Democracy

Economy

Education

Development

Global Issues

Research

Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. Jules de Gaultier

 

When the actors of the terror in Bali detonated the bombs planted in their truck, they not only took away the lives of hundreds of innocent people but also have shattered Indonesians’ dream of having a better standard of living.

The terror has exposed serious fault lines at the core of national leadership and politics - a severe conflicting interest and orientation at the top level and a dangerous exploitation of religion for political interest among the elites. As Indonesian struggles to gain full authority to parry the threat of further terrorist attack and build a law-based society after years of near anarchy, President Megawati is relying on institution once enfeebled by human right abuses and feared by the public they are meant to protect: military.

As domestic and foreign media immensely broadcasted the coverage of the terror and its aftermath, transforming Indonesia from a relatively peaceful country into one of the most dangerous places on earth, ordinary Indonesians ask, “Will life ever be the same again as five years ago?” Most of the victims in the Bali’s bombings were foreigners but clearly hundred thousands of Indonesians are also the victims as Indonesia is being isolated as a tourist destination by other countries, wiping out Indonesians’ income from tourism industry. Indonesia could no longer bear another large-scale bombing as it will likely bring down the country to a complete misery. Right now, the country desperately needs help to parry another threat. But, from whom?

It is unlikely that the full truth will come out from the ongoing investigation of the terror in Bali. Like it or not, terrorism nowadays is a sensitive issue. Many people are confused and agitated with the word of “terrorism”.  For some people an act of terrorism could be perceived just as a common violence.  Even in the United States, a country that is waging a war against terrorism, the murderous acts of the two snipers who have terrorized the suburbs of Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland for about three weeks and killed 12 people were not considered as terrorism. The sensitivity of the terrorism issue has given advantageous to terrorists and impeded productive solutions to combat against it.  No wonder if there are various theories behind the bombings in Bali floating around at offline and online media. Among them are the beliefs that the US war against terrorism has triggered further terrorism and the terror in Bali, as Reni Winata, Director of the Australian Studies Centre (ASC) at the University of Indonesia wrote in the Jakarta Post October 24, was a punishment for Australia for its participation in the US war against terrorism.  Not only are the arguments misleading but also seem to justify terrorism.

Whatever its cause, terrorism is terrorism. It is an evil and murderous act on innocent people.  And terrorism is not caused by poverty as what implied by Abdillah Toha in his writing in the Jakarta Post October 22, 2002. Otherwise, more than half of people in Ethiopia and Rwanda would become terrorists.  Terrorism is not caused by religion, either. Otherwise, millions of people in this globe would become terrorists. Terrorism is about mindset. It is caused by a mindset that loves killing more than it loves life. The idea of terrorism is “my will or you die” It’s everywhere.  That’s why any civilized people and nation must stand up against terrorism. Condemning it is necessary, but not sufficient. It requires an active participation of any civilized individual to combat it. Since it is about mindset, a much more effective way to defeat it is to attack its idea and show that life is much more precious than killing. 

Faced with reality that international terrorism is actively operating in the Southeast Asia region and a further terrorist attack of the size of the Bali’s bombings would bring the nation into a collapse, Megawati’s government introduced regulations (Perpu N0. 1, 2002) in lieu of laws on antiterrorism confer wider powers on the security forces, especially the police, to conduct investigations into alleged terrorists. But many people have voiced their concern worrying that this is a golden opportunity for the military to make a come back. How should we react to that? Should we really worry that after the Bali bombings and the introduction of Perpu No1, 2002 the military will take control of the course of the nation as what happened during the Suharto’s regime?

Bad boys gone wild?

Relative to the size of its population, Indonesia's armed forces (TNI) are one of the smallest in the world, but its influence - politically and economically - is far greater than its size. Active and retired officers hold positions in the bureaucracy, parliament and the presidential cabinet. Historically the army views itself as instrumental in the struggle for independence against the Dutch. Today the armed forces call themselves the guardians of national stability. In the first article of the soldier's oath, new recruits swear allegiance to the unitary state of Indonesia.

However, the collapse of the Suharto’s regime – a regime that had given the military an unprecedented influence over the whole aspects of the nation – in 1998 has caused TNI lost influence in many fields and is not seen anymore as the centre of all power. The excessive abuse of power by TNI – which was often taken almost for granted - has become a source of open conflict.

When President Wahid became a President in 1999, he pursued military reform at various levels. One of them was armed forces rebalance.  Wahid had attempted to balance the influence of the army through the appointment of senior navy and airforce officers to key posts.  Armed forces spokesman, a job traditionally reserved for a senior army officer, had been given to Air Rear Marshal Graito Usodo. In addition, Admiral Widodo was appointed as armed forces commander, while Air Vice-Marshal Ian Santoso became the head of military intelligence.

Another policy aimed at reforming the military is a civilian-military separation.  In line with the constitutional reform passed by the People’s Consultative Assembly in October, 1999, Wahid tried to separate senior armed forces personnel serving in the government from their former military commands.  Wahid insisted that all such officers resign from the armed forces immediately they take up their government posts.

Wahid’s maneuvers to bring back the military to barrack and implement civilian supremacy were supported by many elements in society. And when he announced the sacking of General Wiranto, the key TNI person in his cabinet in March 2000, the public was behind Wahid. The sacking of Wiranto, however, had marked a serious ‘conflict’ between Wahid against TNI and it was clear from that moment on that the TNI hard-liners would “retaliate.”

