A fiery debate<\/p>\n
There was an emotional storm in a political tea cup here last
\nweek. The root of the low-quality but high-voltage debate, which
\ninvolved high-profile politicians, was a statement made by Dr.
\nJuwono Sudarsono, a professor of political science at University
\nof Indonesia. He said that only people with a military background
\nwill be able to lead the country again for the next five years.<\/p>\n
According to the professor, who is also deputy governor of the
\nNational Resilience Institute, a military think tank, no civilian
\nis ready to become president until 2005.<\/p>\n
The statement caused anger among many politicians and
\npolitical observers, notably after a newspaper confused the word
\npresident in his statement as national leadership. The strong
\nreactions ranged from calling Juwono's statement a setback, to
\naccusing him of being a civilian traitor.<\/p>\n
Many also criticized him for raising the military-civilian
\ndichotomy because, they said, it is no longer relevant in
\nIndonesia's case. The more pessimistic went so far as to say that
\ncivilians should accept the fact that the military will continue
\nto dominate the country's politics for the next five decades. "If
\nyou don't have a gun, just shut up," said an editor of a now-
\ndefunct newspaper.<\/p>\n
What was clear between the lines was a feeling of concern
\namong some politicians that Juwono's statement augured the
\ncontinuation of the blockage of civilians' opportunity to lead
\nthe country when the People's Consultative Assembly elects a
\nnational president in March.<\/p>\n
The fear and frustration was distinct in the harsh words some
\npoliticians used against Juwono, accusing him of speaking at the
\nbehest of his military boss within the institute, while another
\ncalled him a traitor. A third political observer suspected Juwono
\nof making a statement to bait reaction from politicians who have
\nbeen dreaming for some time of filling Soeharto's shoes. Since
\nProf. Juwono has been regarded by many as a foremost and unbiased
\npolitical analyst, it was too brutal to brand him someone's mouth
\npiece.<\/p>\n
There is mounting concern among some politicians here over the
\nnation's future if the military continues to dominate politics
\namid the ever-stronger wind of openness sweeping many parts of
\nour planet today. There is also the reality that the number of
\nUnited Nations members who are ruled by the military has been
\ndrastically reduced lately. And every time foreign political
\nanalysts name military regimes in Asia, Indonesia is always
\njuxtaposed next to a junta, which in 1990 canceled the result of
\na democratic election in its country and later jailed the popular
\nleader of the victorious political party. There is also the old
\nadage that the military is anathema to democracy and human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
But those who do not agree with this axiom said that Indonesia
\nhas different experiences and its military has a unique task and
\nhistorical background. In this country, there have been as many
\nsuccessful military functionaries in the sociopolitical domain as
\nthere have been successful civilians in the struggle for survival
\nduring the national revolution. That is why they said discussion
\non the dichotomy has been very rare here.<\/p>\n
However, the debate has taken place not only because of the
\ncontroversial statement from Dr. Juwono but also from the belief
\nthat, to date, civilians have not been given an equal chance in
\npolitical recruitment. And had this country groomed its future
\nleaders long in advance and in a more open way, the problem would
\nbe more transparent and no such debate would be needed.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-fiery-debate-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}