Good, bad and moderate

Good, bad and moderate

For years some people have been unhappy with the way the authorities assess security conditions here. Officials always come to the conclusion that "the situation is stable and fully under control", yet there is always a reason to justify heightened vigilance. Indonesian Communist Party remnants, "liberals" and, more recently, the so-called OTB, or formless organizations, have been routinely been cited as a cause for extra security measures.

Thus it was refreshing to learn of a statement made the other day by the Chief of the Armed Forces (ABRI), who outlined a totally different approach to security matters. General Feisal Tanjung's speech, delivered in Bandung before an annual meeting with the Army's regional commanders from all over the country, deserves closer examination.

Gen. Feisal breaks down society into three major categories: conservatives, moderates and radicals. Those three groups presumably have different perceptions of development in the country, especially in respect to social and economic disparities.

The radicals, according to Gen. Feisal, are disappointed with the current situation. They believe that the system cannot cope with the problems at hand.

The conservatives, on the contrary, are content with the present system but expect improvements in the future. The moderates are less satisfied with development progress, but steadfast in their belief that proper corrections will help the system perform better in the future.

Gen. Feisal called on the commanders to look out for certain groups trying to interfere or do away with the Armed Forces's social and political functions as part of their plan to change the national system.

In the current development era, according to Feisal, a stronger moderate group is the better choice. Their dominance would contribute to stronger national resilience, thus paving the way to sustainable development.

What is interesting in Gen. Feisal Tanjung's remarks is not just the absence of any mention of such traditional foes as the OTB or PKI, but the rationale behind his view. His statement is more sober, more realistic, and less an overreaction typical of past security officials.

Many people are still confused by the remarks made a few weeks back, when the authorities accused several individuals of being the masterminds behind the formless organizations. If the accusations were correct, why have no follow-up measures been taken?

Gen. Feisal Tanjung's statement is clearly debatable, but the fact that the top ABRI officer did not take a shot in the dark is a welcome sign. Sound reasoning and assessments are the only way to convince the people that the military is not scheming to justify and maintain certain policies.

We hope that Gen. Feisal Tanjung's example will be followed by his subordinates. One should understand that those with different opinions are not always enemies and should be treated fairly. While we acknowledge that there are indeed still parties trying to undermine the government, we should not generalize or discriminate arbitrarily.

A rigid and over-suspicious policy will only harm our efforts to build a solid and unified platform for progress.

Democracy and openness are imperative if we are to move successfully into the 21st century. We must therefore adapt ourselves to more open and rational attitudes, and leave obsolete ways of thinking behind.