Ex-military candidates and democracy

Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta

The emergence of two figures with military backgrounds as presidential candidates has spread fears of a revival of militarism in the country. It has also generated fear that militarism could hinder and endanger the development of democracy.

Others, however, simply don't care about the backgrounds of the candidates, so long as they can provide better conditions for the public when elected.

Gen. (ret) Wiranto of the Golkar Party and Gen. (ret) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of the Democratic Party, both have extensive military experience and occupied strategic military posts in the past. The era of political reform here provided them with an opportunity to put their best strategies forward to solve the nation's problems.

Even so, the public seems to be more enthusiastic about electing a civilian as president. The question is, would a president with a military background be better at nurturing democracy?

What makes the public nervous is not whether a civilian leader would be capable of keeping the pace and achieving stability, but how Wiranto or Susilo -- if elected -- would tackle the nation's problems.

Their inclusion as presidential candidates has already prompted a hostile reaction. The public, as it recalls the past behavior of the military, has good reason to fear the revival of militarism. The current wave of demonstrations, particularly against Wiranto's candidacy, is a clear reflection of strong domestic resistance to militarism.

Militarism is not simply a set of weapons and policies, it is a state of mind. That is, the military's believe that it is always right in using force of any kind -- including economic, social and military power.

Thus, militarism is a complex cultural pattern involving an entire constellation of beliefs and behavior. Its starting point is the belief that force rules. Militarism applies this belief to intergroup relations, whether between groups within a society or between societies.

Soeharto's 32 years of uncontested rule were marked by the unconstrained implementation of such a belief in society. As a result, people not only suffered politically, psychologically and economically, but were also powerless in terms of their resistance to militarism.

It is understandable, therefore, that some people are quite nervous about the possibility of the military regaining their influence over national politics.

The main argument of those who are against militarism in politics is that it would significantly and substantially slow down the process of building democracy here, if not halt it. Besides, in their opinion, the components of militarism would also make it more difficult to achieve peace and prosperity for the people.

The components of militarism are: First, the military's belief that the use of force is legitimate; second, its ability to concentrate wealth through a military-type of economic management; and third, its role as an outlet for deep psychological forces, meaning that the leadership would psychologically conquer those who resisted its power base.

The message sent by the wave of antimilitarism here is perhaps one of apprehension. If those factors were blended, then national politics -- at least for the next five years -- would be dominated by militaristic characteristics.

The experiences of the past 30 years left many uncomfortable with the way the military handled national problems. Such a situation should, thus, be prevented from reoccurring, particularly when we are struggling to rebuild our confidence.

What the people are afraid of most is the emulative process of the military's return to power. Once such a leader succeeds, all surrounding groups would be forced to imitate his style or defend themselves. Soon the only groups left would be those that -- either enthusiastically or reluctantly -- adopted militarism as a fundamental strategy for intergroup relations.

Such a pattern of behavior has been expressed in a myriad of forms by a myriad of cultures. Sometimes, the driving force has been a single individual, sometimes a ruling class and sometimes an entire population. The establishment of paramilitary groups with military-type behavior is another example. This is a dangerous phenomenon, particularly when actions are justified and supported by governmental policy.

The response of the public, particularly toward Wiranto's candidacy, has been quite hostile. The people, therefore, need to be creative about their response to the resurgence of militarism. However, an end to militarism won't occur unless the people are willing -- with courage and creativity -- to continually act collectively.

If either Wiranto or Susilo proves to be worthy of leading the country and can promote a stronger sense of democracy -- which is good of course -- then civilians should not bemoan the rule of force but accept it as a political reality.

The writer (bandoro@csis.or.id) is the editor of The Indonesian Quarterly, Center For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta. He is also a lecturer at the University of Indonesia.