Woe to our military, woe to our nation

Endy M. Bayuni, Staff writer, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The current debate about whether members of the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police (Polri) should be allowed to vote, as well as to run for office, in the 2004 general election has reached ludicrous proportions. It is most distressing to see this nation wasting so much time, energy and resources on an issue that other countries recognize as so self- evident that any discussion of the matter is a nonstarter.

This at a time when the nation has so many more important things to do, from fixing the economy, waging war on corruption and reforming the legal system, to keeping the country intact against various centrifugal forces.

But this is Indonesia, a nation that has just emerged from more than 30 years of repression. This is a nation that has only just rediscovered its freedom to express opinions openly. This is a nation whose new favorite pastime is to engage in endless debates. This is a nation whose leaders, faced with mountains of seemingly unsolvable economic and political problems, have opted to take the easy route: talk and talk and talk.

The current debate about the right to vote for TNI/Polri members has provided politicians and government leaders (and unfortunately the media, too) with a new issue that has managed to divert public attention away from the real problems facing the country -- problems that these leaders should be fixing. This issue has virtually absolved the government and politicians of their responsibility to do what they should be doing.

In most other democratic countries, and even in some repressive ones, the right to vote for members of the military is something that is taken for granted.

True, this right has been "taken away" from TNI members since they last voted in 1955. But then, this has always been a sweet deal for our armed forces.

In exchange for their "sacrifice", they have ensured for themselves representation in the House of Representatives and the People's Consultative Assembly in far greater proportion to their size. In the present-day system, a seat in the House is worth 400,000 votes. Today, TNI and Polri, whose combined forces amount to about 420,000 personnel, have 38 seats. Between the 1970s and 1990s, they were grossly over-represented, with 100 seats at one time.

This is an arrangement that goes all the way down to the lowest levels of regional legislative councils. No other group in our society is as heavily represented in the legislature as the military and the police.

But that was then, when the military was in charge of the nation. And this is now, when we are moving toward a civil society.

The bill on general elections submitted by the government last month to the House of Representatives, proposes restoring TNI and Polri members' right to vote in the 2004 elections.

It also proposes allowing TNI and Polri members, along with civil servants, to run for elected office, provided that they take a leave of absence from the military. This is definitely a nonissue. In no other country are members of the military or police allowed to contest elections. They have to resign, and not simply take a leave of absence. Once they resign, they are no longer with the force. Therefore, the wording in the bill should simply state that members of TNI/Polri cannot run for elected office. Period.

The bill does not specifically state that in return for the right to vote, the TNI and Polri are forfeiting the right to automatic representation in the legislature. But it implies just that, for they cannot have it both ways.

This is the catch of the bill that everybody seems to know about, but for some reason are refusing to discuss. Thus, the debate has instead focused solely on the right of TNI and Polri members to vote, instead of on their political privileges. The real issue, of course, is that the free seats in the legislature that TNI/Polri have enjoyed all this time are now at stake.

Since no one seems to want to address the real issue directly, the debate has turned into a farce, often comical in proportion, and certainly beyond comprehension, as illustrated by statements by politicians and news headlines on the subject. TNI's response has only made a bad situation worse.

Here are some samples of the most ridiculous statements/headlines:

"TNI not ready to use the right to vote before 2009."

"Don't give TNI/Polri the right to vote."

"Giving TNI/Polri members the right to vote is dangerous."

"TNI needs time to prepare members to exercise right to vote."

And not all of the statements opposing the election bill's proposal to restore the voting rights of TNI personnel have come from the military.

Some politicians and commentators have come to the defense of the military not regaining the right to vote before 2009, professing to speak for the good of the reform movement.

Some of these people may have spoken out of ignorance, but some of the politicians have set their sights on the 2004 presidential election. By taking this stand, they are hoping that the TNI/Polri faction in the Assembly will swing the vote their way in an election that is expected to be very tight and competitive.

Prior to the submission of the bill, the consensus was that TNI/Polri would be phased out of the House in 2004 and the Assembly not before 2009. No one had questioned that consensus until now. The bill, which was drafted by officials at the Ministry of Home Affairs, effectively put the issue back on the front burner. Hence, the debate that has consumed so much of our attention these past three weeks.

Still, the nation could have made efficient use of its time and resources if it had addressed the real issue, that is the representation of the TNI/Polri in the legislature, instead of endlessly engaging in a debate about the right to vote and the right to run for office.

TNI, of all institutions, should have been gunning at the issue in a more direct manner. It should have simply stated that it is not ready to quit the political arena before 2009.

Now the strategy of "indirectness" has backfired on the TNI. We certainly hope the military opts for a more direct approach when it comes to matters of national defense.

Speaking of national defense, if the TNI's response to the question of the right to vote is to be believed, then it raises another important question: If the TNI needs seven years to prepare its members to exercise their voting rights -- presumably to teach them how to use their conscience in casting their ballots -- then how many years will it need to teach its personnel about defending the country?

This question is my contribution to this ludicrous debate.