The discourse on civil-military relation becomes a contentious debate in this current high tensed national political atmosphere, commencing presidential elections in the next July. The discourse focuses on civil and military background of each presidential candidate. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see why this issue attracts more public attention than the other possible issues? This question can be answered easily by considering all arguments from the pro’s and con’s sides. According to the Pro’s, at least there are three arguments, which are the legal-formal reason, the irrelevance of civilian-military dichotomy, and the absurdity behind the apprehension on military. Rizal Sukma thought that those arguments were against the political reality of Indonesian democracy nowadays. There are at least 4 reasons presented to back up this statement which are the bleak democratic transition suffered by Indonesia, “the nurture” of the two retired general of Indonesian Military (TNI) candidates under the New Order regime, the tendency of a strong military influence in the political process recently, and the lack of legal instruments in Indonesia. Based on listed arguments, it creates concern about the vulnerability toward democracy under the leader of military figure within unconsolidated democracy. For a more elaboration, see the article written by Rizal Sukma, “Militer, Sipil, dan Politik Indonesia”, in Kompas, May 6, 2004.  

Responding to the article above, J. Kristiadi referred to the civil-military relations in reform process as a positive aspect. However, in other aspects there is a tendency of the emerging militaristic character from the civilian, such as the establishment of safe-guard service (satgas) of political parties and the accommodation of the retired military officers in some big parties in holding some positions. Currently, the dichotomy of civil-military relations is re-emerged  because of the retired military candidates of presidents/vice presidents whose military background have brought back militaristic trauma to the public and the high tensed political competition performed by the civilian and military candidates. Nonetheless, aside from those debates, the discourse can be positive for the public who have the willingness to take the insight from it. For a deeper analysis, see the article written by J. Kristiadi, “Menguatnya Dikotomi Sipil-Militer”, in Kompas, May 7, 2004.

Aside from this debate, Makmur Keliat assessed that the discourse on civil-military relation has become a political discourse with heavy emotional tenses, in terms of both positive and negative perspectives of both ‘sides’. The discourse tends to be emotional when the debate started from a logical fallacy. The political experiences of other countries, such as Germany (before the Second World War), Philippines (1972-1981), and some countries in Africa, show the contradiction with the frame of thought and assumption, which base the present discourse in Indonesia. Therefore, if the discourse is persistently developed, it will be detrimental cause it has been used to strengthen the arguments from each ‘side’, and this kind of emotional discourse will neither enlightening, critical and nor rational. Thus, it is necessary to have a set of regulations to set the attitude of a president, whether civilian or military. To have a further understanding, see the article written by Makmur Keliat, “Pro jenderal atau Petinggi Partai?”, in Kompas, May 6, 2004.

Getting away from the notion of civil or military background of presidential candidates, Anak Agung Banyu Perwita highlighted the importance of electing a right candidate who has strong vision to continue the agenda of the national reform in general and the security sector reform (SSR) in particular. SSR emphasizes two important elements, the effective and efficient management of state security and a democratic civilian oversight, which are strongly connected to the prioritised program of economic development that becomes the main jargon of all presidential candidates. Though, it is almost being forgotten as one of the jargons addressed by the all candidates, SSR is urgent and strategic and at least it plays important role in five aspects of the day to day of national life. Those five aspects are: the democratisation with effective civil oversight; good governance with transparency and accountability; national economic development; professionalism of the security sectors; and conflict prevention to maintain the national and regional stability. Hence, it is necessary to place SSR as one of the strategic agenda of each candidate and to show a determined commitment toward the continuation of national reform by entailing a wide-range of public’s support to succeed it. To have a comprehensive elaboration on this, see the article written by Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, “Capres dan Reformasi Sektor Keamanan”, in Sinar Harapan, May 18, 2004.  

[ index | print | send to friend ]