Do TNI, police personnel deserve the franchise?

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?