Honesty: Armed Forces' best political policy

Honesty: Armed Forces' best political policy

How can Indonseia work out a peaceful withdrawal from politics
for the Armed Forces? Political analyst J. Soedjati Djiwandono
offers a suggestion.

JAKARTA (JP): One of the burning issues of the current phase
of the reform process that the nation is struggling to grapple
with concerns the political role of the Armed Forces (ABRI).

It is a crucial bone of contention between the forces of
reform and those of the status quo. The latter consists primarily
of ABRI itself, which during the more than three decades of the
New Order developed its own interests of power through its dual
function.

ABRI is joined by those political forces that rely on their
alliance with ABRI to maintain their power because their close
association with Soeharto's new order regime has cost them their
credibility in the eyes of the people.

All these years we have been led to believe that we need our
own style of democracy, whatever its name, be it Guided Democracy
or Pancasila Democracy, which suits our peculiar characteristics
as a nation, because of our peculiar history, identity, and
traditional values defined by the powers that be.

We have been led to believe that in the context of such
democracy, the role of ABRI is to be somewhere along a continuum
between military dictatorship on one hand, and liberal democracy
characterized by civilian supremacy on the other. This is the so-
called "middle road" propounded by Gen. Abdul Haris Nasution.

Theorizing aside, however, in a sound democracy those who have
the means of violence in their hands, should not be in a
position, that is should not have the power, to decide when and
for what purpose the means of violence is to be used. Or else the
system turns into a dictatorship.

The converse is also true. Those in a position of power to
decide when and for what purpose the means of violence is to be
used should not have that means of violence in their hands. Or
else the result would be exactly the same: a dictatorship.

It is not dissimilar to business management; the person who
has the money in their hands, namely, the cashier, should not
have the power to decide when or whether or not to disburse it.
This should be decided by somebody else who, however, should not
have the money in their own hands. Or else the result would be
exactly the same: corruption.

Dictatorship? That is what ABRI's dual function is all about.
And corruption? That is what ABRI's dual function is all about
too. Corruption of power.

It has nothing to do with talking about "Western" or "liberal"
democracy and not "Indonesian" democracy. Or "Western" and not
"Asian" values. What is in a name? It is the demand of simple
logic.

It has been argued that ABRI's political role is based on its
(sense of) service to the country. Granted! But that is why it is
what it is, the military service!

Now let us face the stark reality. As demonstrated by the May
riots, the bloody events surrounding the Special Session of the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the killings in Banyuwangi
and other towns in Java, and the recent bloody riots around Jl.
Zainul Arifin (Ketapang) in Central Jakarta, ABRI has failed
dismally even to perform its first and primary function , which
is to ensure the security, not only of the residents of the
capital, but the people of the whole country.

It has indeed succeeded in ensuring the security of the
government. But that is not its sole, indeed not even its primary
function. In fact, it is doubtful if ABRI is really keen to
maintain the present status quo unless it has an interest in it,
an idea rejected by a large majority of the people. How, then,
can one help concluding that ABRI's dual function would benefit
the country and the people?

What is to be done? It seems obvious that the continuation of
ABRI's dual function is rejected by a very large majority of the
people, and this rejection forms part of the political reform
process. In the meantime, the ABRI leadership has indeed
indicated, in effect, that ABRI is withdrawing from the political
scene. The number of ABRI representative has been reduced in both
the MPR and the House of Representatives; the post of ABRI chief
of sociopolitical affairs has been disbanded; and those ABRI
members occupying civilian posts are to be pensioned off.

What is needed seems to be an honest statement by the ABRI
leadership: yes, we are withdrawing, but give us time. This would
pacify the demands for a drastic and radical abandonment of the
dual function. The students are not a bunch of fools who cannot
reason. They would respect a gentleman's agreement: the definite
but gradual dismantling of ABRI's dual function. That is the most
realistic solution. What is needed is honesty and a sense of
fairness on both sides.