Warlords and democracy

Warlords and democracy

In the wake of the announced freeze of the paramilitary wing
of the militant Islam Defenders Front (FPI) last week which
followed the disbandment of Laskar Jihad the month before,
Indonesian Military (TNI) Chief Gen. Endriartono Sutarto called
on all other paramilitary groups to follow suit. Security, he
said, was a matter that must be entrusted to the government, and
not to civilian paramilitary groups.

Although the public at large hailed the appeal, so far none of
the groups involved has taken the expected step. In fact, the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) has
rejected calls for the disbandment of the party's paramilitary
task force, the Satgas PDI Perjuangan. An executive of the
party's research and development center said the task force was
no threat to the public, and besides, "we are unable to disband
the task force, as it is not under the party's organizational
structure."

Satgas PDI Perjuangan is only one of many paramilitary groups
that have the potential to hamper democracy and spark conflict in
the country. Many of these groups are affiliated to political
parties, while others are linked to religious or other groupings.
Almost all of them formally claim that their functions are
confined to internal activities. On the other hand, the public
perceives them as models of militarism which on many occasions
have functioned more as a deterrent force vis-a-vis the public.
Some have even caused fear due to their use of violence.

The existence of paramilitary groups in this country has deep
roots in history. The Tentara Nasional Indonesia itself was born
from a collection of diverse laskar, or paramilitary groups that,
in the model of warlord communities, previously fought against
colonialism. This historical legacy was later formalized -- or
perhaps more correctly, politicized -- in the concept of "total
peoples' defense and security," or hankamrata. However, this
concept has over the decades proved deficient in several ways.

First, the initial 55 years of this country's history have
revealed many fundamental weaknesses in the concept and left many
people victimized. For example, because each and every citizen
was supposed to be responsible for the defense and security of
the country, nobody seemed to be ready to assume responsibility
when something went wrong.

Second, The vagueness of distinction between defense and
security -- and the functions related to both -- generated many
human rights abuses, including the disappearance and killing of
many thousands of innocent people. Third, the concept, along with
the weakness of the state security apparatus, has provided
impetus for different interest groupings to develop their own
paramilitary groups, to the detriment and at the expense of the
public at large.

It took two years after Soeharto's downfall to make a
distinction between defense and security, hence the separation of
the police from the armed forces in 2000, and the fact that it
took four years to produce Law No. 3/2002, that incorporated the
concept of "total defense" instead of "total peoples' defense and
security". However, it stopped short of defining that the state
is the only entity that has the right to develop and use force,
as it should be in a democracy. It does not explicitly define
that the state's monopoly of force is a basic principle of a
democratic state, and with it the obligation to provide security
for the people.

The fact that both the capacity and professionalism of the
Indonesian security apparatus are very much in need of
improvement is no excuse for perpetuating the existence of
unconstitutional paramilitary groups that are not accountable to
society. Paramilitary groups affiliated to political parties
contradict the democratic values of the political parties
themselves. Paramilitary groups affiliated to religious groupings
contradict not only their democratic values, but the basic tenets
of religion itself as well.

President Megawati Soekarnoputri should make it clear that PDI
Perjuangan, as its name connotes, is for democracy and is against
a warlord model of society. She should not condone the ridiculous
excuse expressed by one of her party's executives. Certainly she
has the courage to say so.