Questioning ABRI's hegemony on politics
Questioning ABRI's hegemony on politics
Hegemoni Tentara (Army's Hegemony); M. Najib Azca; Introduction by Herbert Feith; LKis, 1998; xiii + 284
JAKARTA (JP): The political role of the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI) has again come under public scrutiny. This time, the trigger is a string of incidents which suggests the military's involvement as a country's instrument of violence against civilians.
ABRI is believed to have abused human rights in cases such as the kidnapping of prodemocratic activists and violence against people suspected as troublemakers in several areas like Aceh and East Timor.
The question is should the blame be put on the whole military as an institution? Or, are there violations against ABRI's chain of command by its individual members?
It is generally believed that the military's violence against civilians is thanks to ABRI's Dwifungsi (dual function) in both defense and political affairs.
Critics argue that ABRI's political role is not compatible with the democracy concept because the military representatives in the House are not elected through voting. They are picked.
The critics say that if the Army's political role goes unchecked, its representatives will have the capability to direct decision-making processes. The Armed Force's exclusive right to carry arms clearly benefits the military and political interests it patronizes.
In case a political compromise cannot be reached in a decision-making process, the ABRI representatives may resort to the subtle intimidation of being armed. Thus, ABRI's involvement in politics is seen as disrupting the practice of democracy.
The Armed Forces perceives the Dwifungsi doctrine as an historical fact which should not be disputed. Even if an internal dispute occurs over the conception of the doctrine, it will merely result in a minor alteration in the doctrine to sort out the misconception.
Thus, so far, there has been no attempt on the part of the military to change, let alone erase, the doctrine. If it is abandoned, it would mean that ABRI will have to return to the barracks and concentrate solely on national security and defense.
The historic legitimation which substantiates ABRI's political involvement is inseparable from the background that leads to Indonesia's independence. At that time, there were no "division of labor" among political leaders, the Army, or even among the people. Everybody worked with the same aim: to achieve Indonesia's independence (p.99).
Therefore, ABRI sees its involvement in national politics as part of its duty as an institution, and its aim is to serve the people's interest without vested interests.
ABRI has always argued that its involvement in politics is necessary to safeguard the state's ideology Pancasila. It is proud of being an institution which functions more than just a "fire brigade" -- acting only after a disaster takes place (p.108).
The book, actually, is not specifically about the increase of government violence that can be traced to the much-disputed Dwifungsi. It does not single out ABRI, either institutionally or individually, as the one which committed various instances of state violence against citizens.
The book is written based on sociological knowledge, and it emphasizes on ABRI's Dwifungsi and its ideological process from dominance to hegemony.
Exploring for the ideological meaning which is insinuated in the dual-function doctrine, historical references, and interviews with a number of ABRI leaders, it seems that the author is trying to break down the doctrine bit by bit as an "historical fact" and reconstruct it as a social ideology.
Dwifungsi is understood as an ideological construction which is engineered to serve ABRI's own personal interests.
As a philosophical base for Dwifungsi is to safeguard Pancasila, then the sanctity of the doctrine is comparable to that of Pancasila (p.94).
As explained by a general interviewed, ABRI believes that its dual function will remain as long as Pancasila remains the state ideology (p.109).
Implementing applied sociology as an analytical tool, this book is extremely interesting to read, especially for Indonesians who, for decades, have lived under undisputable political myths.
Also, this book offers answers to questions about ABRI's Dwifungsi since it has long been a fortress of the political power of a crumbling New Regime (p.262).
Denny B.C. Hariandja