Kompas -
June 28, 2010
Toto
Suryaningtyas – Efforts by certain politicians to pull the military back into
the political arena has tended to receive little public agreement. This
disagreement however has in fact been expressed at time when the public's sense
of satisfaction with the performance of the Indonesian military (TNI) has
improved.
Viewing the
character of the military as an organisation that is professional and
safeguards the ordinary people is one thing, but involving the military in the
domain of political power is a different matter. These two view points, which
post the abolition of ABRI's (the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia,
the TNI's former name) dual social and political function, which has further
separated the military from civil power, are still held quite strongly by the
public.
The results
of a Kompas survey indicate that the proportion of the public that
disagrees with the military returning to politics is quite large, as many as
65.5 percent of respondents, while only 29.7 percent agree. This proportion
does not change significantly with regard to giving military personnel the
right to vote with as many as 61.1 percent opposing this while only 35.7
percent agree.
If explored
in more detail, the difference in respondents' social backgrounds do not appear
to greatly influence these different assessments of the TNI's right to vote.
Nevertheless, the indication is that the higher the level of respondents'
education, the larger the proportion of respondents that disagree with the
military having a practical political role or giving voting rights to the
military.
On the other
hand however, the results of several surveys indicate that the public's
tendency to oppose the entry of the military into the political domain appears
to be quite dynamic in character, changing over time along with the military's
behaviour and the country's political situation at a given time. In addition to
this, the public's opposition to the inclusion of the military in the political
domain itself tends also to depend on situation and whether it is individual
officers or the military as an institution that enters the civil political
domain.
In a
situation of crisis for example, when the security aspect becomes a crucial
issue, such as the conflict that occurred as a result of the South Sulawesi
Gubernatorial election or other horizontal conflicts (Ambon, Poso and Aceh),
military leadership is more acceptable than civilian. A January 2008 survey
indicated that the majority of respondents (71.7 percent) agreed that the
regional head of area hit by conflict should be a military officer. One of the
main effects hoped for by the public from the placement of a military officer
in a conflict area is the restoration of security in a region.
Conversely,
the majority of respondents are not convinced that the placement of a military
officer will bring with it opportunities for improvements, particularly
economic improvements, in regions that are not effected by conflict. In
peaceful or normal situations, the public prefers to elect civilian bureaucrats
rather than military officers. According the survey conducted in early 2008,
more than half of the respondents (53.6 percent) elected civilian bureaucrats
compared with one-third of respondents (37.7 percent) that elected officials
from the military.
The
military's political role in Indonesia's political history is often stated as
being a call to respond to the political conditions that exist during a given
period. It began with those military circles that were anxiously looking at the
atmosphere of the 1950s parliamentary governments, which was unstable and
ridden with infighting. The political parties and politicians were unable to
prevent fights between each other and taking turns at bringing the government
down.
In this
situation, Armed Forces Chief General Nasution raised the concept of a
"middle road" with the TNI taking an active role in helping the
nation. The TNI would avoid both the political style of the military in Latin
America, which became involved directly as an active political force as well as
the West European style where the military acted passively to maintain the
status quo, simply representing a "tool of power" for the government
in power. Clearly, the TNI would not act politically by launching a coup, but
it would also not simply become a spectator in the political arena.
It was this
concept that in coming days became the precursor to ABRI's dual function.
Later, as a consequence of the military as an institution being ensnared as a
tool of power by Suharto's New Order regime, the excesses from the military's
political role that were initially "well" intended, slowly but surely
became a parasite that undermined the life of the nation and state. ABRI's dual
function became a symbol of the repression of authoritarian power that
perpetuated its power through political power and military arms.
President
Suharto's resignation and the collapse of the New Order brought about
fundamental changes to the military's position in the political structure of
the state. After the TNI was separated from the National Police through
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) Decree Number VI/MPR/2000, the paradigm of
the TNI's role as the guardian of state security and its separation from
sociopolitical affairs became more clear cut.
