No change in sight<\/p>\n
Public debate about the role of the military in the
\nrealpolitik of this country used to emerge only before general
\nelections or around the time of Armed Forces Day. Now it is
\nbecoming more frequent. The trend seems to have been influenced
\nby both the process of globalization and the increase in the
\nnumber of educated citizens. Another factor may be the
\nauthorities' treatment of the United Development Party and the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party, which are neither government bodies
\nnor opposition parties.<\/p>\n
The most oft-repeated question is: When will the Armed Forces
\nassume a neutral position in politics, especially when it comes
\nto general elections? The Armed Forces' staunch support for the
\ngovernment party, Golkar, has made the two other political
\nentities look like lame sparring partners, if not dying ones.<\/p>\n
To many observers, the Armed Forces' role in each past
\nelection has been that of a referee who is also taking part in
\nthe game.<\/p>\n
That fact, in turn, has caused many people to conclude that
\nthe government is not brave enough to allow Golkar to campaign
\nalone. The close relationship between Golkar and the civil
\nservants corps has left observers with a similar impression.<\/p>\n
But the three-decade-long game is not showing any sign of
\nending, in spite of all the criticisms to which it has been
\nsubjected. Indeed, given Golkar's history, it is hard to conceive
\nof its being separated from the military.<\/p>\n
Golkar was established by the leaders of the Armed Forces in
\n1954 to counter the growing influence of the communists. It was
\nnot until 1971 that Golkar contested a general election.<\/p>\n
Those who would like the Armed Forces to change their position
\nargue that the political situation is different now from that of
\nthe 1960s. All of the current political parties are anti-
\ncommunist. Moreover, each has adopted the state ideology
\nPancasila as its ideological foundation. The critics also note
\nthat Golkar is very strong today. Given all this, and even
\nagreeing that it is the role of the military to stabilize
\nIndonesian politics, they ask: Why have the Armed Forces not lent
\nsupport to the other political parties or, at least, become
\nneutral?<\/p>\n
After the 1965 coup attempt Indonesians saw no alternative
\npolitical power to that of the Armed Forces because the political
\nparties had been emasculated by \"Guided Democracy,\" a euphemism
\nfor dictatorship.<\/p>\n
But is it wise to allow a repeat of a situation in which there
\nwas no alternative political force, thereby paving the way for a
\nrepeat of the coup and its aftermath? No thinking person -- much
\nless anyone with a healthy sense of patriotism -- would want to
\nsee that.<\/p>\n
The Armed Forces, while successful in supporting stability and
\neconomic development in the past, must soon face the challenges
\nof the rising demands of a more educated population and a tiny
\nbut growing middle class.<\/p>\n
One contribution the military can make is to create conditions
\nin which all political powers can grow fairly, allowing viable
\npolitical parties to slowly come into existence. Any new step to
\ndeny this reality will only be counter-productive and will bring
\nthis nation to a standstill. The Armed Forces would do well to
\ngradually increase their neutrality. At the very least, they
\nshould try to stop the efforts of certain elements in the
\nbureaucracy to undermine the growth of the two non-government
\npolitical parties.<\/p>\n
Last week, Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamidan, assistant to the Armed
\nForces' social and political affairs chief, relegated the
\npossibility of political neutrality to \"the future.\"<\/p>\n
It seems unlikely that the military will go as far as genuine
\npolitical neutrality before the beginning of next century.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-change-in-sight-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}