Military reform a must for political reform

Military reform a must for political reform

By Denny J.A.

JAKARTA (JP): The links between the military and politics in
Indonesia show a graphic of ups and downs. Researcher Ulf
Sundhaussen, for instance, described in his book the developments
from the recognition of civilian supremacy, the questioning of
the concept, the rejection of civilian supremacy to the times of
military power at its peak.

Sundhaussen's graphic still raises the intriguing question:
Will the military's political role return to the original spirit
of the nation's inception in 1945, when civilian supremacy was
recognized?

Six months after President Abdurrahman Wahid came to power,
voices to end the political role of the military have become
louder, as reflected in a recent study by the Center for the
Study of Democracy at the Jayabaya University and Academy in
Jakarta, led by this writer.

A survey on the perception of the military involving 2,000
respondents in Jakarta, Makassar, Medan and Surabaya, showed that
59.6 percent of the respondents no longer want the military to
have seats at the House of Representatives.

Also, 69.1 percent expressed they no longer want the military
to be active in posts outside the military -- such as in
positions of ministers and governors.

And 64.4 percent said the military should no longer be
supporting political parties, either explicitly through joining
campaigns, or less visibly through the use of their network.

In the survey, based on face-to-face interviews from April to
May, 500 respondents were selected from each city. They comprised
16 percent of those grouped in the upper class, 36 percent of the
middle class and 48 percent of the lower class.

The above resistance reflected against the military's role
outside its defense function is inseparable from its past
performance.

Disappointment of the military was stated by 44.4 percent of
the respondents, with 18.8 percent saying they were satisfied
with the armed forces' performance; 47.7 percent said they
thought the Indonesian public in general would not be satisfied
with the military, while 17.1 percent assumed that the rest of
the public would have no complaints.

The respondents' answers to the reasons for the military's
performance included TNI's involvement as an institution in
violation of human rights (45.3 percent). Their judgment of
military members was even worse, with 55.4 percent saying members
were involved in violations of human rights.

In response to whether respondents agreed to the statement
that the military as an institution were involved in crimes and
in prohibited drug business, most or 54.1 percent said they
disagreed; but 59.2 percent said they agreed to the statement
that individual military members were involved in crimes and the
drug trade.

Meanwhile, only 37.4 percent said the military was involved as
an institution in corruption; but 54.9 percent said members were
involved in corruption.

During the survey, which had a sampling error of 3 percent,
respondents also reflected their hopes on the role of the
military in the future.

In 2004, most did not want military members either in the
House of Representatives, the People's Consultative Assembly, or
in political posts outside the military. However, most
respondents thought the possibility of a coup by the military was
low.

The resistance reflected against nondefense military functions
are positive from the viewpoint of political democracy. Civil
servants are also a neutral part of the state, recruited to
support elected civilian politicians running the government.

Since president Soeharto quit, TNI has conducted a number of
reform measures such as the separation of the police and the
retirement of officers in civilian posts. They now have less
representatives in the legislature.

But it remains to be seen whether these steps are merely part
of a lesser degree of the "dual function," or whether it is
really part of a change toward a new ideology, which would better
ensure TNI as a professional military.

So far there have been two types of changes in military
ideology in developing countries undergoing transition to
democracy. History has shown the change in military ideology in
the Philippines; while in Turkey, the military is still involved
in politics 40 years after elections.

Will Indonesia be like the Philippines or Turkey?

Both countries have different military ideologies. The
Philippines was a former U.S. colony entrenched in the tradition
of civilian supremacy. They were involved in politics more or
less like a "junior partner" to the civilians, and were
relatively easily brought back to the barracks after the fall of
president Ferdinand Marcos.

In Turkey, civilian supremacy was never strong. The father of
modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, wanted his country, which has a
deep Islamic civilization, to become a secular state. The
military was given the strategic role to preserve the status of a
secular state.

The Indonesian Military, meanwhile, seems to be at a
crossroads.

Will it follow the Philippines in regards to civilian
supremacy, in line with popular demand? Yet the military's
reluctance to stay away from politics might refer to fears of
disintegration given the ethnic and religious conflicts.

Like in Turkey, such fears would encourage TNI to stay in
politics, given its "urgent mission" -- preserving the nation's
unity and guarding against aspirations of an Islamic state, which
never seem to disappear.

If TNI eventually decides to stay in politics, they will at
least face three problems, as suggested by studies so far.

First, they would ruin political competition, which is
essential to a democracy. Democracies have a number of political
parties -- but only one military, which monopolizes the use of
arms. What would happen if they became the opposition and lost
politically?

Second, a military involved in politics would lead to a
distortion of political policies. Democracies firmly separate
those who decide on and execute policies; the former is left to
the political party which won the elections.

The latter is left to the state administration; the
bureaucracy and the military, and so the military must be neutral
in politics. If it were against the ruling party, it would
certainly destroy the execution of the policy.

Third, the military is assigned the role of maintaining state
security. Political involvement would lead to the abuse of state
security being used as the military's ace card in political
bargaining, which would clearly endanger the country.

It is high time that the TNI leadership decide on its model of
grand design for its internal reform. If TNI chooses to ride the
global trend, the Philippines would be the likely model. A tight
schedule should be drawn up, after which the military would leave
politics.

Indonesia, after the start of the 1998 reform movement has
become a global citizen, and cannot be isolated from global
trends. In all countries where its economies are advanced, or
where its governments are clean, the military is not involved in
politics.

As described by Richard Rosecrance (The Rise of Trading
States), countries step up their status in international
relations through either trade or the role of its military. The
latter involves military strategy to maintain and expand a
state's territory.

In contrast to countries in the past, such as Spain under
Philip II, France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Prussia under
Bismarck, Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini,
interstate relations are now more determined by the economy.

Successful countries are now those with trade clout instead of
military prowess. Rosecrance referred to Japan, Germany, Hong
Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore as examples of trade
countries. In all countries, military spending was relatively
small in comparison with the contribution of exports to national
income.

The new world now gives a smaller space to the military. It
will be continuously interesting to observe how TNI wisely
redefines its role in such a world.

The writer leads the Center for the Study of Democracy at the
Jayabaya University and Academy in Jakarta.

Table 1: TNI's political role (in MPR, DPR etc.) is justified
given its historical role since independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
agree 167 8,4

agree to TNI's
limited political role 748 37,4

disagree to TNI's
political role 894 44,7

Don't know 191 9,6

total 2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7: The military should be free to support political parties
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
agree 639 32,0
disagree 1.288 64,4
don't know 73 3,7
total 2,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 9: The military has been involved in various rights abuses
------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
agree 906 45,3
disagree 851 42,6
don't know 243 12,2
total 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 15: The military has been illicitly involved as a party to
and as provocateurs in riots
------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
agree 742 37,1
disagree 858 42,9
don't know 400 20,0
total 2,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Table 19: How do you judge the military's achievements so far?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
satisfactory 376 18,8
average 729 36,5
bad/disappointing 888 44,4
don't know 7 0,4
total 2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------

Table 27: Possibility of a military coup nowadays
---------------------------------------------------

Frequency Valid Percent
don't know 376 18,8
very high 127 6,4
high 294 14,7
so so 391 19,6
low 402 20,1
very low 410 20,5
total 2,000
---------------------------------------------------