Rethinking ABRI's role
The time, it seems, has finally come for Indonesians to deal in earnest with a subject that has been one of the nation's most inviolate taboos for many decades: the so-called dwifungsi, or dual function, of the Armed Forces (ABRI). For those unfamiliar with the nation's contemporary history, a brief explanation is in order. Apart from its traditional military role as the country's guardian against outside threats of aggression, ABRI also assumes responsibility under a second role for maintaining stability and accord within the country.
ABRI looks to accomplish this latter task by exerting its influence over the country's social and political life, presumably, as the doctrine says, "to safeguard the state ideology Pancasila and the Constitution". One of the most frequently heard justifications for such an all-encompassing role is ABRI's significant part in both fighting the Dutch and in administering freed territories during the war for independence from 1945 to 1949.
Events and developments over the past few decades, however, have cast some doubt over ABRI's claim on the need for it to play such a role in the country. ABRI has argued in the past that its involvement in social and political life is needed to preserve the nation's unity -- whether by acting as an "impartial" referee in disputes or by the armed suppression of secessionist insurgencies. However, as American political scientist Daniel S. Lev notes, although the country faced rebellions during the 1950s when ABRI's role was purely military, never were so many people -- insurgents or dissidents -- killed in military operations as under Soeharto's repressive New Order regime. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that the use of brutal force for so many years has served to sustain rather than inhibit secessionist sentiments in those regions. East Timor, Irian Jaya and Aceh are cases in point.
The shocking human rights abuses by ABRI personnel that have come to light in recent months -- ranging from enforced disappearances and torture to shootings and, allegedly in some cases, rape -- have dealt a serious blow to the military's prestige. A recent survey of 600 respondents conducted by the Jakarta weekly Kontan showed that more than 75 percent of those questioned believed ABRI would not be able to control any serious rioting in this country.
Under such circumstances, the growing public demand that ABRI's dual role be redefined, if not terminated altogether, is easy enough to understand. The question is whether ABRI will be willing to freely give up at least some of the wide-ranging powers and privileges it has been holding for so long. Fortunately for Indonesians, ABRI's current leadership appears accommodating enough to such demands. "What is best for the people is best for ABRI," Armed Forces Commander Gen. Wiranto assured Indonesians recently.
Still, not all the signals ABRI is currently sending to the public are very encouraging. ABRI, for example, still insists on being given 50 appointed seats in the upcoming House of Representatives. Then, too, the fact that ABRI's leadership persists in putting the blame for recent human rights abuses on oknum, or irresponsible individuals within its ranks, even though low-ranking soldiers and senior officers appear to have been involved, is seen by many as an indication that ABRI is not ready to accept civilian control over its activities.
Indonesia is poised to enter the new global era soon. The demands and the challenges this new era will bring make it imperative that Indonesia joins the global drive toward modernization or be left behind. The experience of more than half a century of independence should teach us that, even with all its shortcomings, true democracy is much more preferable than authoritarian rule. A democratic system will help Indonesia move closer to the goal of establishing a just and prosperous society in the not too distant future. ABRI, of course, can make a valuable contribution to attaining that goal by choosing, in Gen. Wiranto's words, "what is best for the people".