Civilian militia and motives

Your question Why now? (Dec. 14) concerning the setting up of a civilian militia is understandable. Events during the Special Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) in November confirmed at least two things. One is that civilian guard units provoke conflict even when given a specific task. The other is that many Armed Forces (ABRI) members lack training and discipline when dealing with civilians. It is strange to apply these lessons by organizing a civilian militia which will have wider responsibilities than the MPR guards while having less training and discipline than current ABRI members. We should consider the government's motives according to what it has said and according to what it has done.

For example, one suggested motive is that Indonesia needs the guards to strengthen external defenses, which are weak at present. But the main cause of this weakness is that ABRI resources are committed to its internal function and the energy of its commanders is focussed more on political and business interests than on defenses. There is no sign that ABRI is in a hurry to reduce its political role. In fact it is currently demanding 10 percent of seats in the next parliament, and no doubt will help its allies win as many of the remaining seats as possible. So boosting security against external threats is not a priority for the present government.

Another possible motive is that the government wants to reduce people's fear of crime and riots. But for most people the main concern about the security forces' inability to control crime is not a lack of numbers. It is that the police enforce the law selectively and inefficiently, for political and financial motives, rather than systematically and impartially. Many people believe that ABRI members are instigators, participants and beneficiaries of crime, including large-scale crimes like the May riots and the killing of NU members in Banyuwangi. But ABRI tends to deny such allegations instead of investigating them, even in cases where ABRI involvement is plain, as in the Trisakti shootings.

A serious investigation of these murders would find who killed the students and why, who ordered the killings, what political conflicts led to the killings and what underlying weaknesses existed in ABRI's operational strategy, training and command structure. But no such investigation has taken place, of this or of other similar incidents. So restoring public confidence in ABRI's crime fighting capacity is not a priority for the present government.

Another possible motive is that the government wants to prevent violence during the election campaign. But there was no violence at the congress of the Indonesian Democratic Party in Bali in October where security was handled almost entirely by party members. So the government's obvious first step to ensure a peaceful election campaign would be to invite party leaders and members to cooperate closely on security and other matters. But the government is more committed to retaining its hold of all aspects of the election. In fact there is not even a sign that there will be an independent authority to restrict vote-buying, intimidation, and media manipulation and other likely abuses. So running a fair and peaceful election campaign is not a priority for the present government.

Recruiting civilians will enable the government to threaten opponents and prevent free expression throughout the villages of Indonesia. The policy enshrined by last month's MPR session in Jakarta will be extended across the country, with disastrous results.

JOHN HARGREAVES

Jakarta