More harm than good
More harm than good
One major lesson that we have learned from the occupation of
the Jawa Pos newspaper in Surabaya, East Java, by members of the
Banser group last week, is the realization by society that there
is a pervasive military culture among many of our political
leaders. Few people have heretofore questioned the usefulness of
Banser and other similar youth organizations, such as Satgas PDI
Perjuangan and Pemuda Pancasila. The presence of these military-
style groups appeared to have been widely accepted by society.
But then, this nation was virtually governed in a military
fashion for more than 30 years.
Banser is essentially the military wing of the Nahdlatul
Ulama, the Muslim mass organization which President Abdurrahman
Wahid chaired until October. Members of the group, some wearing
their military uniforms, visited the Jawa Pos office to protest
the newspaper's articles accusing Abdurrahman and NU leaders of
corruption. Whatever Banser and its sponsors may have said about
the visit, the presence of young men and women in military
uniforms was intimidating enough to force the newspaper's
executives and journalists into submission.
While that incident has sparked a lively discussion about the
press, its freedom and responsibility, it has also spawned an
equally crucial debate about the activities of Banser and other
similar military-style groups, and whether their presence is
still necessary as Indonesia moves towards democracy.
Banser is only one of many youth groups that have taken on the
character of private armies to serve particular organizations in
this country. Members of these groups receive military training
and wear military uniforms, boots and other accouterments. They
may not carry firearms, God forbid, but they certainly carry
other weapons. Their existence has been encouraged, and in some
cases even nurtured, by the military.
It is not that they haven't served a purpose. Banser, Pemuda
Pancasila of Golkar, and Satgas PDI Perjuangan have helped in
providing security arrangements for their parent organizations
during their congresses and -- in the case of Pemuda Pancasila
and PDI Perjuangan -- during election campaign rallies. They have
assisted the police in controlling the crowds at major
gatherings.
But at the same time, we have also witnessed how these groups
have been turned by their parent organizations into their own
private armies.
Banser's occupation of Jawa Pos office was only the latest
example of how these youth groups have used their influence to
the point of endangering democracy.
Pemuda Pancasila has probably had the largest share of
criticism over its various activities, including its alleged
involvement in the attack of the Indonesian Democratic Party
office in Jakarta in July 1997.
We also recall the establishment of the Pamswakarsa militia by
the Indonesian Military in 1998, whose spear-wielding members
were deployed to confront student demonstrators.
Those who are still not convinced that these militias have
outlived their usefulness should turn to the events in East Timor
last September.
The campaign of violence and destruction that followed the UN-
sponsored referendum was conducted by pro-Indonesia East Timor
militias which were set up and trained by our military. The
military leadership now cannot simply wash their hands by saying
that they had no control over the behavior of the militias which
they had sponsored and trained.
The main lesson of East Timor, the 1997 attack on PDI
Perjuangan headquarters and the occupation of the Jawa Pos
office, is that these military-style youth organizations have
brought far more harm than good to society.
They are a threat to democracy.
Shedding their uniforms alone, as suggested by Minister of
Defense Juwono Sudarsono last week, would not be enough. The
country's political leaders, who sponsor these groups, must also
shed their pervasive military culture, and ask themselves: Do we
really still need them?