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.