Military Training for Civilians: Character Building or Militarism?

Recently, the public has witnessed a phenomenon that is appearing more frequently: the involvement of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) in equipping various civilian groups. From civil servants (ASN), LPDP scholarship recipients, to managers of Red and White Village/Urban Ward Cooperatives, all are receiving military-style training. The narrative constructed sounds uniform: to build discipline, enhance nationalism, strengthen mentality, and prevent culture shock. Amid an uncertain global situation, these reasons sound reasonable. But the more fundamental question is: why does the state feel an increasing need to involve a military approach in nurturing its civilians? This phenomenon is not merely a routine training agenda. It reflects a change in the way the state views issues of human resources, bureaucracy, and even national loyalty. There is a strong tendency in Indonesia that when performance problems arise, the quickest solution imagined is “disciplining”. In the imagination of Indonesian bureaucracy, discipline is almost always associated with a militaristic approach. Are civil servants considered insufficiently resilient? Send them to semi-military training. Are overseas scholarship students worried about lacking nationalism? Involve the TNI in their preparation. Yet, the main problems of Indonesian bureaucracy and human resources are often not a lack of discipline, but weaknesses in the merit system, unhealthy work culture, low quality of leadership, and a lack of learning ecosystem. Discipline is indeed important. But discipline is not a cure for all problems. Ironically, the state often chooses symbolic and instant approaches rather than building substantive reforms. Military-style training is easier to showcase to the public than fixing oversight systems, improving education quality, or creating a professional work culture. As a result, character building risks turning into a ceremony of assertiveness.