Reshaping the military: An observer's perspective

Imanuddin Razak, Jakarta

Since the fall of the New Order regime, numerous articles and analyses have been published about the reform of the Indonesian Military (TNI), with many good suggestions aired about how to professionalize the institution.

However, in practice these ideas have not been easy to implement. While many writers discuss generalities, many have failed to break down their reforms into concrete steps; reforms that face resistance from the military, which has employed its own propagandists in a concerted campaign to argue against them.

The best approach toward reform should be to find a compromise that would accommodate the "ideal" civilian solution and the general military position.

If there is no compromise on the issue, the sides will remain divided, however much to-ing and fro-ing there is on the surface -- like mixed water and oil inevitably find their positions in a glass.

The idea to restructure the TNI -- mainly to quit its involvement in business and politics -- has long been on the main agenda of the post-1998 reform movement. A 2000 decree from the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) clearly divided the TNI and the National Police (Polri), focussing the military on national defense matters and the police on homeland security and gradually reduced the military's role in politics. It also outlined the timetable for further military reforms its businesses and overall move toward complete civilian control.

Like most writers on the subject, this one agrees that the most effective way to ensure the TNI reforms would be through effective administrative control, in this case through control of its budget. But to reach that level of control there are a lot of steps that must be taken.

The excuse that the TNI has never been given an adequate budget to finance its activities from the government has long been the justification for its involvement in businesses, both legal and illegal, that are completely outside of what most states recognize as legitimate military activities.

While there is no guarantee that attempting to control the military under a civilian budget would stop the proliferation of military businesses, at least there would be real pressure put on the TNI from the government and the public for it to focus on its defense role.

Members of the TNI, of course, have also expressed their commitment to quitting TNI businesses, with the Ministry of Defense scheduled to submit a list of TNI concerns that must be relinquished to the government early next month.

However, many people remain dubious of the TNI's seriousness in quitting its businesses. It doesn't help that this list will only consist of legal or registered TNI businesses and not unregistered and unreported activities with financial volumes thought by many to exceed those of the legal ones.

Another effective control on the military would be through the empowerment of the House of Representatives (DPR) -- a constitutional entity with the authority to draft and question government policies, including those on the TNI.

Currently, the House only uses its powers during the deliberation of the military's upcoming draft budget. It has never exercised its ability to audit military spending and otherwise question its activities.

Besides these legislative controls, there has been extensive discussions about exercising control of the military, by putting it completely under the supervision of the defense ministry. Currently the TNI is partially under the supervision of the Ministry of Defense, administratively at least, but remains independent from the ministry regarding waging war and other non- war security activities about which it directly reports to the President.

The idea of putting the TNI completely under the defense ministry -- which is also meant to get the TNI out of politics -- will be difficult, because the TNI's history is so closely entwined with the development of a politically sovereign Indonesia.

Most Indonesians recognize that while civilian politicians may have created the concept of an independent Indonesia, it was the military that did the actual job of kicking the colonials out, with the Indonesian armed forces working to expel the Japanese and the Dutch in the 1940s.

And even when Indonesia declared its independence on Aug. 17, 1945, and the country appointed a civilian, the high-profile Sukarno, as president, the military, essentially a guerrilla force, was still fighting the colonials in the countryside.

Later, the heightening tension between capitalism and communism influenced Indonesia's domestic political affairs and led to a serious military involvement in politics, which culminated with the downfall of Sukarno and the appointment of general Soeharto.

The military's dwi fungsi (dual function) doctrine, which was introduced during Sukarno's presidency and developed during Soeharto's further deepened the military's involvement in politics. The abolition of dwi fungsi later on did not help much to strip the military of its by-this-time entrenched political powers.

There, however, has been a gradual decrease in the military's political involvement here, with the obvious evidence the Constitutional requirement of all military officers to quit all active duties prior to running for positions as high-ranking state officials.

However, the decision to put the TNI under the defense ministry should not be made too hastily otherwise there is likely be civilian-military tension and conflict, possibly even the disintegration of the entire nation.

Though many may consider it out-of-date, Soeharto's policy to make a high-ranking official both a military and defense ministry chief could be worth reevaluating. There was never any mention of a conflict of interest between these roles in the past.

And while we await the government to come up with an adequate military budget, we should not forget that cooperation with ASEAN member countries is a good way to improve the professionalism of our soldiers and to create a solid regional defense framework.

Indonesia and ASEAN could follow the footsteps of the European Union (EU), whose member countries contribute to regional security according to each member country's financial and military capabilities. Despite these differences, the EU countries have pledged to fight if one of their members is attacked.

The author is a staff writer for The Jakarta Post.