Intelligence agencies must be held to account

Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung

Building an effective intelligence service in a fragile democracy like Indonesia may be problematic. The recent series of bomb attacks has built an awareness among government officials of the need for an effective intelligence service.

Responding to terrorism fears, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has asked for the revival of the Regional Intelligence Coordinating Agency (Bakorinda). Human rights activists have been quick to reject the idea, fearing the misuse of the agency to repress those who oppose government policy. On top of that, the prospect of a regional-level intelligence service triggers memories in the public of past human rights abuses by the ruling power.

The heart of the matter is the issue of how to make our intelligence service subject to democratic accountability. In the post-Sept. 11 vocabulary of security studies, democracy and effective intelligence service can be made compatible with each other. In other words, it is possible to build a sophisticated intelligence service without jeopardizing democracy and human rights. In fact advanced democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom have strengthened their intelligence service while at the same time safeguarding their commitment to democratic ideals.

It should be noted that terrorism is a clandestine activity. The terrorist groups carry out their activities in secrecy. If they want to explode a bomb in a busy market the executor will camouflage himself as a regular market visitor. Therefore, a terrorist threat cannot be dealt with by capitalizing on the normal functioning of government agencies. Clandestine political violence should be dealt with through clandestine intelligence operations. In this case, transparency as a desirable principle of good governance is no longer relevant and must thus be abandoned for the sake of the effective and timely prevention of terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, Indonesia has no experience of a democratically accountable intelligence service. Even the current functioning of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) has been tainted by its failure to accurately assess terrorist threats. To make things worse, security officials themselves are involved in various crimes, particularly in conflict areas like Aceh, Papua, Central Sulawesi and Maluku. Thus, public suspicion over the plan to revive intelligence service at a regional level is well-founded.

The government should regard this criticism as a warning that it is high time to introduce a new kind of intelligence service. Old ways of doing things should be abandoned and new codes of conduct should be adopted. The following guidelines may be useful preparation for policymakers in building an accountable and professional intelligence service.

First, intelligence service is just another continuation of the executive power with the special purpose of gathering and analyzing information to come up with an accurate assessment of threats against national security. As such, it should be based on a mandate given and controlled by the law. Indonesia really needs a new legislation on intelligence service as a legal umbrella. Public participation in the formulation of the law should be endorsed. Political parties in power may not be allowed to monopolize the deliberation of the legislation as they could use it for partisan interests.

Second, as power tends to corrupt, multi-layered oversight should be developed. According to Hans Born and Ian Leigh (2005) there are four layers of democratic oversight of the intelligence services. The four layers are interrelated and each layer of oversight is encapsulated by the next layer. In the first layer the intelligence service should have its own internal control. For instance, the head of the intelligence service is expected to control the use of special powers by its members.

The next layer is the oversight conducted by the executive power whose task is to give direction to the intelligence service in accordance with its security policies. Then the executive power is controlled by the government to make sure that laws are fully respected. Finally, democratic oversight can be conducted by independent actors in society. The media, for instance, may disclose scandals and power abuse by the intelligence service.

Last but not least, there is a popular belief that the government's determination to fight against terrorism will only serve the global interests of the United States and its allies. The fear of losing popular support may weaken the government's determination in mobilizing its full strength in cracking down on terrorist activities. The government needs to enlighten the public that it is the Indonesian people who bear the political and economic costs of Indonesia's failure to prevent the spread of terrorism on its soil.

Unfortunately, some Western governments and media tend to exaggerate and generalize the terrorist threat in Indonesia with the effect that it is becomes easy for them to issue travel bans. Indonesia will not be able to promote its tourism and attract new foreign investment while these travel bans are in place. The peace-loving majority of the Indonesian people do not deserve this unfair punishment. By building an effective and accountable intelligence service in dealing with the issue of terrorism the government can liberate them from the frustrations of this situation.

The writer is Head of the Department of International Relations Parahyangan Catholic University Bandung and member of the Indonesian Working Group for Intelligence Reform. The views expressed in this article are his own. He can be reached at aleks@home.unpar.ac.id