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.