ABRI to play motivating role in nation's future politics
ABRI to play motivating role in nation's future politics
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Armed Forces chief says there is a need to review the
doctrine of ABRI. Political scientist Amir Santoso argues that
ABRI will be taking on a motivating role in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAKARTA (JP): There is no intent on the part of the Armed
Forces (ABRI) to abandon their dual function, or dwi fungsi.
The remarks made recently by the Armed Forces' Chief
Commander, Gen. Feisal Tanjung, about the need for ABRI to
reconsider it's role in a changing social-political climate was
not intended to alter the basic doctrine of dual function.
The reason behind Gen. Tanjung's speech is the awareness that
unless ABRI is able to adjust itself to those changes it will
lose its legitimacy.
The consequences of a change in ABRI's role can be manifold.
Gen. Tanjung said several months ago that ABRI will take the
role of tut wuri handayani -- remaining in the background to give
guidance. This means that while ABRI has always taken a leading
position in social and political affairs, in the future it will
be content with taking a motivating role.
This position, however, will not be absolute. If the situation
should warrant, ABRI could once again move to the front, or
middle. Therefore, ABRI's shifting role must be viewed as
flexible, depending on the situation.
Even so, the question of what is meant by tut wuri handayani,
as well as the implications of Gen. Tanjung's speech, have given
rise to all sorts of interpretations. Within ABRI itself there
are those who are of the view that the placement of ABRI
personnel in the bureaucracy should no longer be questioned.
There are, however, others who believe that when civilians have
emerged who are capable and qualified, they should be given the
posts.
The debate about the presence of ABRI personnel in the
bureaucracy is, as I see it, not something that is at the core of
the dual function concept. ABRI's participation in the state
administration is a mere consequence of that concept, although it
is true that this issue often gives rise to problems with
civilian civil servants who feel that their rightful positions in
the bureaucracy are being taken by ABRI personnel.
The problem then extends to the question of to what extent
ABRI will be responsible for its personnel who misuse their
authority, or to what extent ABRI is capable of correcting those
erring officers.
A friend of mine said that in his observation, up to now many
cases of abuse of authority have been left unresolved. As a
result the impression has been create that ABRI only wants the
goods without wanting to take the full responsibility.
Naturally there are a number of ABRI officers who have faced
sanctions, but because no publicity is given to such cases and
because the measures are taken unobtrusively, the impression
remains.
We know that there are honest ABRI officers aplenty, but
because of the acts of the few who are dishonest, a negative
impression has arisen among the public.
Consequently, the essence of ABRI's dual function is not in
its involvement in non-military positions, but in ABRI's ability
to take the role of dynamizing agent in this country's
development programs.
Herein lies the role of ABRI as supervisor, whose duty is to
check and double-check on development planning and
implementation. ABRI must take an active role in guarding the
stability of this country, as well as in supervising the
administration of the nation's government.
Thus, whenever ABRI comes across any cases of misuse of
authority by state bureaucrats, it should take action
irrespective of rank and of whether those bureaucrats are
military officials or civilians.
Whenever it observes that officials are not implementing the
Pancasila ideology and the 1945 Constitution faithfully, it
should have the courage to take corrective actions, even though
the perpetrators might be of high rank.
As I see it, the question of ABRI's dual role should not be
confined to that of ABRI's place in the bureaucracy. This is an
outflow of the dual function principle, while the core of the
issue is ABRI's role as dynamizing agent and supervisor of the
course of our development.
It is a pity that apparently within the Armed Forces itself
there are those who tend to place the accent on participation in
the administration, while the dynamizing and supervisory roles of
ABRI are ranked lower down on the priority scale.
The result of this is that ABRI often finds itself involved in
conflicts concerning bureaucratic positions, both at the center
and in the provinces, with the further consequence that ABRI is
often viewed as greedy. Or, ABRI may be seen as incapable of
correcting the actions of its officers who are considered by the
public as unqualified or lacking in integrity.
I believe that it is in this context that we must regard Gen.
Feisal Tanjung's remarks in any re-examination of ABRI's dual
function.