The position
and function of the TNI as an institution was further regulated through MPR
Decree Number VII/MPR/2000, which regulated the TNI's neutral position in the
political life of the state. Finally, through legislation, particularly Law
Number 34/2004 on the TNI, the stipulation that TNI would not have a political
role was spelled out again more clearly. And it was not just that the military were
not permitted to become involved in practical politics or become members of
political parties (Article 39), but it also affirmed the military's respect for
and acknowledgement of democracy, human rights, the laws of the state and even
civil supremacy (Article 2).
On the one
hand, there appeared to be a clear desire on the part of legislators and
reformist circles within the TNI to turn the Indonesian military into a
professional military force that stands above all groups and factions in the
paradigm of safeguarding the country's interests, the final bastion of the
state. Within such a format, the dynamics and chessboard of domestic politics
was surrendered to civil groups.
Unfortunately,
the enticements of political power, just as they were in the past, are not
something easily abandoned. One piece of evidence for this is the TNI's
involvement as an institution or individual members in many business interests.
Likewise the involvement of retired TNI officers – although they are permitted
under law – in earlier rounds of regional elections. Out of the 179 regional
elections held in 2005-2006, more than 3.4 percent of candidates who won had a
military background. This figure is far greater if it includes a calculation of
the candidates that registered. It is estimated that this proportion will grow
in the final round of regional elections this year.
Increasing
appreciation
Concerns
about the military's return to dominating the arena of civil power, just as
occurred in the past, are the main reason for the public's concerns about the
military. It appears that for the public it is not very important to
distinguish whether a person is an active or retired member of the TNI. The
experience of past human right violations, enforced ideological indoctrination
and the corrupt control of the administrative structure, carries too much of a
risk to allow it to reoccur.
In a
succession of surveys on the TNI over the last four years, the indecisive
picture given with regard to the return of military officers into the civil
political chessboard indicates a relatively fixed pattern: with respondents on
the one hand rejecting this, but able to accept certain aspects of it. The
results of a survey in September 2008 indicated that 69.6 percent of
respondents are of the view that over the 10 years of reformasi or
political reform (since 1998) the TNI has not yet been able to keep its promise
to reform itself and has tended to return to politics.
A note of
concern over a return to military domination was articulated by more than half
of respondents (in the latest survey the proportion was greater again). On the
other hand, a survey in January 2009 found that the public tended to strongly
agree with certain aspects of military leadership: discipline, competence,
obedience, good organisation, in plunging into activity in the political
parties or parliament in the midst of the confusing and disturbing behaviour of
civilian politicians.
Uniquely,
some of these concerns and the conditional acceptance of the TNI's role in
politics have occurred in relatively peaceful situations, where both external
as well as horizontal conflicts have been relatively quiescent. Likewise also
when there have been few upheavals within the TNI itself and it has been
relatively free from frictions internally or with other institutions. Under
such a situation, the public's assessment of the TNI tends towards a normative
institutional function with regard to the state.
It is
because of this therefore that is not strange that in the midst of the
disagreements in the discourse over the TNI's political rights, the public's
appreciation of the behaviour and image of the TNI as an institution has in
fact risen sharply. Based on Kompas' data, the TNI's image in the eyes
of the public has reached the highest level of appreciation since 1998, as high
as 71.5 percent. Not only that, from the aspect of the general level of
satisfaction with the TNI's performance, over the last three years this has
risen by up to one point per year (this week reaching 73.3 percent of
respondents who said they were satisfied).
In terms of
political momentum, the highest point of the public's appreciation of the
military coincided with the abolition of the TNI's political role in practical
politics, the end of its representation in the parliament and MPR, and the
increasing clarity of its role as a profession military. Without downplaying
the need to pay attention to improving the welfare of TNI members and
eradicating corruption, collusion and nepotism within the TNI as an
institution, it is fitting to question whether there is a need to again tinker
around with the TNI's political rights at a time when it has achieved such
appreciation in the public's eye. (Kompas Research and Development)
[Translated
by James Balowski.]
