Civilian militia and motives

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