But now the military is no longer the same as the one during the Suharto’s regime. Combined with a continuous military embargo by the United States, Indonesia’s military was both politically and militarily being disarmed.  And in response to the external and internal disarmaments, the military no longer stands as one corps but rather, as military analysts observed, it has divided into at least three groups.

The first group is reformers who are mostly in the navy and air force plus a small number of army generals. They back the policy of the TNI’s withdrawal from political affairs and have pushed hard for the abolition of the military doctrine dual function. Since the late 1950s, the TNI have exercised special influence in the political life of Indonesia through the doctrine of dual function (Dwifungsi).  Enshrined in law in 1982, this doctrine endowed the armed forces with civil and political as well as professional military functions. 

The second group is the so-called constitutionalists which are mostly comprised by average officers and soldiers. This group essentially obeys the commands of their commanders which means also accepting the fact of an elected civilian government. However, many of them are unhappy with the present situation since they have lost their political and economic power after the Suharto’s downfall.

The third group is the so called hard-liners. They are mostly army officers and include powerful generals who held key positions in the Suharto’s regime. Their stance is to reject civilian supremacy over the military and strive to gain back decisive roles in political affairs and define the course of the nation.  This is a group which will benefit the most from an incompetent civilian rule.  And any domestic chaos, either triggered by international or domestic terrorism will likely justify the claim of this group that the military is indispensable and Indonesia still needs the military to rule the country.  Speculations suggest that this group indirectly contribute to various domestic chaos including the one in Moluccan in which the military showed incompetence in stopping the violence that had claimed the lives of thousands innocent people.

The violence in Moluccan hints many unexplainable phenomena.  While the conflict in the region contains a local factor, many believe that external factor - the power struggle in Jakarta – has played the dominant role.  The reason is although dramatic demographic change existed in Moluccan in the two decades prior to the communal war – a factor seen by some as the source of the conflict -, but many regions in the country have also experienced significant demographic changes and yet the situation remains relatively peaceful (except in Sampit and Poso).

So, when the Club in Bali was destroyed by a huge scale of bomb, some speculations emerged as whether active military members were behind it to create a chaos to justify a military’s come back into the national leadership and political affairs.  Have the bad boys gone wild?

Armed Forces Commander General Endriartono Sutarto quickly dismissed this speculation. Speaking at a press conference at military headquarters on October 30, 2002 Sutarto said, “I'm sure active armed forces members were not involved. I'm convinced there aren't any."

Presumably Sutarto is right. And most likely people who view that Perpu No. 1, 2002 is not a license to comeback for the military are right, but many other people are still haunted by the past excessive abuse of power by TNI. While there is a good reason to be observant, people should not miss the real problems that Indonesia is facing: clear and present external and internal threats.

First things first

The bombings in Bali show us that the order of the tasks to realize a better Indonesia is as follow: security, constructive politics and economy. But in order to achieve stability, Indonesia must be able to overcome various threats. Geopolitically, Indonesia is vulnerable to external threats. Internally, the nation’s stage of development - politically, economically and socially - is also less conducive for realizing a peaceful and stabile nation. Given this environment, how can Indonesia protect itself from various external and internal threats?

So far, the world has not been successful to find a solution to external and internal threats on national security except by using military power. That does not mean the use of military force to solve any threats to the national security is justified. Rather, the concerns are when and how to use it. Also another relevant question is who is the figure behind it?

Military in the hand of a wrong individual is a deadly monster. Think about Hitler, Stalin or many military dictators who had turned it into a killing machine. A military without mind and passion is also a dangerous monster. Any conflict has to be solved first using constructive and civilized dialog. And this matter, constructive and peaceful dialog, is too much serious to be entrusted to the military alone. Political and social approaches must be the first option as Mao Tse-Tung said, “politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” The real test for leadership or power is not capacity to make war but the capacity to prevent it. But when there is no more option left on the table except a destruction of the national security and future, a military solution is unavoidable. Then, the question is should we also combine it with social improvement initiatives and tireless political dialog?

The military reform is definitely required to develop democracy in the country. However, it should be done through a gradual process.  Abandoning domestic security for the sake of democracy is a suicidal act.  It is imperative to make the right decision on this delicate matter and the route must be from society to military, not vice versa, since an enhanced democracy will eventually reform the military.  On the other hand, a reformed military does not guarantee a more democratic nation.  Haiti is a good example. The transformation from a military government only resulted in a corrupt civilian government.  Eight years under the leadership of Jean Bertrand Aristide, who was restored to power by after a US-led invasion deposed a military junta, Haiti has gone from bad to worse. Far from restoring the rule of law, the civilian rule in Haiti has been a political and economic disaster.

Therefore, rather than haunted by the paranoia of the military comeback, people better ask and answer the following questions. How can the nation develop constructive dialog among different groups of people in the country? How can the nation produce a strong and clean civilian government?  How can the nation elect capable and ethical legislative members? How can the nation stand up together against bad guys, regardless their cause for spreading violence and hatred? And how can the nation improve its economic and social conditions. These are the nation’s real home works that have to be dealt with.  And this is the subject of the next section. First thing first!

 Your comment

Back to top