Elections: 'Civilian' vs 'military' nationalism

Elections: 'Civilian' vs 'military' nationalism

Otto Syamsuddin Ishak, Civil Society Alliance for Democracy
(Yappika), Jakarta

The political dynamics in 2004 are accelerating as the general
election nears. Political observers link this phenomenon to the
fact that the process of the 2004 general election is of much
greater complexity than that of the 1999 elections. This great
complexity, unfortunately, is yet to be coupled with well thought
out preparation.

There may be a significant relationship between the
increasingly heated atmosphere and the amendment to the elections
law. However, in this article, I will try to describe this
situation from the perspective of nationalism that Jack Snyder
introduced. (Snyder is Professor of International Relations in
the political science department and Institute of War and Peace
Studies at Columbia University). This means that the 2004 general
election is viewed as an arena where civilian nationalists and
military nationalists will compete.

Civilian nationalism is usually found in countries where the
development of democracy has become fully fledged. In these
countries, representative institutions are stronger than
government institutions. Meanwhile, since Soeharto stepped down
in 1998, Indonesia has reached only a transitional point expected
to lead the country to a more democratic state.

Unfortunately, the 1999 general election only produced
people's representatives of a poor quality, better known as
crooked or rotten politicians. As a result, this transitional
period has become a time in which government institutions have
been re-entrenched, particularly in regard to the political
position of the military.

The re-entrenchment of the political position of the military
began when the generals displayed their disobedience to the
political policies of the supreme commander of the military,
president Abdurrahman Wahid, a phenomenon that brought down Wahid
and put Megawati in his place. In this context, obedience to the
supreme commander was pitted against the interests of national
sovereignty.

Since the early years of Indonesia's independence, national
foes have continued to be produced in order to maintain the
existence of military nationalism. During the Sukarno years,
foreign countries were named the nation's enemies. During
Soeharto's era, the communists were used. Today, the enemies are
separatists, and they are linked with terrorism so that the
country can enjoy foreign support.

In this transitional period -- to quote Snyder -- the efforts
that the military nationalists make will be consist of dominating
the definition of a situation, introducing social segregation and
controlling the press.

On the one hand, the act of dominating the definition of a
situation is represented by a statement about the threat of
national disintegration posed by the separatist movements in Aceh
and Papua. The military nationalists demand that the civilian
government provide "a political umbrella" and a military
operation budget.

On the other hand, civilians must stop pushing for human
rights trials linked with military leaders. Continuing with the
human rights trial, they argue, will only demoralize the soldiers
now fighting to save national sovereignty.

The main agents that the military nationalists employ for
social segregation are hoodlums. They are aroused to claim that
human rights and prodemocracy activists betray nationalism and
have become the lackeys of separatists and foreign powers. In
fact, as Jack Snyder put it, military nationalists are hostile to
upholding human rights and democracy, which simultaneously means
upholding people's sovereignty.

To control information, military nationalists have developed
their project of "embedded journalism". Journalists are trained
to assume their stance and take action in defending national
unity. Journalists are controlled so that there is only one
information source for their reporting. Unfortunately, the
journalists themselves have been brought face-to-face with
hoodlumism, which is backed by military nationalists.

When the military nationalists have begun to gain strength,
they will endeavor to impress upon the people that they are
better saviors of national sovereignty than the civilian
political leaders. At the national level, they will begin to
label a civil society movement as an enemy. The military has
defined the judicial review of Law No. 12/2003 on elections as an
attempt to foil the elections, coupled with conflicts involving
political party followers and money politics.

Then the Army chief of staff has said that if the general
election is marred with bloodshed resulting from conflicts
involving followers of political parties contesting the
elections, the Army will intervene.

Then the chief of the National Intelligence Agency (BIN)
announced five threats to the elections, namely terrorism,
separatism, neoimperialism and colonialism, ultra-liberalism and
communism. Finally, the National Resilience Institute (Lemhanas)
has made public its findings of 28 spots of potential trouble
during the elections.

Efforts by civil society organizations to proceed with
democratization in a systemic way are instead defined as sabotage
against democracy. Worse still, this definition of situation has
earned a nod from members of the military elite in the Cabinet of
the present civilian government and also from politicians in the
political parties and in the House of Representatives.

Besides, the military has continued to entrench itself by
establishing raiders troops, purchasing more military equipment,
providing training to people and mobilizing support from veteran
organizations.

Meanwhile, the political elite has responded with statements
warm to the military. Amien Rais has said that he will have a
vice presidential running mate from the military, while Nurcholis
Madjid has warned care must be taken to ensure that the military
will not feel they have been set aside. Meanwhile, a number of
retired generals and civilian figures have set up an organization
called the Front for the Revival of Greater Indonesia.

Indeed, a fundamental difference between the general elections
in 1999 and in 2004 lies in the spirit of nationalism. The 1999
general election was wrapped n an atmosphere dominated by the
spirit of civilian nationalism, more popularly known as a reform
atmosphere. The 2004 elections are so far marked with a revival
of military nationalism.

We can draw a conclusion that the spirit of military
nationalism will be dominant throughout 2004. As a result, there
will be a clash between the civilian nationalists and their
military counterparts. The question is whether this political
tension, clash and turmoil will lead to the establishment of
stronger civilian representative institutions or their
subordination by military-controlled bureaucratic institutions.