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.