Dual Function Does Not Return

The concern over the return of the military's dual function is somewhat misplaced. The dual function has not gone anywhere from the homeland for more than half a century. It has once flourished, occasionally diminished, but has never disappeared.

The military has been active in non-military sectors long before the rise of the New Order. The early history of the Indonesian military was not characterized by professionalism. Its inception occurred during the revolutionary war for independence. The enthusiasm for military professionalism grew among a limited circle of officers during the New Order era but never became the mainstream.

Dual-function is a euphemism, or a sweetened term, for the militarization of national life. When its sweetness fades, the term Multifunction emerges, which is a euphemism for Dual-function. Thus, Multifunction is a euphemism for a euphemism. The emergence of these sweetened terms is an effort to conceal stigma, guilt, or shame associated with the practice of militarism.

Not all militaries transform into militarism. In various democratic societies, the military profession is highly respected. Its contributions are greatly valued. Its responsibilities are significant. It is therefore reasonable for their institutions to receive substantial funding. Their barracks and facilities are impressive. Their soldiers are relatively well-paid starting from military education recruitment. Their performance is professional, as are their civilian politicians!

The scope of professional military work lies outside the general public's daily life and is entirely under civilian governance. They do not hold government positions or engage in business ventures. If exceptions exist, they are few in number and limited in scope. It is rare to see soldiers in camouflage uniforms roaming the streets, shopping centers, campuses, or concerts.

In our homeland, the situation is quite the opposite. Since the glory days of the Dual Function in the mid-20th century, the military has become a central figure in the daily lives of the community. The Dual Function only becomes major news when the military is involved in explosive political conflicts or significant economic scandals. Yet, for decades, the Dual Function has been present in everyday life without newsworthy value. This condition has hardly changed to this day.

The issue of Dual Function is not limited to legal regulations. It is not merely about whether officers resign or retire from military service when given civilian positions. In the name of territorial command, several luxurious buildings in elite areas in many cities have been turned into military headquarters. Prior to 1965, a significant portion of these buildings belonged to private entities.

Today the presence of the military base has become part of the city's landscape that has been considered normal in the public consciousness for three generations.

It is equally normal for soldiers to train by running on the streets of city centers. Wearing camouflage uniforms, they roam through cafes, malls, or entertainment venues. It is not unusual for individuals in camouflage uniforms to cut through long queues at ticket counters and demand to be served first. Or for some to use public transportation and disembark at their destination without paying. Some of them act as "backers" in disputes between civilians.

Why is the military separated from democratic society? They are given the right to use violence and skills for war. They have access to heavy ammunition, like the one that burned Jakarta in May 1998. If not limited, these privileges are easily abused in a peacetime society.

Even though they have been discharged from military service, people who have been educated in military discipline are not automatically ready to work professionally in non-military areas. They are accustomed to giving or obeying orders. They are accustomed to a binary view of “friend or foe”. They are trained to rely on physical strength to fight, to conquer war opponents with violence. Not arguing.

Civil society life is the opposite. Their activities are centered on cooperation, brotherhood, work competition, debate of ideas, artistic creativity or exchange of goods and services. The term "civil" is borrowed from civil, meaning polite, civilized or civilized. From the term civil grew the term civilization or civilization.

Civil life should be the center of social, cultural and humanitarian life. Civil life should be guarded by professional police to resolve conflicts between citizens, and protected by professional military to face military threats (foreign or local). Therefore, the police and military should be distanced from various areas of social life that are vulnerable to conflicts of interest between civilians, including politics.

But in this beloved country, civilian life has been in disarray for decades, torn apart by militarism. The impact continues to this day. Not a few civilians have a militaristic mentality.

What would happen if the military and police were given less incentives and were not strictly required to be professional? What if the soldiers' salaries and pensions were below daily needs, while some generals lived in abundance? What if there was no guarantee that they could climb the military career ladder fairly? How could they be required to return to the barracks, if there were not enough barracks adequate for that honorable profession?

But what is the use of good military education and barracks, if their seniors' careers end up as company managers, directors of civil institutions, or state bureaucracies? Not military achievements. How can we focus on improving combat readiness if soldiers are allowed to get used to roaming around in civilian life? Doesn't the Dual Function slip into Dysfunction? Is it strange that in East Timor, Aceh and Papua, efforts to solve problems militarily have never been successful?

Deploying military personnel into the civil bureaucracy in the name of Dwifungsi is clearly unhealthy for democracy. As bad as educating civilians with military doctrine, or arming civilians with firearms under the slogan of Dwifungsi civil. The risks can be very dire.

If society is likened to the human body, the military is like a medicine that can be relied on if the body is attacked by disease. A supply of medicine is very important, but not to be taken daily by a healthy body. Deploying military personnel to fill various civilian positions in peacetime is like selling off daily consumption of antibiotics in exchange for water, rice, sweet potatoes or sago.