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.