites as they use their influence to continue distributing state resources among their networks.
The active participation of broader society in political processes is also crucial for challenging the status quo upheld by Maun Bo’ot-ism. This highly patriarchal system limits the ability of non-elders, women, youth, and other marginalised groups to influence decision-making, particularly in the political arena. The concentration of power among a few elder leaders creates an environment where critical perspectives and innovative ideas are often overlooked. Consequently, many talented individuals remain on the sidelines, stifled by a system that prioritises traditional authority and connections over merit and inclusivity.
This situation is gradually changing as young people become more educated and aware of the outside world, and thus feel more confident in challenging “backward” viewpoints and practices within their families and communities. While modernity brings new challenges and problems, it is overwhelmingly beneficial for individuals and for society as a whole, as it liberates people from oppressive social structures that emphasise obedience and hierarchy. At its best, modernity is synonymous with greater individual freedom, creativity, and development. To achieve this, society must be actively engaged in advocating for change, pressuring leaders from below to adopt more inclusive policies that reflect the needs and aspirations of all Timorese.
At the same time, history shows that attempts to impose rapid social change – either by elites from above or by popular masses from below – often lead to conflict and chaos. Rarely have such revolutionary shifts resulted in durable social progress – more often, they have enabled the most ruthless to gain power through the principle of “divide and conquer.” Indeed, Timor-Leste fell victim to this in 1975, as Indonesia was able to exploit our internal conflict to justify and carry out their invasion. As Maun Bo’ot-ism is deeply ingrained in Timorese society and politics, it is unrealistic to expect traditional mindsets and practices to disappear overnight, while attempts to force change are likely to produce conflict and instability, which must be avoided.
Moreover, just as traditional hierarchies can drive exclusion and corruption, they can also be used to build consensus and resolve conflicts, particularly when elders are humble and work together for the common good. Lia is a powerful mechanism for social reconciliation and has played a vital role in helping the Timorese people manage and resolve conflicts over the years. FM believes that our leaders must draw on this principle to reach a new political consensus that can bring stability and inclusive development to this country.
The urgent challenge now is for Timor-Leste’s elders to act decisively to resolve their political divisions and establish a unified vision for the future. Our leaders must realise that a fragmented political landscape, where competition and rivalry take precedence over the national interest, seriously threatens the future stability of the country. We therefore call on them to put aside personal grudges and conflicts in favour of building a consensus that reflects the shared aspirations of the Timorese people.
This task will not be easy, but it is essential if Timor-Leste is to realise its potential as a stable, democratic, and prosperous nation. Leaders must focus on the long-term wellbeing of the nation, not short-term power struggles. By acting responsibly and inclusively, Timor-Leste can achieve the unity and political cohesion necessary to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.
