Ex-military candidates and democracy
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.