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.