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