ABRI's political role to decline in degree

Noted political scholar Juwono Sudarsono, who is also the deputy governor of the National Resilience Institute (Lemhanas), was recently guest speaker at a discussion on the future of the Armed Forces' Dwi Fungsi (Dual Function) held at The Jakarta Post. The following is an excerpt of his presentation.

JAKARTA (JP): ABRI has become the victim of its own success in upholding political stability.

The Dwi Fungsi concept has now been in effect for one generation, and the sustainable economic development that we have seen in the First Long Term (25 year) Development is in no small part due to the political stability and security.

During that period of one generation, questions have been raised about the Dwi Fungsi. The debate began in 1971 with Rahman Toleng stating that Dwi Fungsi must be brought down to zero. But the debate to this day has been about the Army's degree of involvement and intervention in the country's political life.

So, in conceptual and analytical construction terms, we are really talking about the rise and decline in the degree of ABRI's involvement in politics. Singapore has its dwi-fungsi. Malaysia's is less clear. In Burma (Myanmar), there are suggestions that they copy Indonesia. Thailand has a dwi-fungsi similar to, if not more firmly embedded than, ours. So overall, the issue of the military's role is a matter of degree.

Given the wave of democratization in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Indonesia is about the only big country in Asia that has not officially adopted civilian politics. Indonesia appears to be an anomaly, a deviation from the waves that have been sounded out by (Samuel) Huntingdon.

The reason is simple. In a country as large as this, since its (Independence) Proclamation to this day, the only political force that has real power and influence is the Army. I have yet to see a civilian force that has the ideological outlook, let alone organization and discipline, that is as nationwide and all encompassing as that of the Army.

The Army has pioneered nationalism that is all encompassing. No sociopolitical organization has been able to match that of the Army initially, and now the Armed Forces. The Army is the only institution and organization that has the outlook and the reach. Add to these the military's discipline, doctrines and clear-cut regulations that are not found among civilians.

The paradigm about civilian supremacy never really existed in Indonesia, although it was tried once during the parliamentary democracy era in the 1950s.

After 30 years of New Order Administration, even if we accept the figure of 14 million middle class and with the growing role of professional groups, we have to admit that the organizational capability of civilians still cannot match that of ABRI, especially of the Army.

New professional organizations, including journalism, are emerging to add to the old professional groups such as engineers, legal experts and accountants. But I have yet to see a congress of these organizations that have national influence. These organizations are active immediately before and after congress. In between, they have no influence in the political process.

So, the Army continues to play its role by default.

But Indonesia is changing.

If the middle class is growing and progressing in quality, especially in organizational capability, then the degree of Dwi Fungsi will decline through a natural process, in line with changes in society and economic development.

We are now in a phase in the history of the republic where the political controls and handling methods that were used in the 1970s and 1980s are no longer appropriate. But we are not sure if the alternative to Dwi Fungsi, a civilian society, is strong enough.

Civil society is where every profession (journalism, banker, legal experts, etc.) strives to promote their own interests.

According to a survey published by last year's Fortune magazine, Indonesia's middle class is put only at 14 million. This is still small because it is not even 10 percent of the total population.

India, with nearly 900 million, has a middle class of 250 million people. It is therefore understandable if the Westminster political system is retained there because there are 250 million Indians who believe in and will defend their democracy.

Now 14 million out of 196 million is very small. We're only talking about the static figure. Out of these, probably only five million people are active in politics. A civilian society of less than 10 percent cannot carry out civilian politics, especially if we take into account the fact that this small number does not have the organizational capability to carry out the tasks and functions of a civilian society.

If we don't have a civilian society, we can't have civilian politics, which is about political parties. If political parties function as they should, without any pretension of trying to take over ABRI's political role, I think we need at least 10 or 15 years before we can achieve civilian politics. This is provided that political regeneration supports the trend.

As long as ABRI is not as stupid and brutal as other military regimes found in Asia and Africa in dealing with social, political and economic problems, Dwi Fungsi will remain. Some civilian politics grew out of the brutality of military regimes, like in South Korea in the 1980s, Burma (Myanmar), and Thailand in May 1992. But as long as such cases in Indonesia are limited to peripheral incidents, for example in East Timor, Aceh and Irian Jaya, there will be no movement to question Dwi Fungsi.

Any challenge to the legitimacy of Dwi Fungsi will come from the 10 percent of the population, from the likes of academe and the press.

But the majority, 80 percent, has no problem with Dwi Fungsi. More often than not, they prefer to turn to a soldier rather than a civilian with their intense and prolonged problems, because at least if a soldier intervenes their problems will be solved.

For the 80 percent of the population, especially those living in rural areas far from Jakarta, they want to retain Dwi Fungsi because they do not see an alternative that could guarantee cultural harmony. There will always be ethnic and religious problems in the field, which if not handled by the local Army chief, a lieutenant or a captain, could lead to anarchy.

So the irony is that while 10 percent of the population, who are influenced by the waves of democratization in the world, are questioning Dwi Fungsi, in the fields most people do not care about the civil-military dichotomy debate. They just want peace in their village, free from conflicts, from religious or ethnic tensions, and from riots. This is not to say that there are no local Army officers who are abusing their power. There are, and their number is quite large. But in general, most villages want to retain the role of the local military chief.

How long can this continue? I don't know. Probably until the day when the socioeconomic life of the people becomes too complex.

We are now in a transition period. After the first 30 years of the legitimacy of Dwi Fungsi, we are moving towards democratization. But the middle class is not strong enough to set the ball rolling.

There is another factor to consider. Our soldiers have not been as brutal as their counterparts in Thailand or South Korea towards the middle class. As long as our soldiers are not brutal towards the middle class in Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan and Bandung, then the basis of the Dwi Fungsi legitimacy will not be questioned by the middle class.

My own feeling is that Dwi Fungsi will decline solely because of changes in society and the economy. The more complex the Indonesian society, the more difficult it will be for graduates of the Military Academy and staff and command colleges to handle. New problems emerge that can no longer be handled by people with military education backgrounds.

We have been accepting military officers as regents and in other administration posts because they have the minimum required managerial capability.

But ABRI will soon have to accept the fact that to run a nation with an increasingly complex society and economy, it is no longer justifiable to assign people solely on the basis of the minimum managerial capability of the 1970s.

Civilians are rising and, through a natural process, they will begin taking over posts that were previously entrusted to ABRI.

Now we have business administration schools, and management courses that promote the quality of civilians. Therefore, the intensity of Dwi Fungsi will decline naturally.

We are indeed on a trend towards "civil-ization". But how rapidly we move towards "civil-ization" depends on the organizational capability of the civilians at the national level. I have not seen this happening yet.

In any event, the role of ABRI must be linked to the changes in society. The more complex society becomes, the more difficult it is to justify the practices of the 1970s. There's a natural inclination for ABRI's role to decline in degree. It has to. (emb)