Warlords and democracy<\/p>\n
In the wake of the announced freeze of the paramilitary wing
\nof the militant Islam Defenders Front (FPI) last week which
\nfollowed the disbandment of Laskar Jihad the month before,
\nIndonesian Military (TNI) Chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto called
\non all other paramilitary groups to follow suit. Security, he
\nsaid, was a matter that must be entrusted to the government, and
\nnot to civilian paramilitary groups.<\/p>\n
Although the public at large hailed the appeal, so far none of
\nthe groups involved has taken the expected step. In fact, the
\nIndonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) has
\nrejected calls for the disbandment of the party's paramilitary
\ntask force, the Satgas PDI Perjuangan. An executive of the
\nparty's research and development center said the task force was
\nno threat to the public, and besides, \"we are unable to disband
\nthe task force, as it is not under the party's organizational
\nstructure.\"<\/p>\n
Satgas PDI Perjuangan is only one of many paramilitary groups
\nthat have the potential to hamper democracy and spark conflict in
\nthe country. Many of these groups are affiliated to political
\nparties, while others are linked to religious or other groupings.
\nAlmost all of them formally claim that their functions are
\nconfined to internal activities. On the other hand, the public
\nperceives them as models of militarism which on many occasions
\nhave functioned more as a deterrent force vis-a-vis the public.
\nSome have even caused fear due to their use of violence.<\/p>\n
The existence of paramilitary groups in this country has deep
\nroots in history. The Tentara Nasional Indonesia itself was born
\nfrom a collection of diverse laskar, or paramilitary groups that,
\nin the model of warlord communities, previously fought against
\ncolonialism. This historical legacy was later formalized -- or
\nperhaps more correctly, politicized -- in the concept of \"total
\npeoples' defense and security,\" or hankamrata. However, this
\nconcept has over the decades proved deficient in several ways.<\/p>\n
First, the initial 55 years of this country's history have
\nrevealed many fundamental weaknesses in the concept and left many
\npeople victimized. For example, because each and every citizen
\nwas supposed to be responsible for the defense and security of
\nthe country, nobody seemed to be ready to assume responsibility
\nwhen something went wrong.<\/p>\n
Second, The vagueness of distinction between defense and
\nsecurity -- and the functions related to both -- generated many
\nhuman rights abuses, including the disappearance and killing of
\nmany thousands of innocent people. Third, the concept, along with
\nthe weakness of the state security apparatus, has provided
\nimpetus for different interest groupings to develop their own
\nparamilitary groups, to the detriment and at the expense of the
\npublic at large.<\/p>\n
It took two years after Soeharto's downfall to make a
\ndistinction between defense and security, hence the separation of
\nthe police from the armed forces in 2000, and the fact that it
\ntook four years to produce Law No. 3\/2002, that incorporated the
\nconcept of \"total defense\" instead of \"total peoples' defense and
\nsecurity\". However, it stopped short of defining that the state
\nis the only entity that has the right to develop and use force,
\nas it should be in a democracy. It does not explicitly define
\nthat the state's monopoly of force is a basic principle of a
\ndemocratic state, and with it the obligation to provide security
\nfor the people.<\/p>\n
The fact that both the capacity and professionalism of the
\nIndonesian security apparatus are very much in need of
\nimprovement is no excuse for perpetuating the existence of
\nunconstitutional paramilitary groups that are not accountable to
\nsociety. Paramilitary groups affiliated to political parties
\ncontradict the democratic values of the political parties
\nthemselves. Paramilitary groups affiliated to religious groupings
\ncontradict not only their democratic values, but the basic tenets
\nof religion itself as well.<\/p>\n
President Megawati Soekarnoputri should make it clear that PDI
\nPerjuangan, as its name connotes, is for democracy and is against
\na warlord model of society. She should not condone the ridiculous
\nexcuse expressed by one of her party's executives. Certainly she
\nhas the courage to say so.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/warlords-and-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}