Security minister warns of reformative excesses

A'an Suryana, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Despite some progress, the top security minister warned on Tuesday against the reform movement's excesses, saying the poor management of reform could lead to separatism, social disorder and political instability.

"We have been undergoing major social changes and political reconstruction in the reform movement over the last five years. We have been largely walking along the right path, but there have been negative excesses that could stifle the process," Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said in a discussion on national reform.

The political discussion held at Gedung Joang 45 in Central Jakarta, was held to commemorate Independence Day and was attended by veterans, politicians, students and journalists.

According to Susilo, there are three main reformative excesses the nation has made: democratic absolutism and human rights, poor decentralization and poor understanding on national security and the defense system.

In regards democratic absolutism and human rights, Susilo supported the reform movement that had given the nation opportunities to correct the path former president Soeharto took in leading the country with an iron fist.

"Throughout the reform era, democracy and freedom of expression have been upheld, the rights of humankind are assured. But, we have noticed that the freedom of expression has sometimes gone beyond reform at the expense of social order and national stability," he said.

Susilo said decentralization under the Regional Autonomy Law had given regions to take greater responsibility of their home affairs, but its implementation had indirectly created a wide gap between regions and between those people living on Java and elsewhere.

In addition, he said, decentralization had also raised exclusivism and sectarianism among regions. Certain resource-rich regions that were mistreated during Soeharto's New Order era had put their own interests above the nation's, thus jeopardizing national unity and nationalism.

Worse, several groups in Aceh and Papua had gone too far, as they had taken up arms to fight for independence from the republic, he said.

"The unitary state of Indonesia, established in 1945, must not fall apart because of such negative excesses of decentralization," he warned.

He also regretted that many people had misperceived the roles of the Indonesian Military in national defense and of the National Police in domestic security.

Susilo stressed that under the 1945 Constitution, the military and the police had the same duty to maintain national security and defense. "However, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) has tasked the military with only handling foreign threats, while security at home has been restricted to the police," said Susilo.

He said this division of roles was wrong, and that both the military and the police should be given the same responsibility to maintain national unity.

He was referring to the inclusion of the police in the military, as Soeharto did. The two security forces have become separate entities, as is the case in other democratic countries, as a result of the reform movement.

To avoid reformative excesses, Susilo, who is eyeing the presidency in the 2004 elections, said all parties should establish a common understanding of the national reform agenda in order to create a just and civil society.

"The reform movement is our common responsibility. If there is something wrong with the reform process, then we should correct it together," said Susilo.

Political analyst J. Kristiadi shared Susilo's views that there were some flaws in the reform process that needed correction to put the nation on the right path.

For example, he said, regional heads such as governors and regents should be directly elected by the people to maintain consistency throughout the political system.

He also criticized the authority of political parties to recall House of Representatives legislators and regional legislators because they had failed to represent their respective parties, and instead represented the aspirations of the people.