Armed Forces: From state violence to a welfare state

Armed Forces: From state violence to a welfare state

By J. Sumardianta

YOGYAKARTA (JP): The Armed Forces (ABRI) is by far the
country's dominant political player. Political reform is only
possible if ABRI allows it.

The institution, however, is currently putting its credibility
on the line due to its excessive adherence to the policy of
dwifungsi, its dual function of security and politics in society.
ABRI's involvement in the political arena has tainted its image
through its alleged involvement in the abduction of several pro-
democracy activists and the May 12 shooting incident at Trisakti
University. There are some who even believe ABRI was behind the
May riots in Jakarta and various cities in the country and the
victimization of Chinese-Indonesians.

ABRI has a long list of human rights atrocities: Tanjung
Priok, Aceh, Dili, Ujungpandang, Timika, Situbondo, Sanggau Ledo,
Tasikmalaya, Banjarmasin and Madura. Its socio-political role was
the most important factor in the triggering of such violence.

Several factors account for ABRI's active involvement in the
country's socio-political life. The 1945 Constitution does not
clearly stipulate a civilian-military relationship. History also
pointed to the precedence of a military not accountable to the
civilian government. The revolutionary period of 1945 to 1949,
when ABRI was born, required the military to take necessary
measures to defend the state during wartime. Civilian politicians
were so weak during the 1950s, that ABRI decided to take over.

ABRI's dual function originated through Gen. Nasution's
concept of Jalan Tengah (middle road) in 1955. The concept was
originally intended to justify the military's move against the
fragile civilian government. The concept was continued through
the Tri Ubaya Cakti 1966 and the Catur Dharma Ekakarma 1967
doctrines which were an ABRI interpretation of articles 1 (2), 2
(1), 27 and 30 of the 1945 Constitution and of Law No. 20/1982
for Defense and Security.

During the New Order, ABRI used its historical and legal
backgrounds to justify its domination over certain civilian
domains. ABRI controlled seats in the House of Representatives
(DPR), while active or retired officers became presidential
adjutants, ambassadors, governors, regents, mayors and managing
directors of state firms. ABRI members even led sports
organizations since it was thought that they were best at
leadership, conflict management and innovation.

Political stability was one of the upsides to ABRI's socio-
political role and subsequently allowed segments of society to
thrive under economic development. However, this came at a cost
of a military domination of society. Since stability was the
government's main goal, uniformity became its main priority. As a
result, a phony democracy was showcased by the New Order's
bureaucratic authoritarian system. Moreover, a culture of
coercive power and violence was substituted for the principles of
law enforcement.

The excesses that came as a result of ABRI's dual function
policy are reflected in its weak discipline and professionalism,
its declining ability to counter foreign military threats and its
favoritism for certain political forces.

The strange thing is that ABRI's role as the stabilizer of
society has been persistently institutionalized, resulting in a
virtual state of emergency being enforced over the country. ABRI
seems to have always interpreted public criticism over its socio-
political role harshly. It often labeled such criticism as having
come from leftists or rightists who should be regarded as
subversive and antidevelopment.

Excessive military intervention in all sectors of life has
exacerbated many social conflicts. ABRI's interference in
political parties, universities, labor disputes and legal affairs
has helped create a divisive culture. The July 27 incident, the
Trisakti shootings, the murders of Marsinah and Udin, and the
Nipah and Jenggawah cases are examples of this.

In practice, the dual function policy has gone too far. There
is an urgent need to review and reform the policy in light of
such past incidents and current conditions. The establishment of
the National Commission on Human Rights, the evolvement of
student movements and the strengthening roles of non-governmental
organizations all indicate that Indonesia's internal conditions
have changed since the inception of the dual function policy.

Outside factors have also led to changes in the country.
Revolutionary advances in telecommunications have helped
democratic ideas flow into Indonesia. Democratic values have
challenged the core arguments behind particular Indonesian
values. The dual function, which has been claimed as being
uniquely and typically Indonesian, has lost its popularity in the
international community. With the country's economy becoming ever
integrated within global capitalism, Indonesian leaders would
have difficulties in defending such political particularism while
the world becomes more enamored with democratization and human
rights.

Advanced countries have criticized our Pancasila-based
democracy -- something which is not surprising -- in light of the
fact that ABRI's dual function is inconsistent with the
principles of universal democracy. International pressure
continues to mount for Indonesia to develop a stronger democracy,
a cleaner government, a better adherence to human rights,
military professionalism, a clear division of labor, greater
transparency and competitiveness.

Democratization has become one of the essential goals of the
educated middle-class. People are becoming more and more
cosmopolitan and independent and they are demanding that the dual
function be more accommodating. The transition from an
authoritarian military regime to a democratic government in some
advanced countries in the Asia-Pacific region have made people
more aware of their political rights -- and more critical of the
dual function policy.

In this era of globalization, the idea of maintaining
political stability through the security approach has lost its
meaning. ABRI can no longer hide itself behind a myth of
historical legality. If it decides to move ahead with its past
ways of maintaining political stability, Indonesia will plunge
into a state of disintegration.

From now on, ABRI must look to advising a civilian government
rather than directly controlling and participating in governance.
Ideally, ABRI's socio-political function should be restricted to
participation within the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR).

Such a political limitation would go a long way to restricting
ABRI's growing vested interests. This alternative would also
result in a more democratic, sovereign and independent House of
Representatives. Rule of law would be more enforceable and the
military would ultimately be brought down to a more equal footing
with the civilian officials in government.

The police force should also be separated from the Armed
Forces so that law enforcement of civilians is placed under
civilian administration. A general reform of the nonmilitary
function of ABRI may help this country change from rule by state
violence into a welfare state.

The wrier is a researcher at Lembaga Pengkajian dan
Pengembangan untuk Kemaslahatan Masyarakat (LPPKM) "Sovranita"
Indonesia, Yogyakarta and a teacher at Kolese De Britto High
School.