Do TNI, police personnel deserve the franchise?

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Political Analyst, Jakarta

Whether as part of further constitutional amendments or as a provision in the new electoral bill, the issue of voting rights for members of the military (TNI) and the Police is crucial for the future of Indonesian democracy.

Indeed, the right to vote is normal and proper, even for members of the military and the police is right and proper in a democracy based on universal suffrage. The right to be elected, however, which will allow TNI and Police members to contest the election as candidates for political positions, is something entirely different. It is against democracy.

A system of democracy is by definition not only a secular but also a civilian system. Clausewitz' idea of military strategy, to put it simply, is the deployment of forces to win a war. In the conventional sense, however, victory in the war is the achievement of a political goal, which at the very beginning was determined by a civilian political leadership.

Does entering the military or police establishment mean that one is stripped of one's human rights, particularly the right to vote, let alone the right to run as a candidate fighting to be elected? Of course not. To enter the military or police establishment is one's personal choice out of one's own free will, knowing full well that one will be deprived of the right to vote, or at the very least the right to be elected.

When a worker, a teacher, a businessman, or anyone of whatever civilian occupation casts his or her vote, he or she does that as a citizen, not as a worker or a teacher, or a businessman, or whatever happens to be his or her civilian occupation. And if such a man or woman should run as a candidate for some political office or position, he or she does not represent his or her community of workers, teachers or businessmen or businesswomen.

For a military man or a policeman, however, his or her citizenship cannot be separated from his or her military or police service. As a member of state defense and security apparatus or institution, however, one's membership in that institution may not be separated from one's citizenship. The "working hours" of members of the military and police establishments are 24 hours a day. In principle, they are to stand by 24 hours a day.

This means that their citizenship can never be separated from their membership of the military or police. While the function of the military is to defend the security and the integrity of the state, that of the police is to ensure the security of the people and public order. And these tasks of the military and the police are assigned by the state.

There is a suggestion that while a military man or a policeman is running as a candidate contesting the election, he may be granted a leave, namely, to be non active. Then he may resume his post should he lose the election. This, however, would be impractical. Supposing a great number of members of the military and the police should take this opportunity to have a leave during their campaigns for the election, the military and the police as state apparatus or state institutions would be weakened in charging their tasks to defend the state in the event of an emergency defence or security situation.

And it would not be inconceivable that some people intending to stir trouble for the state and society, the election period would provide a good opportunity to initiate such a treacherous attempt.

Moreover, as far as Indonesia is concerned, neither the present electoral law nor the draft of the new election law provides for independent candidates in the general election. This is a possibility that Indonesians never even envisage for the future. Then who or what political parties would candidates from the military or police represent in the elections? Active members of the military or police are not allowed to be members of any political parties.

Granted there is such a legal provision for independent candidates, when would candidates from the military or police find time for their preparation, not to speak of their political training and education?

How would they mobilize mass support and raise funds? Their military or police service would not give them any opportunity for political activities of that nature.

In the United States, there was once a military candidate. He was General Dwight Eisenhower. But not only was he a five-star general. He was also a hero of World War II, when he was a successful commander of the Allied forces in the European theater. He was a popular hero not only in his own country, but in the world.

Thus not only did he already enjoy massive popular support, but he also had acquired considerable strategic and leadership experiences that would be valuable assets for his future presidency. Whether his military background had a positive influence on his presidency, historians may continue to argue about it. The late president Harry S. Truman, for instance, had his own view. But it may have been a question of academic nature with little relevance to his presidency as leader of a modern civilian democratic government.

He, however, had to resign from the military to be able to run as a presidential candidate. And rather than running for President as an independent candidate, which was, and still is, possible in the United States, he finally decided to join the Republican Party, although the Democratic Party had also wooed him. The Republican Party thus nominated him candidate for President.

The issue of denying the members of the military and police the right to be elected is thus a matter of principle in a democracy. It is not just a matter of time, whether the nation, as well as the military and the police are ready. And as members of state institutions, they should not at any time be granted seats in the legislative bodies, either, to be there practically as representatives of the state institutions, and thus of the State itself.

It must also be borne in mind, finally, that in Indonesia, the crisis has been due, among other things, to the prolonged military dominance and domination in the political life of the nation. It was made possible by the fundamental weaknesses of the 1945 Constitution, which provides no mechanism of effective control through a system of checks and balances, no separation of powers, and with an institution (MPR) practically with unlimited power.

These fundamental defects had made the constitution, whoever happens to be in power, especially the military, so susceptible to manipulation and exploitation. When will they ever learn?