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.