Time for RI to humanize security

Time for RI to humanize security

By Makmur Keliat

JAKARTA (JP): Following the fall of Soeharto in May 1998,
discussion of the need for constitutional reform, new electoral
laws and decentralization have continued unabated.

Yet all political parties have neglected the importance of
democratizing political institutions. Instead, they have set up
and maintained organizations that operate like an army, the
"militias" -- whose physical performance, symbols and slogans in
various rallies have often increased public anxiety.

Hence, Indonesia's paradox of free public debate and a strong
tendency toward violent conflicts. To some extent, this may be
seen as an inevitable phase of democratization. Democracy indeed
provides a voice for not only the angels but also the evil within
society.

Nevertheless, the priority of stakeholders in democratization
must be to scale down the tendency to take the law into one's own
hands. One alternative is advocating the need for argument
instead of force regarding controversial issues.

This long term process needs a mental deconstruction in the
mindset of the policy-makers concerned with security. Under the
New Order regime, the government made no clear-cut distinction
between the functions of security and defense. The military was
given a mandate to carry out both functions. But shortly after
Soeharto was ousted from power, the government decided to
differentiate the functions and now the military (TNI) is mainly
responsible for carrying out the task of defense, while the
police (Polri) are primarily responsible for security.

However, given the historical legacy, this new division of
labor faces looming hurdles. First, the mentality inherited over
more than 30 years of the New Order rule has led to "security"
being primarily perceived in the context of military threat.

From the point of view of this conventional perspective, state
security is considered far more important than the security of
the human being. The latter was not uncommonly sacrificed for the
sake of state security. The kidnapping and murder of civilians by
military apparatus were clear examples.

The strength of this legacy is now reflected in the gray area
that separates the tasks assigned to the TNI and Polri, leading
to some hostility between them.

A second hurdle is that there are few people knowledgeable and
interested in the non-military aspects of security. This
deficiency has been partly contributed to by the former primacy
of state security and also because the issue has become
unfashionable among champions of democratic forces here.

The "security approach" was often used as a pretext to attack
democratic forces in the past, discouraging discourse on security
in a comprehensive context.

In fact security encompasses the survivability of human
beings, not only in terms of military security but also in terms
of the economy, society and the environment. Understanding
security only in military terms denies human needs for economic
welfare, preservation of social values and a preserved
environment. These needs should actually be the primary focus of
"security".

Third, while there has been a political commitment to guiding
the TNI back to its original function of defense, the above
alternative, "people-oriented security", has not gained currency.

Instead, there has been a strong tendency for communities to
become "security-oriented people" -- meaning that each community
unilaterally determines who their enemy is, what kind of threats
the community may be facing and what instrument they could use to
overcome the threat.

To a large extent communal conflicts, such as those in Ambon
and Sampit, exemplify this new tendency. This tendency must be
checked as it is unlawful and against the cultural pluralism
fundamental to Indonesian society. Furthermore, such a tendency
could also justify arguments to revive the notion of state
security.

Indonesia, then, faces three main challenges. First, to
promote the idea that security of the human being is more
important than the security of state. Second, to launch
widespread public advocacy of the concept of security in the
context of non-military principles. Third, to avoid the emergence
of "security-oriented people" which goes against the notion of
"people-oriented security".

In short, there is now an urgency for Indonesia to dismantle
the monopoly and humanize the notion of security.

The writer lectures on international relations in Social and
Political Sciences, University of Indonesia, and is also a fellow
at the Jakarta-based Research Institute for Democracy and Peace.