Can the Armed Forces spearhead democratization?

Can the Armed Forces spearhead democratization?

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): A heated debate concerning the military's role
in the country's democratization flared up recently following the
52nd anniversary of the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) on Oct. 5.

Political analyst J. Kristiadi of the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies said political reform in the country could
only come from a powerful institution such as the Armed Forces.

Gen. (ret) Nasution responded that in coming years, ABRI
should be at the forefront of democratization (The Jakarta Post,
Oct. 11).

It is obvious that ABRI remains the most powerful political
group in Indonesian domestic politics today.

There are several reasons on which such claim can be based.
First of all, ABRI is one of the main pillars of the ruling group
Golkar. It can be even said that Golkar was founded by ABRI which
managed to unite different functional groups in the mid-1960s.

Therefore, it is very unlikely in the foreseeable future that
Golkar will distance itself from ABRI and become an independent
political party.

Second, we have to admit that over the last three decades ABRI
has been successful in maintaining political stability as a
precondition for sustained economic growth. ABRI has been an
indispensable modernizing agent in the political system which
used to be vulnerable to sectarian politics during the period of
liberal democracy in the 1950s.

Third, ABRI is the only institution which can stand above all
political divisions in this country. ABRI has been known for its
unbiased attitude towards ethnic and religious divisions among
its members.

With all the above qualifications, ABRI does have the capacity
and opportunity to pioneer the process of democratization of the
country's political system. In fact, ABRI's representatives in
the House of Representatives succeeded in pushing for more
openness in 1989 to 1991. However, in the long run ABRI can only
do this task in an effective way if several conditions are
fulfilled.

First, ABRI should stick to its "genuine conscience" as an
instrument of the state and not of the ruling power. Since it is
the state which gives ABRI the important commission to maintain
the sovereignty and unity of Indonesia, then its loyalty to the
state should be above any other loyalty.

It goes without saying that all Indonesian people would put
their trust in ABRI as the most reliable guard of the unity of
the nation.

Second, ABRI should continue its constructive dialogue with
major civilian groups in society regarding major policy issues
such as political stability, equal distribution of development
resources, regional development and environmental problems.

If ABRI and major civilian groups can build a mutual trust,
then the unnecessary dichotomy between the army and civilians
could be removed.

Third, all ABRI members should realize that in order to
improve their social and political functions they need to
internalize democratic values and rules of the game which might
be different from those in a military organization.

For instance, unconditional respect for hierarchy which is
essential in a military organization may not fit into the present
tendency towards global democratization.

It is worth noting that the meaning of the army's "dual
function" -- in defense and in socio-political affairs -- cannot
be viewed as a closed and rigid ideology.

It is open to new interpretations so that it might not become
an obstacle to the establishment of a democratic society.

The most conservative interpretation of this doctrine suggests
that the army should maintain its dominant position in Indonesian
politics. The problem with such an interpretation is that
civilians could never have any chance to develop their managerial
skills in politics.

There is, however, another interpretation of the army's dual
function which is more progressive and egalitarian in that ABRI
cannot build a democratic state without the participation of
major civilian groups in society.

Therefore, the army would be required to consider itself an
equal partner with other political groups in a common pursuit of
a more democratic state. Building a partnership based on a
recognized interdependence between the military and civilian
groups would be the most effective way to remove a sharp
military-civil dichotomy.

We should be aware of the fact that today's global political
economy has changed dramatically. The way we govern our society
cannot be separated from the universalization of certain values
like the liberalization of trade, democratization, human rights
concerns, environmental responsibility and social justice.

All these concerns know no national boundaries. The more we
integrate our economic system into global capitalism, the greater
the demand for a compatibility between our domestic governance
and universal standards.

It is now clear that in coping with all these global
challenges ABRI will be required to redefine its role and
position in politics.

As far as the revitalization of the political system is
concerned, it would be a privilege for ABRI to spearhead a more
interactive governance so that the rising expectations of the new
Indonesian middle class might be accommodated.

Interactive governance always implies a recognized
interdependence between the ruler and the ruled. As such, it
would not see a centralization of power as an effective form of
governance. Therefore, dispersion of power would be more
desirable.

As a matter of fact, economic development over the last three
decades has produced increased income, greater economic security
and widespread higher education. Such economic progress ought to
be matched by a more inclusionary political system.

In this era of globalization, governments' capacities to deal
with social and economic problems tend to be limited. Voluntary
participation of groups outside government to accomplish public
tasks and responsibilities is absolutely necessary.

An interactive governance always necessitates dialogue and
cooperation and rejects the indispensability of a hegemonic actor
who tends to act unilaterally in solving a problem.

We should never forget that there is no road to interactive
governance. Interactive governance is the road.

Can ABRI accept it as its challenge?

The writer is the Director of the Parahyangan Center for
International Studies at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung.
He holds a Ph.D in social sciences from KU Leuven, Belgium.