ABRI's political stance a setback, scholar says

ABRI's political stance a setback, scholar says

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The Armed Forces' announcement that it cannot
stay neutral in politics and that is has chosen Golkar as its
partner represents a setback not only for the force, but also for
the nation, a noted military observer says.

Riswandha Imawan, a political lecturer at the Gadjah Mada
University, said it is understandable if the Armed Forces (ABRI)
takes sides when the nation is in a state of emergency, for
example, when there is an attempt to replace the state ideology.

But with the increasing political awareness of the people,
"they will question whether the nation is indeed in a state of
emergency", Riswandha said.

"It's even more confusing because the statement comes at a
time when senior government officials are boasting about the
successes of national development and political stability," he
continued.

Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamid, assistant to ABRI's chief of
political affairs, said last Friday that in discharging its
political role, the military has to take sides, and it has chosen
Golkar because the two share the same ideals and objectives.

ABRI Chief Gen. Feisal Tanjung on Wednesday said that as a
defense and security force, ABRI remains neutral, but when it
comes to politics, it supports Golkar, the ruling political
group.

A week earlier, the powerful Civil Servants Corps (Korpri)
reiterated its political allegiance to Golkar with its leaders
warning that government employees who do not vote for Golkar
would be better off resigning from their jobs.

Riswandha said he was even more confused by Syarwan's
assertion that ABRI supports Golkar because it wants to ensure
the continuation of the New Order administration.

"Aren't the other two political forces, PPP and PDI, the
products of the New Order too, just like Golkar?" he asked.

He recalled that ABRI took sides in the 1971 election because
it was the first election held under the New Order
administration, which was consolidating its position after the
political turmoil of the mid-1960s.

ABRI started taking a more neutral position in the 1987 and
1992 elections, he said, "If ABRI now decides to take sides
again, aren't we going back to the 1971 era? Isn't this a set
back?"

He speculated that a growing concern within ABRI is that
Golkar could be "beaten black and blue" in the 1997 election, or
as recently suggested by Ramelan Surbakti of Airlangga University
in Surabaya, "ABRI is not confident about Golkar's performance in
1997".

The election is widely seen as a test of the capability of a
civilian to lead Golkar. Its current chairman, Harmoko, is the
first civilian appointed to head the group which was founded in
1964 with the help of the Army.

The elections contest Golkar, the United Development Party
(PPP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI). In 1992, the
ruling group polled 68 percent of the total votes.

Harmoko, who was elected in October last year, has vowed to
improve Golkar's performance in 1997. He has been stomping across
the nation to meet with cadres and prepare them for 1997.

Riswandha said he feared that ABRI's Dwi Fungsi -- dual
function in defense and in politics -- has been further blurred
by its announcement that it is siding with Golkar.

ABRI is indeed a tool of the state, he said. "But it's not the
tool of the ruling political group. As a tool of the state, ABRI
should stay neutral."

"If it sides with the political regime, then ABRI's fate is
determined by the fate of the political regime," he said.

"By keeping its distance (from Golkar), it will be easier for
ABRI to maneuver and neutralize the situation. But by siding with
Golkar, ABRI is virtually tying one foot down, so that it will be
difficult for it to play its political role." (har/emb)