Armed Force is the dominant political player

YOGYAKARTA (JP): One could easily be misled into thinking that the country's most powerful group will win next week's election.

But a quick evaluation of the political system reveals that none of the three parties hold the most power.

Anyone with a little knowledge on national politics knows that the Armed Forces (ABRI) has the most political clout. For nearly 30 years, the Armed Forces has determined national politics.

No important political development passes without the Armed Forces' participation or intervention, so everyone is keenly watching for structural change in the military. Politicians focus and anticipate the Armed Forces' moves rather than their rivals'.

Staff demotions, assignments and promotions are studied carefully for political meaning. The removal of one officer may be seen as a move to topple a political faction.

Military analyst Salim Said has said the military's dominant role stems from its history of establishing itself rather than being established by a civilian government.

Therefore, the Armed Forces was used to having "things its own way," Salim said. It had never been in favor of a civilian government and there were several examples of this.

In October 1952, Armed Forces officers demonstrated about "interference" because the civilian government had elected the Army's chief.

In 1958, then army chief of staff Gen. A.H. Nasution made a speech, saying that the Armed Forces refused to become "a tool of civilians" or a military regime.

Nasution's speech on the Armed Forces' "middle road" led to the "dual-function" concept in which the military has a defense and political role.

The dual-function concept may have been influenced by the United States President John F. Kennedy's Civic Action Program because many local officers had trained in the U.S.

The dual-function concept became firmly entrenched in the New Order era when there was a "national consensus" not to elect military personnel to the legislature.

In return, the Armed Forces was allocated 43 of the 350 seats in the Gotong Royong House of Representatives of 1967. This was increased to 75 of 414 seats in the House a year later.

In 1982, the Armed Forces was given 100 of the 500 seats in the House. After long negotiations, an agreement was reached last year to reduce the Armed Forces' seats in the House to 75 after the May 29 election.

Bureaucracy

The Armed Forces' political influence has not been limited to the legislature.

In 1966, 29 percent of all top bureaucratic, director general and ministerial positions were held by military people.

This rose to 71 percent in 1971 and peaked at 89 percent in 1980. But in recent years, the military's occupation of high ranking bureaucratic positions has fallen sharply.

There is a similar trend for the positions of provincial governors. At the beginning of the New Order period, two-thirds of governors were military men. Now less than half are.

Whether the drop translates to a loss of political clout remains questionable since the Armed Forces still wields power through its patronage of Golkar.

Despite a civilian, Harmoko, being chairman, Golkar's lower tiers are still headed by ABRI people.

The Armed Forces used to refrain from blatantly supporting Golkar, but this changed last year when Army Chief of Staff Gen. Hartono said: "It was my duty to receive guidance from Golkar deputy chairman Mbak Tutut." He was referring to Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, the eldest daughter of President Soeharto.

Hartono's comment caused a wave of protests.

"That's just the same as arming Golkar," said J. Kristiadi of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. He said this was a dangerous precedent and "a threat to political democracy".

Increasingly, the Armed Forces' political role is coming under fire from all directions. Ironically, even Nasution considers the dual-function role has been misused and abused.

A National Institute of Sciences (LIPI) study commissioned by President Soeharto in 1995 has recommended that the Armed Forces' political role be limited to the People's Consultative Assembly.

The study suggested that by the year 2007, the Armed Forces should not be involved in the House of Representatives, bureaucracy, state-owned companies or other government institutions.

The study also suggested the following:

* ABRI officers' presence in the bureaucracy should be limited to institutions that deal with security.

* ABRI's sociopolitical role should aim at improving Indonesia's diplomatic standing in international forums.

* ABRI should expand its role in human resources development from merely dealing with illiteracy eradication.

* ABRI should serve as a model in law enforcement and civil empowerment, where the public believes that ABRI is not exempt from obeying the law.

The study seems to have had little impact because the Armed Forces seems to be trying to reassert itself through Golkar.

Nepotism must also be considered since many sons of Armed Forces' members have joined Golkar.

This means a wider role for the Armed Forces. (38)