No change in sight
No change in sight
Public debate about the role of the military in the
realpolitik of this country used to emerge only before general
elections or around the time of Armed Forces Day. Now it is
becoming more frequent. The trend seems to have been influenced
by both the process of globalization and the increase in the
number of educated citizens. Another factor may be the
authorities' treatment of the United Development Party and the
Indonesian Democratic Party, which are neither government bodies
nor opposition parties.
The most oft-repeated question is: When will the Armed Forces
assume a neutral position in politics, especially when it comes
to general elections? The Armed Forces' staunch support for the
government party, Golkar, has made the two other political
entities look like lame sparring partners, if not dying ones.
To many observers, the Armed Forces' role in each past
election has been that of a referee who is also taking part in
the game.
That fact, in turn, has caused many people to conclude that
the government is not brave enough to allow Golkar to campaign
alone. The close relationship between Golkar and the civil
servants corps has left observers with a similar impression.
But the three-decade-long game is not showing any sign of
ending, in spite of all the criticisms to which it has been
subjected. Indeed, given Golkar's history, it is hard to conceive
of its being separated from the military.
Golkar was established by the leaders of the Armed Forces in
1954 to counter the growing influence of the communists. It was
not until 1971 that Golkar contested a general election.
Those who would like the Armed Forces to change their position
argue that the political situation is different now from that of
the 1960s. All of the current political parties are anti-
communist. Moreover, each has adopted the state ideology
Pancasila as its ideological foundation. The critics also note
that Golkar is very strong today. Given all this, and even
agreeing that it is the role of the military to stabilize
Indonesian politics, they ask: Why have the Armed Forces not lent
support to the other political parties or, at least, become
neutral?
After the 1965 coup attempt Indonesians saw no alternative
political power to that of the Armed Forces because the political
parties had been emasculated by "Guided Democracy," a euphemism
for dictatorship.
But is it wise to allow a repeat of a situation in which there
was no alternative political force, thereby paving the way for a
repeat of the coup and its aftermath? No thinking person -- much
less anyone with a healthy sense of patriotism -- would want to
see that.
The Armed Forces, while successful in supporting stability and
economic development in the past, must soon face the challenges
of the rising demands of a more educated population and a tiny
but growing middle class.
One contribution the military can make is to create conditions
in which all political powers can grow fairly, allowing viable
political parties to slowly come into existence. Any new step to
deny this reality will only be counter-productive and will bring
this nation to a standstill. The Armed Forces would do well to
gradually increase their neutrality. At the very least, they
should try to stop the efforts of certain elements in the
bureaucracy to undermine the growth of the two non-government
political parties.
Last week, Maj. Gen. Syarwan Hamidan, assistant to the Armed
Forces' social and political affairs chief, relegated the
possibility of political neutrality to "the future."
It seems unlikely that the military will go as far as genuine
political neutrality before the beginning of next century.