Questioning ABRI's hegemony on politics<\/p>\n
Hegemoni Tentara (Army's Hegemony); M. Najib Azca; Introduction
\nby Herbert Feith; LKis, 1998; xiii + 284<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The political role of the Indonesian Armed
\nForces (ABRI) has again come under public scrutiny. This time,
\nthe trigger is a string of incidents which suggests the
\nmilitary's involvement as a country's instrument of violence
\nagainst civilians.<\/p>\n
ABRI is believed to have abused human rights in cases such as
\nthe kidnapping of prodemocratic activists and violence against
\npeople suspected as troublemakers in several areas like Aceh and
\nEast Timor.<\/p>\n
The question is should the blame be put on the whole military
\nas an institution? Or, are there violations against ABRI's chain
\nof command by its individual members?<\/p>\n
It is generally believed that the military's violence against
\ncivilians is thanks to ABRI's Dwifungsi (dual function) in both
\ndefense and political affairs.<\/p>\n
Critics argue that ABRI's political role is not compatible
\nwith the democracy concept because the military representatives
\nin the House are not elected through voting. They are picked.<\/p>\n
The critics say that if the Army's political role goes
\nunchecked, its representatives will have the capability to direct
\ndecision-making processes. The Armed Force's exclusive right to
\ncarry arms clearly benefits the military and political interests
\nit patronizes.<\/p>\n
In case a political compromise cannot be reached in a
\ndecision-making process, the ABRI representatives may resort to
\nthe subtle intimidation of being armed. Thus, ABRI's involvement
\nin politics is seen as disrupting the practice of democracy.<\/p>\n
The Armed Forces perceives the Dwifungsi doctrine as an
\nhistorical fact which should not be disputed. Even if an internal
\ndispute occurs over the conception of the doctrine, it will
\nmerely result in a minor alteration in the doctrine to sort out
\nthe misconception.<\/p>\n
Thus, so far, there has been no attempt on the part of the
\nmilitary to change, let alone erase, the doctrine. If it is
\nabandoned, it would mean that ABRI will have to return to the
\nbarracks and concentrate solely on national security and defense.<\/p>\n
The historic legitimation which substantiates ABRI's political
\ninvolvement is inseparable from the background that leads to
\nIndonesia's independence. At that time, there were no \"division
\nof labor\" among political leaders, the Army, or even among the
\npeople. Everybody worked with the same aim: to achieve
\nIndonesia's independence (p.99).<\/p>\n
Therefore, ABRI sees its involvement in national politics as
\npart of its duty as an institution, and its aim is to serve the
\npeople's interest without vested interests.<\/p>\n
ABRI has always argued that its involvement in politics is
\nnecessary to safeguard the state's ideology Pancasila. It is
\nproud of being an institution which functions more than just a
\n\"fire brigade\" -- acting only after a disaster takes place
\n(p.108).<\/p>\n
The book, actually, is not specifically about the increase of
\ngovernment violence that can be traced to the much-disputed
\nDwifungsi. It does not single out ABRI, either institutionally or
\nindividually, as the one which committed various instances of
\nstate violence against citizens.<\/p>\n
The book is written based on sociological knowledge, and it
\nemphasizes on ABRI's Dwifungsi and its ideological process from
\ndominance to hegemony.<\/p>\n
Exploring for the ideological meaning which is insinuated in
\nthe dual-function doctrine, historical references, and interviews
\nwith a number of ABRI leaders, it seems that the author is trying
\nto break down the doctrine bit by bit as an \"historical fact\" and
\nreconstruct it as a social ideology.<\/p>\n
Dwifungsi is understood as an ideological construction which
\nis engineered to serve ABRI's own personal interests.<\/p>\n
As a philosophical base for Dwifungsi is to safeguard
\nPancasila, then the sanctity of the doctrine is comparable to
\nthat of Pancasila (p.94).<\/p>\n
As explained by a general interviewed, ABRI believes that its
\ndual function will remain as long as Pancasila remains the state
\nideology (p.109).<\/p>\n
Implementing applied sociology as an analytical tool, this
\nbook is extremely interesting to read, especially for Indonesians
\nwho, for decades, have lived under undisputable political myths.<\/p>\n
Also, this book offers answers to questions about ABRI's
\nDwifungsi since it has long been a fortress of the political
\npower of a crumbling New Regime (p.262).<\/p>\n
Denny B.C. Hariandja<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/questioning-abris-hegemony-on-politics-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }