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.