Is ABRI losing its sight of history?

Is ABRI losing its sight of history?

Reactions to the startling remarks made by the Army Chief Gen.
Hartono recently that every member of the Armed Forces is a
supporter of Golkar have continued unabated. Political scientist
J. Soedjati Djiwandono argues that the Armed Forces may have lost
sight of history.

JAKARTA (JP): Certain points need to be highlighted in the
current debate on the appropriate link or relationship between
the Armed Forces (ABRI) and the functional group Golkar. What
lessons can we learn from this episode?

The remark of Gen. Hartono's that sparked off all this fuss,
namely the assertion that ABRI members -- not just the Army, of
which he is Chief of Staff -- are Golkar cadres, created the
impression he was speaking on behalf of the Armed Forces as a
whole. At first sight it may appear to be only a minor point.

That his authority to do so may have been questioned may be
one reason behind the seemingly contradictory and confusing
comments. One ABRI leader commented that Gen. Hartono's remark
represented his personal view. In the mean time, no word has been
heard from any of the chiefs of staff of the other services.

One cannot help but ask, what has happened to the leadership
of ABRI, which, in the words of Article 28 of Law No. 20/1982,
"as a social force shall act as the dynamizer and stabilizer,
which along with other social forces shall perform the task of
safeguarding and ensuring the success of the national struggle in
ensuring independence and promoting the welfare of the Indonesian
people"?

Worst of all is the argument in support of Gen. Hartono's
view, that after all it was ABRI that gave birth to Golkar. This,
surely, is not wrong in itself. But it is wrongheaded. It has
lost sight of history. Memories are too short.

One cannot help but ask, who then gave birth to the other two
political parties, the Indonesian Democratic Party and the United
Development Party? In point of fact, each came into being as a
result of a forced merger of like-minded political parties. And
who was the motivating, driving force behind these mergers,
conceived to simplify the multi-party system? It was ABRI.

Indeed, one may argue that ABRI was simply acting as the
"midwife" assisting the birth of these two political parties. But
the same may be said of Golkar. It was not Golkar itself, but its
predecessor, the Sekber Golkar (Joint Secretariat of the
Functional Groups not affiliated to political parties), the root
of the present Golkar, whose establishment ABRI helped initiate.

On that basis, strictly speaking, Gen. Hartono's remark should
be reversed. Golkar members are "cadres" of ABRI, not the other
way round! And so are members of the other two political parties.
But surely, this would be a further distortion of the term
"cadre", which has been distorted and grossly misunderstood all
along, anyway. And to assert that ABRI members are cadres of
Golkar and are therefore committed to its electoral victory is,
to put it mildly, worrisome. It is intimidating. ABRI members
themselves don't have the right to vote, so what may be the
implication of such a commitment?

The point is that the three political organizations (parties)
are all the result of ABRI's social and political engineering,
for good, noble and therefore justifiable purposes, that is not
only to simplify but more importantly to re-orient the party
system towards the Pancasila state ideology. This was to be
confirmed in 1983, with the introduction of the azas tunggal
(sole ideological) basis of Pancasila for all social and
political groupings.

Therefore, for ABRI to take side with any one of the political
parties is tantamount, as it were, to a "father" taking side of
his favorite "son". Whatever may the reasons, such an attitude
does not befit a good and wise "father", especially for reasons
of vested interest. What kind of a "father" is ABRI in that
sense? What kind of a leader? What kind of a 'stabilizer and
dynamizer'? Is ABRI losing its sight of history as well? Is it
losing its capacity for strategic thinking? Is it losing sight of
its leading and strategic position as the mainstay of national
stability?

Indeed, the truth sometimes hurts. But we ought to be honest
with ourselves. At least for a long time to come and in a crucial
way, this nation will continue to depend on ABRI's leadership.

The writer is a member of the Board of Directors of the Centre
for Strategic and International Studies.