Image Source: The Dili Weekly
Timor-Leste’s political system remains dominated by informal elite networks that operate outside formal democratic institutions. In practice, power is exercised through personal connections, traditional socio-cultural hierarchies, historical resistance credentials and patronage systems. This undermines meritocracy and excludes a significant portion of the population – particularly youth – from meaningful political participation.
The status quo has led to widespread disillusionment among young Timorese due to systemic nepotism in employment and education, as well as a growing disconnect between citizens and decision-makers. If leaders fail to enact necessary reforms – including planning for political succession, improved living standards and strengthening the rule of law – Fundasaun Mahein (FM) warns that social and political instability will follow. Today, the stakes are higher than ever, given Timor-Leste’s greater wealth and the desperation of many citizens. We fear that future instability could escalate into conflict far surpassing the 2006 crisis. Thus, the critical question facing Timorese society is: How can Timor-Leste’s youth effectively challenge these entrenched power structures to push for a more inclusive and democratic system and avert the coming crisis?
When we ask university students today whether merit alone determines success in this country, most respond with scepticism, disbelief, or simply, laughter.
Opportunities in Timor-Leste depend overwhelmingly on family or political connections rather than competence or qualifications. This reality leads to frustration and apathy, as many young people view formal politics as inaccessible or irrelevant to their lives.
Faced with limited prospects at home, growing numbers of young Timorese seek work overseas in countries like Australia, South Korea and the United Kingdom. This trend reflects not only economic necessity but also a profound lack of faith in systemic change. When jobs, scholarships and contracts are routinely distributed among elite networks, many see migration as their only path to prosperity. The resulting brain drain further weakens Timor-Leste’s capacity by depriving the country of its most motivated and educated youth.
As FM has noted many times, pervasive nepotism and informality mean that even basic administrative processes – such as obtaining documents or accessing public services – often require insider contacts or unofficial payments. For ordinary citizens without connections, navigating bureaucracy is stressful and humiliating. This systemic exclusion reinforces the perception that the state serves the privileged rather than the public. When formal institutions fail to function transparently, trust in governance erodes further.
Another major driver of public frustration is the lack of accountability for corruption and serious crimes. While the justice system lacks resources and experience, there are also concerns about political elites exerting informal influence over judicial processes. FM has heard from justice and police actors about stalled investigations due to indirect pressure or fear of reprisal. When powerful figures operate above the law, the message is clear: impunity is a privilege of the connected. This undermines the rule of law and breeds cynicism among citizens. If elites violate laws with impunity, why should youth respect them?
FM has previously highlighted that political elites have done little to groom successors, focusing instead on short-term power preservation. As the older generation nears retirement, their failure to cultivate new leaders risks creating a dangerous power vacuum. Without institutionalised mechanisms for leadership transition, competition among emerging elites could become destabilising. The 2006 crisis serves as a stark warning: when formal structures collapse, rival factions may resort to extra-legal tactics, including mobilising armed groups. The absence of succession planning, combined with a large population of alienated, undereducated youth, heightens these risks.
Comparatively, Singapore’s development success stems from its leaders leveraging human resources and geostrategic advantages. Similarly, Rwanda, despite its tragic and violent past, has made significant progress in infrastructure and human development through effective leadership. In contrast, Timor-Leste’s leaders often prioritise personal conflicts over building strong institutions. Twenty-three years after independence, we still rely on international advisors for many formal tasks while informal decision-making and relationships dominate governance and bureaucracy. At the same time, leaders have failed to promote a culture of accountability or self-reflection.
Moreover, the lack of structured systems for youth development has led many young Timorese to adopt violent tendencies rather than constructive traits. Leadership development remains stagnant as older figures retain positions meant for younger leaders in parties and state institutions. Most youth are excluded from educational and professional opportunities that could facilitate personal growth, leaving them vulnerable to negative external influences.
Meanwhile, individuals with political or family connections often lacking capacity or experience are promoted within governance structures. Similarly, members of martial arts or veteran groups with limited qualifications frequently rise within political parties. These practices hinder progress and increase the risk of future conflict.
Timor-Leste suffers from a paradox: an abundance of politicians but a scarcity of genuine leaders. Effective governance requires long-term vision, policy expertise and a commitment to national interests. Yet many in power remain preoccupied with intra-elite competition, relying on foreign advisors to draft policies while they concentrate their energy on using informal mechanisms to engage in the struggle for power and resources.
The blurring of governance functions in Timor-Leste is reflected in our languages. In Tetun and Portuguese, “politika” encompasses both politics (the pursuit of power, through both formal and informal means) and policy (the formal substance of governance). For many elites, the former takes precedence – governing becomes secondary to the game of maintaining power.
The recent surge in infrastructure projects may suggest progress, but FM questions whether contract allocations and employment opportunities serve political rather than national developmental goals. Past experience shows that many “projects” enrich elites rather than promoting substantive development.
Truly inclusive development requires long-term investments in education, healthcare, sustainable economic sectors and institutional capacity, not just short-term construction projects. Yet recent scandals in education and healthcare, along with bureaucratic stagnation, indicate that policy makers are consistently failing to allocate resources for these critical areas.
Conclusion: A Big Crossroads for Timor-Leste
A disenfranchised youth population represents both a moral and strategic failure. History shows that systemic exclusion and neglect of basic needs lead to unrest, often with violent consequences. Timor-Leste’s elites must recognise that inclusive governance is not just idealistic – it is a pragmatic necessity. For most stakeholders, a managed transition toward greater youth representation is far preferable to abrupt and destabilising challenges to the status quo.
Timor-Leste stands at a crossroads. Elites can either facilitate gradual reform or face escalating demands from an increasingly frustrated younger generation. The choice will determine the country’s stability and democratic future. For Timor-Leste’s youth, the challenge is to channel dissatisfaction into organised, strategic action. Passive disillusionment sustains the status quo; collective engagement can redefine it.
Fundasaun Mahein calls on all political leaders to renew their commitment to inclusive democratic governance by prioritising policy and meritocracy over political manoeuvring while empowering the next generation of leaders. This, we believe, is the only way to avert crisis and ensure national salvation.