The writer is executive director of the Institute for Research
and Development of Social Sciences at the University of
Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Armed Forces chief says there is a need to review the
doctrine of ABRI. Political scientist Amir Santoso argues that
ABRI will be taking on a motivating role in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAKARTA (JP): There is no intent on the part of the Armed
Forces (ABRI) to abandon their dual function, or dwi fungsi.
The remarks made recently by the Armed Forces' Chief
Commander, Gen. Feisal Tanjung, about the need for ABRI to
reconsider it's role in a changing social-political climate was
not intended to alter the basic doctrine of dual function.
The reason behind Gen. Tanjung's speech is the awareness that
unless ABRI is able to adjust itself to those changes it will
lose its legitimacy.
The consequences of a change in ABRI's role can be manifold.
Gen. Tanjung said several months ago that ABRI will take the
role of tut wuri handayani -- remaining in the background to give
guidance. This means that while ABRI has always taken a leading
position in social and political affairs, in the future it will
be content with taking a motivating role.
This position, however, will not be absolute. If the situation
should warrant, ABRI could once again move to the front, or
middle. Therefore, ABRI's shifting role must be viewed as
flexible, depending on the situation.
Even so, the question of what is meant by tut wuri handayani,
as well as the implications of Gen. Tanjung's speech, have given
rise to all sorts of interpretations. Within ABRI itself there
are those who are of the view that the placement of ABRI
personnel in the bureaucracy should no longer be questioned.
There are, however, others who believe that when civilians have
emerged who are capable and qualified, they should be given the
posts.
The debate about the presence of ABRI personnel in the
bureaucracy is, as I see it, not something that is at the core of
the dual function concept. ABRI's participation in the state
administration is a mere consequence of that concept, although it
is true that this issue often gives rise to problems with
civilian civil servants who feel that their rightful positions in
the bureaucracy are being taken by ABRI personnel.
The problem then extends to the question of to what extent
ABRI will be responsible for its personnel who misuse their
authority, or to what extent ABRI is capable of correcting those
erring officers.
A friend of mine said that in his observation, up to now many
cases of abuse of authority have been left unresolved. As a
result the impression has been create that ABRI only wants the
goods without wanting to take the full responsibility.
Naturally there are a number of ABRI officers who have faced
sanctions, but because no publicity is given to such cases and
because the measures are taken unobtrusively, the impression
remains.
We know that there are honest ABRI officers aplenty, but
because of the acts of the few who are dishonest, a negative
impression has arisen among the public.
Consequently, the essence of ABRI's dual function is not in
its involvement in non-military positions, but in ABRI's ability
to take the role of dynamizing agent in this country's
development programs.
Herein lies the role of ABRI as supervisor, whose duty is to
check and double-check on development planning and
implementation. ABRI must take an active role in guarding the
stability of this country, as well as in supervising the
administration of the nation's government.
Thus, whenever ABRI comes across any cases of misuse of
authority by state bureaucrats, it should take action
irrespective of rank and of whether those bureaucrats are
military officials or civilians.
Whenever it observes that officials are not implementing the
Pancasila ideology and the 1945 Constitution faithfully, it
should have the courage to take corrective actions, even though
the perpetrators might be of high rank.
As I see it, the question of ABRI's dual role should not be
confined to that of ABRI's place in the bureaucracy. This is an
outflow of the dual function principle, while the core of the
issue is ABRI's role as dynamizing agent and supervisor of the
course of our development.
It is a pity that apparently within the Armed Forces itself
there are those who tend to place the accent on participation in
the administration, while the dynamizing and supervisory roles of
ABRI are ranked lower down on the priority scale.
The result of this is that ABRI often finds itself involved in
conflicts concerning bureaucratic positions, both at the center
and in the provinces, with the further consequence that ABRI is
often viewed as greedy. Or, ABRI may be seen as incapable of
correcting the actions of its officers who are considered by the
public as unqualified or lacking in integrity.
I believe that it is in this context that we must regard Gen.
Feisal Tanjung's remarks in any re-examination of ABRI's dual
function.
The writer is executive director of the Institute for Research
and Development of Social Sciences at the University of
Indonesia.