[b]Woe to our military,

Woe to our military,
woe to our nation

Endy M. Bayuni
Staff writer
The Jakarta Post
Jakarta

The current debate about whether members of the Indonesian
Military (TNI) and the National Police (Polri) should be allowed
to vote, as well as to run for office, in the 2004 general
election has reached ludicrous proportions. It is most
distressing to see this nation wasting so much time, energy and
resources on an issue that other countries recognize as so self-
evident that any discussion of the matter is a nonstarter.

This at a time when the nation has so many more important
things to do, from fixing the economy, waging war on corruption
and reforming the legal system, to keeping the country intact
against various centrifugal forces.

But this is Indonesia, a nation that has just emerged from
more than 30 years of repression. This is a nation that has only
just rediscovered its freedom to express opinions openly. This is
a nation whose new favorite pastime is to engage in endless
debates. This is a nation whose leaders, faced with mountains of
seemingly unsolvable economic and political problems, have opted
to take the easy route: talk and talk and talk.

The current debate about the right to vote for TNI/Polri
members has provided politicians and government leaders (and
unfortunately the media, too) with a new issue that has managed
to divert public attention away from the real problems facing the
country -- problems that these leaders should be fixing. This
issue has virtually absolved the government and politicians of
their responsibility to do what they should be doing.

In most other democratic countries, and even in some
repressive ones, the right to vote for members of the military is
something that is taken for granted.

True, this right has been "taken away" from TNI members since
they last voted in 1955. But then, this has always been a sweet
deal for our armed forces.

In exchange for their "sacrifice", they have ensured for
themselves representation in the House of Representatives and the
People's Consultative Assembly in far greater proportion to
their size. In the present-day system, a seat in the House is
worth 400,000 votes. Today, TNI and Polri, whose combined forces
amount to about 420,000 personnel, have 38 seats. Between the
1970s and 1990s, they were grossly over-represented, with 100
seats at one time.

This is an arrangement that goes all the way down to the
lowest levels of regional legislative councils. No other group in
our society is as heavily represented in the legislature as the
military and the police.

But that was then, when the military was in charge of the
nation. And this is now, when we are moving toward a civil
society.

The bill on general elections submitted by the government last
month to the House of Representatives, proposes restoring TNI and
Polri members' right to vote in the 2004 elections.

It also proposes allowing TNI and Polri members, along with
civil servants, to run for elected office, provided that they
take a leave of absence from the military. This is definitely a
nonissue. In no other country are members of the military or
police allowed to contest elections. They have to resign, and not
simply take a leave of absence. Once they resign, they are no
longer with the force. Therefore, the wording in the bill should
simply state that members of TNI/Polri cannot run for elected
office. Period.

The bill does not specifically state that in return for the
right to vote, the TNI and Polri are forfeiting the right to
automatic representation in the legislature. But it implies just
that, for they cannot have it both ways.

This is the catch of the bill that everybody seems to know
about, but for some reason are refusing to discuss. Thus, the
debate has instead focused solely on the right of TNI and Polri
members to vote, instead of on their political privileges. The
real issue, of course, is that the free seats in the legislature
that TNI/Polri have enjoyed all this time are now at stake.

Since no one seems to want to address the real issue directly,
the debate has turned into a farce, often comical in proportion,
and certainly beyond comprehension, as illustrated by statements
by politicians and news headlines on the subject. TNI's response
has only made a bad situation worse.

Here are some samples of the most ridiculous
statements/headlines:

"TNI not ready to use the right to vote before 2009."

"Don't give TNI/Polri the right to vote."

"Giving TNI/Polri members the right to vote is dangerous."

"TNI needs time to prepare members to exercise right to vote."

And not all of the statements opposing the election bill's
proposal to restore the voting rights of TNI personnel have come
from the military.

Some politicians and commentators have come to the defense of
the military not regaining the right to vote before 2009,
professing to speak for the good of the reform movement.

Some of these people may have spoken out of ignorance, but
some of the politicians have set their sights on the 2004
presidential election. By taking this stand, they are hoping that
the TNI/Polri faction in the Assembly will swing the vote their
way in an election that is expected to be very tight and
competitive.

Prior to the submission of the bill, the consensus was that
TNI/Polri would be phased out of the House in 2004 and the
Assembly not before 2009. No one had questioned that consensus
until now. The bill, which was drafted by officials at the
Ministry of Home Affairs, effectively put the issue back on the
front burner. Hence, the debate that has consumed so much of our
attention these past three weeks.

Still, the nation could have made efficient use of its time
and resources if it had addressed the real issue, that is the
representation of the TNI/Polri in the legislature, instead of
endlessly engaging in a debate about the right to vote and the
right to run for office.

TNI, of all institutions, should have been gunning at the
issue in a more direct manner. It should have simply stated that
it is not ready to quit the political arena before 2009.

Now the strategy of "indirectness" has backfired on the TNI.
We certainly hope the military opts for a more direct approach
when it comes to matters of national defense.

Speaking of national defense, if the TNI's response to the
question of the right to vote is to be believed, then it raises
another important question: If the TNI needs seven years to
prepare its members to exercise their voting rights -- presumably
to teach them how to use their conscience in casting their
ballots -- then how many years will it need to teach its
personnel about defending the country?

This question is my contribution to this ludicrous debate.